The Pitfalls of Data Analysis

Greetings GPNSS members! I hope summer finds you well and enjoying the Great Plains in some way, whether that be starting a new field season, a long-overdue break from the office, or planning your next family vacation. For me, transitioning away from the demands of the Spring 2017 semester to data analyses and preparation of my own manuscripts are particularly exciting (well, as exciting as “office life” can be!). Over the past month, I have initiated a number of grandiose summer objectives, most of which include analysis or in some instances, re-analysis of data to address concerns raised during peer-review. Though the past month has been arduous and much time spend ascending the Program R learning curve, it has provided me with the subject of this editorial: the pitfalls of data analysis. I have been Editor-in-Chief for nearly 9 years now, over which time I have processed hundreds of manuscripts and considered hundreds of additional reviews. Over the past decade, I have noticed an increasing emphasis on data analyses at the expense of a greater understanding of the biological system under study. I raise this issue not to de-emphasize the statistical advances within the various disciplines of natural resource management....in fact, quite the contrary! I appreciate and greatly admire the role we play in developing novel and rigorous analytical approaches. Nevertheless, I can’t help but wonder whether our role as resource managers has somehow been compromised. While I will likely never know if this is the case, it remains a question that continues to fester in my mind

Final Thoughts as Editor-in-Chief

Greetings GPNSS members! I write this editorial during a time of reflection as Editor-in-Chief of The Prairie Naturalist (TPN), and during unprecedented times as the global COVID-19 pandemic continues. In full disclosure, I do not have a particular topic for this editorial, other than to offer a few final thoughts as my time serving the Great Plains Natural Science Society and TPN

Manuscript Content: Where Does it Belong?

One of the most common issues we address during content editing of papers for The Prairie Naturalist (journal) is the appropriate placement of content in the text body. Based on my experience with the editorial process, content placement also is one of the issues that authors are most resistant to suggestions or do not fully understand why we are so persistent about it (Thompson 2010). One of the primary objectives of scientific writing is to concisely and accurately disseminate information. Scientific papers are structured to help both the author and reader accomplish this objective. The material that belongs in each section of Journal is described in our manuscript submission guidelines and generally follows standard guidelines for scientific writing (Day and Gastel 1998, Council of Science Editors 2006, Thompson 2010). Content editing is intended to bring a manuscript into compliance with our current submission guidelines, though at this stage we sometimes have to deal with additional problems that were overlooked during the peer-review process. My intention here is to describe some common problems we seen in papers submitted to the journal relative to placing content in the appropriate sections, with a primary goal of helping authors prepare better papers for the journal

Preparing an Effective Poster Presentation

Greetings GPNSS members! By the time you read this editorial, many of have been experiencing the fury unleashed by ‘Old Man Winter’ and may find yourself counting the days until warmer spring temperatures return once again to the Great Plains. Until then, just a couple more months of bitter cold temperatures, strong winds, and blowing and drifting snow. But not to worry, winter also provides the cold weather enthusiasts among us a chance to enjoy a range of outdoor recreational opportunities, a chance to reflect on the previous year in review, exciting professional and personal opportunities ushered in by the New Year, and spending time with friends and family. For me, I write this editorial with just a week to go before the start of the 2019 annual conference of the Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. Though my preparation for professional conferences varies annually, a common denominator in any meeting I attend includes preparing poster presentations, the subject of this editorial. As active GPNSS members, we have all looked at thousands of posters over our careers, among which those that were well prepared stood out from those that essentially presented a thesis or entire manuscript into the allotted space. The tendency to cram as much information as possible into a poster is complicated by the fact that poster displays often occur in large, noisy venues competing with others to be read; thus, they must have visual appeal to attract attention (Krausman and Cox 2018). Posters that appear to be prepared in haste with little consideration given to the presentation of information often are not well received (Krausman and Cox 2018). Developing a quality poster that effectively presents the primary results of your research is not a trivial matter. Thus, the objective of this editorial is to summarize the key components for quality posters that will attract attention and enable researchers to effectively display results of their work (Krausman and Cox 2018)

REPORTING RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS, PREPARING SCIENTIFIC MANUSCRIPTS, AND WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS

Preparation of scientific manuscripts and use and presentation of statistics have been topics of several commentaries from previous journal Editors-in-Chief, and have been submitted as invited papers, so I would like to share my perspective as the current Editor-in-Chief (Editor) of The Prairie Naturalist (Journal). Because there is not complete consensus among the experts about when hypothesis testing versus information theoretic methods, or Bayesian versus frequentist methods are suitable, previous Editors have avoided presenting their perspectives (Thompson 2010). I also will avoid presenting my perspective as Editor. I will, however, present my perspective on several of these approaches and then offer some guidelines for presenting results of some commonly used statistical methods in the Journal. Further, I will also highlight several recurring issues related to improper manuscript formatting that I continue to encounter and then provide several potential solutions to minimize future occurrences and in tum, expedite the peer-review process

