Superanalogs of the Calogero operators and Jack polynomials

A depending on a complex parameter $k$ superanalog ${\mathcal S}{\mathcal L}$ of Calogero operator is constructed; it is related with the root system of the Lie superalgebra ${\mathfrak{gl}}(n|m)$. For $m=0$ we obtain the usual Calogero operator; for $m=1$ we obtain, up to a change of indeterminates and parameter $k$ the operator constructed by Veselov, Chalykh and Feigin [2,3]. For $k=1, \frac12$ the operator ${\mathcal S}{\mathcal L}$ is the radial part of the 2nd order Laplace operator for the symmetric superspaces corresponding to pairs $(GL(V)\times GL(V), GL(V))$ and $(GL(V), OSp(V))$, respectively. We will show that for the generic $m$ and $n$ the superanalogs of the Jack polynomials constructed by Kerov, Okunkov and Olshanskii [5] are eigenfunctions of ${\mathcal S}{\mathcal L}$; for $k=1, \frac12$ they coinside with the spherical functions corresponding to the above mentioned symmetric superspaces. We also study the inner product induced by Berezin's integral on these superspaces

Estudio de una escultura con inscripción ibérica procedente del santuario del Cerro de los Santos

La línea de trabajo sobre imagen en la cultura ibérica ha aportado a la arqueología ibérica excelentes resultados, tanto desde el punto de vista de la dinamización teórica de la disciplina, como en su aplicación concreta al estudio y la interpretación de determinados programas iconográficos en sus contextos arqueológicos (OLMOS 1992, 1996; ARANEGUI 1997, entre otros). Uno de los sujetos de investigación de especial relevancia de esta línea ha sido la religiosidad y sus diversas manifestaciones. En este sentido, los exvotos ibéricos labrados en caliza y bronce (RUIZ BREMÓN 1989a; PRADOS1992), sin olvidar aquellos elaborados en terracota, representan un material de estudio privilegiado

Integrating snow science and wildlife ecology in Arctic-boreal North America

Snow covers Arctic and boreal regions (ABRs) for approximately 9 months of the year, thus snowscapes dominate the form and function of tundra and boreal ecosystems. In recent decades, Arctic warming has changed the snowcover\u27s spatial extent and distribution, as well as its seasonal timing and duration, while also altering the physical characteristics of the snowpack. Understanding the little studied effects of changing snowscapes on its wildlife communities is critical. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the urgent need for, and suggest an approach for developing, an improved suite of temporally evolving, spatially distributed snow products to help understand how dynamics in snowscape properties impact wildlife, with a specific focus on Alaska and northwestern Canada. Via consideration of existing knowledge of wildlife-snow interactions, currently available snow products for focus region, and results of three case studies, we conclude that improving snow science in the ABR will be best achieved by focusing efforts on developing data-model fusion approaches to produce fit-for-purpose snow products that include, but are not limited to, wildlife ecology. The relative wealth of coordinated in situ measurements, airborne and satellite remote sensing data, and modeling tools being collected and developed as part of NASA\u27s Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment and SnowEx campaigns, for example, provide a data rich environment for developing and testing new remote sensing algorithms and retrievals of snowscape properties

Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements.

Accurately quantifying species' area requirements is a prerequisite for effective area-based conservation. This typically involves collecting tracking data on species of interest and then conducting home range analyses. Problematically, autocorrelation in tracking data can result in space needs being severely underestimated. Based on the previous work, we hypothesized the magnitude of underestimation varies with body mass, a relationship that could have serious conservation implications. To evaluate this hypothesis for terrestrial mammals, we estimated home-range areas with global positioning system (GPS) locations from 757 individuals across 61 globally distributed mammalian species with body masses ranging from 0.4 to 4000 kg. We then applied blockcross validation to quantify bias in empirical home range estimates. Area requirements of mammals 1, meaning the scaling of the relationship changedsubstantially at the upper end of the mass spectrum

