Short and long distance translocations: Movement and survival in eastern box turtles (_Terrapene carolina carolina_)

*Background/Question/Methods*

Human development represents a serious threat to wildlife populations through continued habitat loss and incidental mortality from construction activities. Resource managers responsible for protecting species with legal status or high public profile are faced with difficult decisions on how to best manage populations located in construction zones. One approach to mitigate mortalities is to relocate individuals. The effectiveness of translocation for reptiles and amphibians has been questioned, with studies often reporting higher mortality and increased movements of translocated individuals. Translocations of reptiles and amphibians have primarily involved moving animals long distances, well beyond an individual’s home range. For reptiles this means finding new nesting, foraging, and overwintering sites, which may be problematic. Moving individuals only short distances, within their home range, may reduce those problems. As part of the mitigation plan for a highway construction project in central Maryland, groups of eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina carolina) were translocated both short distances (<0.5km), and long distances (~5km). To investigate differences in survival and movement patterns among long distance translocation, short distance translocation, and non-translocation groups, I tracked 94 turtles (31 long distance translocation, 29 short distance translocation, and 34 non-translocation) using radio telemetry. 

*Results/Conclusions*

Eleven animals died during the first activity season after translocation (April through November 2008). The mortalities included two long distance translocation, six short distance translocation, and three non-translocation animals. The causes of mortality included road kill, construction activity, and unknown (1, 4, and 6 mortalities respectively). All construction related mortalities were a result inadequate exclusion fencing to keep turtles from trespassing back onto the construction site. All mortalities due to construction were either non-translocation or short distance translocation animals. Eleven other individuals were located at least once within the construction zone, suggesting that without our intervention mortality rates would have been much higher. Preliminary results for movement show that turtles in the non-translocation group had the lowest average movements while long distance translocation animals had the greatest average movements. Long distance translocation turtles also chose overwintering sites farther away from their initial overwintering sites than either short distance translocation or non-translocation turtles (average distance from original site of 261.8m, 155.6m, and 124.3m respectively). This suggests that movement patterns of short distance translocation turtles are more like native turtles.
&#xa

Zeta function regularization for a scalar field in a compact domain

We express the zeta function associated to the Laplacian operator on $S^1_r\times M$ in terms of the zeta function associated to the Laplacian on $M$, where $M$ is a compact connected Riemannian manifold. This gives formulas for the partition function of the associated physical model at low and high temperature for any compact domain $M$. Furthermore, we provide an exact formula for the zeta function at any value of $r$ when $M$ is a $D$-dimensional box or a $D$-dimensional torus; this allows a rigorous calculation of the zeta invariants and the analysis of the main thermodynamic functions associated to the physical models at finite temperature.Comment: 19 pages, no figures, to appear in J. Phys.

Rethinking Adversariness in Nonjury Criminal Trials

This Article argues that when the jury is withdrawn from the common law criminal trial, the accused suffers an adversarial deficit. This deficit occurs because many of the procedural devices built into the trial process -- particularly those designed to provide the defendant with a meaningful opportunity to contest the case against him and to ensure that any determination of guilt is based solely on the evidence adduced in the courtroom -- are predicated on the existence of a decision-making body that comes cold to the contest, devoid of extraneous knowledge concerning the facts of the case or the relevant principles of law. The authors contend that a number of important changes must be made to procedures in nonjury cases to correct for this deficit and thus to make certain that basic adversary principles are preserved in the nonjury setting

Rethinking Adversariness in Nonjury Criminal Trials

This Article argues that when the jury is withdrawn from the common law criminal trial, the accused suffers an adversarial deficit. This deficit occurs because many of the procedural devices built into the trial process -- particularly those designed to provide the defendant with a meaningful opportunity to contest the case against him and to ensure that any determination of guilt is based solely on the evidence adduced in the courtroom -- are predicated on the existence of a decision-making body that comes cold to the contest, devoid of extraneous knowledge concerning the facts of the case or the relevant principles of law. The authors contend that a number of important changes must be made to procedures in nonjury cases to correct for this deficit and thus to make certain that basic adversary principles are preserved in the nonjury setting

An Unsettling Outcome: Why the Florida Supreme Court Was Wrong to Ban All Settlement Evidence in \u3ci\u3eSaleeby v Rocky Elson Construction, Inc.\u3c/i\u3e, 3 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2009)