Antipredatory Defense of Neonatal Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) by Yearling Male Pronghorn in Southwestern South Dakota

Antipredatory defense of pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) neonates (≤1 month old) by adult females (\u3e18 months old) is well documented throughout the geographic range of this species. However, reports of male pronghorn defending neonates against predators are limited to a single study in northwestern Wyoming where occurrences were documented of adult males assisting female pronghorn in defending neonates against coyotes (Canis latrans). To our knowledge, defense of neonatal pronghorn by yearling males (12–18 months old) has not been reported previously for this species. We report occurrences of antipredatory defense of neonatal pronghorn by yearling males in southwestern South Dakot

The Prairie Naturalist Manuscript Submission Guidelines

These guidelines present The Prairie Naturalist (PNAT) policies and procedures for submitting scientific manuscripts for consideration for publication. In January 2009, a change in Editorial staff occurred and these guidelines address the ongoing transition and update the online Suggestions for Contributors guidelines provided on the PNAT website (http://www.fhsu.edu/biology/pn/prairienat.htm); these instructions supersede all previous guidelines. Tables and appendices are included for common word expressions with superfluous wording, examples of correct format and style guidelines for tables accompanying manuscripts, guidance in properly preparing Research Articles and Notes, citing literature, and mandatory abbreviations for tables, figures and parenthetical expressions

Vegetative Characteristics of Pronghorn Bed Sites in Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota

Much of the previous literature on pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) fawns has focused on fawn mortality (Beale 1978, Barrett 1984, Gregg et al. 2001) and social behavior (Kitchen 1974, Autenrieth and Fichter 1975, Bromley 1977). Selection of bed sites by pronghorn fawns is a major factor affecting fawn survival (Bromley 1978, Barrett 1981, O\u27Gara et al. 1986, VanSchmus 1990) because adequate cover is a crucial component of fawn bed site selection (Autenrieth 1984). Alldredge et al. (1991) reported that fawns selected dense shrub cover but avoided the most-dense cover in sagebrush-steppe communities in southcentral Wyoming while Tucker and Gamer (1983) noted that height and density of vegetation provided concealment cover to hiding fawns. Canon and Bryant (1997) also found density and height of vegetation to be factors affecting survival of fawns and suggested that increased grass and forb production provided necessary hiding cover for fawns. Bromley (1978) and Smith and Beale (1980) noted that fawns selected bed sites that offered the greatest opportunity for visual detection of predators rather than concealment The pronghorn was reintroduced into Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota, i 1914 and thus, has been maintained within its boundaries for nearly a century However, no information is available on fawning habitat within Wind Cave National Park. The objective of our study was to quantity vegetative characteris tics of fawn bed sites throughout Wind Cave National Park

Vegetative Characteristics of Pronghorn Bed Sites in Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota

Much of the previous literature on pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) fawns has focused on fawn mortality (Beale 1978, Barrett 1984, Gregg et al. 2001) and social behavior (Kitchen 1974, Autenrieth and Fichter 1975, Bromley 1977). Selection of bed sites by pronghorn fawns is a major factor affecting fawn survival (Bromley 1978, Barrett 1981, O\u27Gara et al. 1986, VanSchmus 1990) because adequate cover is a crucial component of fawn bed site selection (Autenrieth 1984). Alldredge et al. (1991) reported that fawns selected dense shrub cover but avoided the most-dense cover in sagebrush-steppe communities in southcentral Wyoming while Tucker and Gamer (1983) noted that height and density of vegetation provided concealment cover to hiding fawns. Canon and Bryant (1997) also found density and height of vegetation to be factors affecting survival of fawns and suggested that increased grass and forb production provided necessary hiding cover for fawns. Bromley (1978) and Smith and Beale (1980) noted that fawns selected bed sites that offered the greatest opportunity for visual detection of predators rather than concealment The pronghorn was reintroduced into Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota, i 1914 and thus, has been maintained within its boundaries for nearly a century However, no information is available on fawning habitat within Wind Cave National Park. The objective of our study was to quantity vegetative characteris tics of fawn bed sites throughout Wind Cave National Park

A Late Born White-tailed Deer, Odocoileus virginianus, Fawn in Southcentral Wisconsin

Published reports of peak breeding and parturition dates for White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) indicate that deer in northern regions typically breed during November and give birth during late May and early June. However, we report a late-born White-tailed Deer fawn killed by a vehicle between 12-13 March 2007 in south central Wisconsin. Morphology measurements and body weight indicated the individual was 63-76 days old, was born between 26 December 2006 and 8 January 2007, and was conceived between 14-27 June 2006. To our knowledge, this observation represents the latest documented breeding activity in northern deer populations