A comprehensive analysis of autocorrelation and bias in home range estimation

Home range estimation is routine practice in ecological research. While advances in animal tracking technology have increased our capacity to collect data to support home range analysis, these same advances have also resulted in increasingly autocorrelated data. Consequently, the question of which home range estimator to use on modern, highly autocorrelated tracking data remains open. This question is particularly relevant given that most estimators assume independently sampled data. Here, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of autocorrelation on home range estimation. We base our study on an extensive data set of GPS locations from 369 individuals representing 27 species distributed across five continents. We first assemble a broad array of home range estimators, including Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) with four bandwidth optimizers (Gaussian reference function, autocorrelated-Gaussian reference function [AKDE], Silverman´s rule of thumb, and least squares cross-validation), Minimum Convex Polygon, and Local Convex Hull methods. Notably, all of these estimators except AKDE assume independent and identically distributed (IID) data. We then employ half-sample cross-validation to objectively quantify estimator performance, and the recently introduced effective sample size for home range area estimation ((Formula presented.)) to quantify the information content of each data set. We found that AKDE 95% area estimates were larger than conventional IID-based estimates by a mean factor of 2. The median number of cross-validated locations included in the hold-out sets by AKDE 95% (or 50%) estimates was 95.3% (or 50.1%), confirming the larger AKDE ranges were appropriately selective at the specified quantile. Conversely, conventional estimates exhibited negative bias that increased with decreasing (Formula presented.). To contextualize our empirical results, we performed a detailed simulation study to tease apart how sampling frequency, sampling duration, and the focal animal´s movement conspire to affect range estimates. Paralleling our empirical results, the simulation study demonstrated that AKDE was generally more accurate than conventional methods, particularly for small (Formula presented.). While 72% of the 369 empirical data sets had >1,000 total observations, only 4% had an (Formula presented.) >1,000, where 30% had an (Formula presented.) <30. In this frequently encountered scenario of small (Formula presented.), AKDE was the only estimator capable of producing an accurate home range estimate on autocorrelated data.Fil: Noonan, Michael J.. National Zoological Park; Estados Unidos. University of Maryland; Estados UnidosFil: Tucker, Marlee A.. Senckenberg Gesellschaft Für Naturforschung; . Goethe Universitat Frankfurt; AlemaniaFil: Fleming, Christen H.. University of Maryland; Estados Unidos. National Zoological Park; Estados UnidosFil: Akre, Thomas S.. National Zoological Park; Estados UnidosFil: Alberts, Susan C.. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Ali, Abdullahi H.. Hirola Conservation Programme. Garissa; KeniaFil: Altmann, Jeanne. University of Princeton; Estados UnidosFil: Antunes, Pamela Castro. Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul; BrasilFil: Belant, Jerrold L.. State University of New York; Estados UnidosFil: Beyer, Dean. Universitat Phillips; AlemaniaFil: Blaum, Niels. Universitat Potsdam; AlemaniaFil: Böhning Gaese, Katrin. Senckenberg Gesellschaft Für Naturforschung; Alemania. Goethe Universitat Frankfurt; AlemaniaFil: Cullen Jr., Laury. Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas; BrasilFil: de Paula, Rogerio Cunha. National Research Center For Carnivores Conservation; BrasilFil: Dekker, Jasja. Jasja Dekker Dierecologie; Países BajosFil: Drescher Lehman, Jonathan. George Mason University; Estados Unidos. National Zoological Park; Estados UnidosFil: Farwig, Nina. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Fichtel, Claudia. German Primate Center; AlemaniaFil: Fischer, Christina. Universitat Technical Zu Munich; AlemaniaFil: Ford, Adam T.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Goheen, Jacob R.. University of Wyoming; Estados UnidosFil: Janssen, René. Bionet Natuuronderzoek; Países BajosFil: Jeltsch, Florian. Universitat Potsdam; AlemaniaFil: Kauffman, Matthew. University Of Wyoming; Estados UnidosFil: Kappeler, Peter M.. German Primate Center; AlemaniaFil: Koch, Flávia. German Primate Center; AlemaniaFil: LaPoint, Scott. Max Planck Institute für Ornithologie; Alemania. Columbia University; Estados UnidosFil: Markham, A. Catherine. Stony Brook University; Estados UnidosFil: Medici, Emilia Patricia. Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas (IPE) ; BrasilFil: Morato, Ronaldo G.. Institute For Conservation of The Neotropical Carnivores; Brasil. National Research Center For Carnivores Conservation; BrasilFil: Nathan, Ran. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; IsraelFil: Oliveira Santos, Luiz Gustavo R.. Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul; BrasilFil: Olson, Kirk A.. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados Unidos. National Zoological Park; Estados UnidosFil: Patterson, Bruce. Field Museum of National History; Estados UnidosFil: Paviolo, Agustin Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Nordeste. Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Instituto de Biología Subtropical - Nodo Puerto Iguazú | Universidad Nacional de Misiones. Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Instituto de Biología Subtropical - Nodo Puerto Iguazú; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Nordeste; ArgentinaFil: Ramalho, Emiliano Esterci. Institute For Conservation of The Neotropical Carnivores; Brasil. Instituto de Desenvolvimento Sustentavel Mamirauá; BrasilFil: Rösner, Sascha. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Schabo, Dana G.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Selva, Nuria. Institute of Nature Conservation of The Polish Academy of Sciences; PoloniaFil: Sergiel, Agnieszka. Institute of Nature Conservation of The Polish Academy of Sciences; PoloniaFil: Xavier da Silva, Marina. Parque Nacional do Iguaçu; BrasilFil: Spiegel, Orr. Universitat Tel Aviv; IsraelFil: Thompson, Peter. University of Maryland; Estados UnidosFil: Ullmann, Wiebke. Universitat Potsdam; AlemaniaFil: Ziḝba, Filip. Tatra National Park; PoloniaFil: Zwijacz Kozica, Tomasz. Tatra National Park; PoloniaFil: Fagan, William F.. University of Maryland; Estados UnidosFil: Mueller, Thomas. Senckenberg Gesellschaft Für Naturforschung; . Goethe Universitat Frankfurt; AlemaniaFil: Calabrese, Justin M.. National Zoological Park; Estados Unidos. University of Maryland; Estados Unido