It is rare that a court as sophisticated as the Florida Supreme Court casually makes a fundamental mistake in an important area of the law. Unfortunately, Saleeby v. Rocky Elson Construction, Inc., 3 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2009) represents one of these unusual instances. The Court was faced with a simple question: may evidence pertaining to a prior settlement be offered at trial when it is relevant to something other than liability or the invalidity or amount of the pending claim. The universal answer under both federal law and the law of other states is yes, as long as the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial impact. In Saleeby, the Florida Supreme Court held that the answer is a resounding “no.” The result could be a miscarriage of justice – for instance, in a case in which a witness’s testimony is effectively “purchased” through an overly generous settlement, but the fact-finder will be prevented by the Saleeby holding from finding this out

Novel role for the innate immune receptor toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) in the regulation of the wnt signaling pathway and photoreceptor apoptosis

Recent evidence has implicated innate immunity in regulating neuronal survival in the brain during stroke and other neurodegenerations. Photoreceptors are specialized light-detecting neurons in the retina that are essential for vision. In this study, we investigated the role of the innate immunity receptor TLR4 in photoreceptors. TLR4 activation by lipopolysaccharide (LPS) significantly reduced the survival of cultured mouse photoreceptors exposed to oxidative stress. With respect to mechanism, TLR4 suppressed Wnt signaling, decreased phosphorylation and activation of the Wnt receptor LRP6, and blocked the protective effect of the Wnt3a ligand. Paradoxically, TLR4 activation prior to oxidative injury protected photoreceptors, in a phenomenon known as preconditioning. Expression of TNFα and its receptors TNFR1 and TNFR2 decreased during preconditioning, and preconditioning was mimicked by TNFα antagonists, but was independent of Wnt signaling. Therefore, TLR4 is a novel regulator of photoreceptor survival that acts through the Wnt and TNFα pathways. © 2012 Yi et al

An Unsettling Outcome: Why the Florida Supreme Court Was Wrong to Ban All Settlement Evidence in \u3ci\u3eSaleeby v Rocky Elson Construction, Inc.\u3c/i\u3e, 3 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2009)

It is rare that a court as sophisticated as the Florida Supreme Court casually makes a fundamental mistake in an important area of the law. Unfortunately, Saleeby v. Rocky Elson Construction, Inc., 3 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2009) represents one of these unusual instances. The Court was faced with a simple question: may evidence pertaining to a prior settlement be offered at trial when it is relevant to something other than liability or the invalidity or amount of the pending claim. The universal answer under both federal law and the law of other states is yes, as long as the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial impact. In Saleeby, the Florida Supreme Court held that the answer is a resounding “no.” The result could be a miscarriage of justice – for instance, in a case in which a witness’s testimony is effectively “purchased” through an overly generous settlement, but the fact-finder will be prevented by the Saleeby holding from finding this out

Efficacy and safety of the anti-IL-12/23 p40 monoclonal antibody, ustekinumab, in patients with active psoriatic arthritis despite conventional non-biological and biological anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy: 6-month and 1-year results of the phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised PSUMMIT 2 trial

Objective: Assess ustekinumab efficacy (week 24/week 52) and safety (week 16/week 24/week 60) in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) despite treatment with conventional and/or biological anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents. Methods: In this phase 3, multicentre, placebo-controlled trial, 312 adults with active PsA were randomised (stratified by site, weight (≤100 kg/>100 kg), methotrexate use) to ustekinumab 45 mg or 90 mg at week 0, week 4, q12 weeks or placebo at week 0, week 4, week 16 and crossover to ustekinumab 45 mg at week 24, week 28 and week 40. At week 16, patients with <5% improvement in tender/swollen joint counts entered blinded early escape (placebo→45 mg, 45 mg→90 mg, 90 mg→90 mg). The primary endpoint was ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) criteria at week 24. Secondary endpoints included week 24 Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) improvement, ACR50, ACR70 and ≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI75). Efficacy was assessed in all patients, anti-TNF-naïve (n=132) patients and anti-TNF-experienced (n=180) patients. Results: More ustekinumab-treated (43.8% combined) than placebo-treated (20.2%) patients achieved ACR20 at week 24 (p<0.001). Significant treatment differences were observed for week 24 HAQ-DI improvement (p<0.001), ACR50 (p≤0.05) and PASI75 (p<0.001); all benefits were sustained through week 52. Among patients previously treated with ≥1 TNF inhibitor, sustained ustekinumab efficacy was also observed (week 24 combined vs placebo: ACR20 35.6% vs 14.5%, PASI75 47.1% vs 2.0%, median HAQ-DI change −0.13 vs 0.0; week 52 ustekinumab-treated: ACR20 38.9%, PASI75 43.4%, median HAQ-DI change −0.13). No unexpected adverse events were observed through week 60. Conclusions: The interleukin-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab (45/90 mg q12 weeks) yielded significant and sustained improvements in PsA signs/symptoms in a diverse population of patients with active PsA, including anti-TNF-experienced PsA patients