Camera trap arrays improve detection probability of wildlife: Investigating study design considerations using an empirical dataset.

Camera trapping is a standard tool in ecological research and wildlife conservation. Study designs, particularly for small-bodied or cryptic wildlife species often attempt to boost low detection probabilities by using non-random camera placement or baited cameras, which may bias data, or incorrectly estimate detection and occupancy. We investigated the ability of non-baited, multi-camera arrays to increase detection probabilities of wildlife. Study design components were evaluated for their influence on wildlife detectability by iteratively parsing an empirical dataset (1) by different sizes of camera arrays deployed (1-10 cameras), and (2) by total season length (1-365 days). Four species from our dataset that represented a range of body sizes and differing degrees of presumed detectability based on life history traits were investigated: white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). For all species, increasing from a single camera to a multi-camera array significantly improved detection probability across the range of season lengths and number of study sites evaluated. The use of a two camera array increased survey detection an average of 80% (range 40-128%) from the detection probability of a single camera across the four species. Species that were detected infrequently benefited most from a multiple-camera array, where the addition of up to eight cameras produced significant increases in detectability. However, for species detected at high frequencies, single cameras produced a season-long (i.e, the length of time over which cameras are deployed and actively monitored) detectability greater than 0.75. These results highlight the need for researchers to be critical about camera trap study designs based on their intended target species, as detectability for each focal species responded differently to array size and season length. We suggest that researchers a priori identify target species for which inference will be made, and then design camera trapping studies around the most difficult to detect of those species

Parsing the Plagiary Scandals in History and Law

[Excerpt] “In 2002 the history of History was scandal. The narrative started when a Pulitzer Prize winning professor was caught foisting bogus Vietnam War exploits as background for classroom discussion. His fantasy lapse prefaced a more serious irregularity—the author of the Bancroft Prize book award was accused of falsifying key research documents. The award was rescinded. The year reached a crescendo with two plagiarism cases “that shook the history profession to its core.” Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin were “crossover” celebrities: esteemed academics—Pulitzer winners—with careers embellished by a public intellectual reputation. The media nurtured a Greek Tragedy —two superstars entangled in the labyrinth of the worst case academic curse—accusations that they copied without attribution. Their careers dangled on the idiosyncratic slope of paraphrasing with its reefs of echoes, mirroring, recycling, borrowing, etc. As the Ambrose-Kearns Goodwin imbroglio ignited critique from the History community, a sequel engulfed Harvard Law School. Alan Dershowitz, Charles Ogletree, and Laurence Tribe were implicated in plagiarism allegations; the latter two ensnared on the paraphrase slope. The New York Times headline anticipated a new media frenzy: When Plagiarism’s Shadow Falls on Admired Scholars. Questioned after the first two incidents, the President of Harvard said: “If you had a third one then I would have said, ‘Okay, you get to say this is a special thing, a focused problem at the Law School.’” There was no follow up comment after the Tribe accusation. The occurrence of similar plagiarism packages in two disciplines within an overlapping time frame justifies an inquiry. The following case studies of six accusation narratives identify a congeries of shared issues, subsuming a crossfire of contention over definition, culpability, and sanction. While the survey connects core History-Law commonalities, each case is defined by its own distinctive cluster of signifiers. The primary source for the explication of each signifier cluster is the media of newspaper, trade journal, television, and internet. The media presence is the Article’s motif—each case study summarizes a media construct of a slice of the plagiarism debate. By author’s decree the debate is restricted to “pure” plagiarism: the appropriation of another’s text without attribution. The survey is conducted according to chronological order, beginning with History. Ward Churchill’s sui generis smutch from plagiarism continues to agitate media coverage. His argument that a dismissal by the University of Colorado for academic misconduct would constitute a cover for a First Amendment protected essay on 9/11 adds more challenge to the plagiary abyss. This Article concludes with up-to-date coverage of the Churchill narrative.