SNAPSHOT USA 2019: a coordinated national camera trap survey of the United States

With the accelerating pace of global change, it is imperative that we obtain rapid inventories of the status and distribution of wildlife for ecological inferences and conservation planning. To address this challenge, we launched the SNAPSHOT USA project, a collaborative survey of terrestrial wildlife populations using camera traps across the United States. For our first annual survey, we compiled data across all 50 states during a 14-week period (17 August-24 November of 2019). We sampled wildlife at 1,509 camera trap sites from 110 camera trap arrays covering 12 different ecoregions across four development zones. This effort resulted in 166,036 unique detections of 83 species of mammals and 17 species of birds. All images were processed through the Smithsonian's eMammal camera trap data repository and included an expert review phase to ensure taxonomic accuracy of data, resulting in each picture being reviewed at least twice. The results represent a timely and standardized camera trap survey of the United States. All of the 2019 survey data are made available herein. We are currently repeating surveys in fall 2020, opening up the opportunity to other institutions and cooperators to expand coverage of all the urban-wild gradients and ecophysiographic regions of the country. Future data will be available as the database is updated at eMammal.si.edu/snapshot-usa, as will future data paper submissions. These data will be useful for local and macroecological research including the examination of community assembly, effects of environmental and anthropogenic landscape variables, effects of fragmentation and extinction debt dynamics, as well as species-specific population dynamics and conservation action plans. There are no copyright restrictions; please cite this paper when using the data for publication

Evaluating expert-based habitat suitability information of terrestrial mammals with GPS-tracking data

Aim Macroecological studies that require habitat suitability data for many species often derive this information from expert opinion. However, expert-based information is inherently subjective and thus prone to errors. The increasing availability of GPS tracking data offers opportunities to evaluate and supplement expert-based information with detailed empirical evidence. Here, we compared expert-based habitat suitability information from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with habitat suitability information derived from GPS-tracking data of 1,498 individuals from 49 mammal species. Location Worldwide. Time period 1998-2021. Major taxa studied Forty-nine terrestrial mammal species. Methods Using GPS data, we estimated two measures of habitat suitability for each individual animal: proportional habitat use (proportion of GPS locations within a habitat type), and selection ratio (habitat use relative to its availability). For each individual we then evaluated whether the GPS-based habitat suitability measures were in agreement with the IUCN data. To that end, we calculated the probability that the ranking of empirical habitat suitability measures was in agreement with IUCN's classification into suitable, marginal and unsuitable habitat types. Results IUCN habitat suitability data were in accordance with the GPS data (> 95% probability of agreement) for 33 out of 49 species based on proportional habitat use estimates and for 25 out of 49 species based on selection ratios. In addition, 37 and 34 species had a > 50% probability of agreement based on proportional habitat use and selection ratios, respectively. Main conclusions We show how GPS-tracking data can be used to evaluate IUCN habitat suitability data. Our findings indicate that for the majority of species included in this study, it is appropriate to use IUCN habitat suitability data in macroecological studies. Furthermore, we show that GPS-tracking data can be used to identify and prioritize species and habitat types for re-evaluation of IUCN habitat suitability data

SNAPSHOT USA 2019 : a coordinated national camera trap survey of the United States

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.With the accelerating pace of global change, it is imperative that we obtain rapid inventories of the status and distribution of wildlife for ecological inferences and conservation planning. To address this challenge, we launched the SNAPSHOT USA project, a collaborative survey of terrestrial wildlife populations using camera traps across the United States. For our first annual survey, we compiled data across all 50 states during a 14-week period (17 August - 24 November of 2019). We sampled wildlife at 1509 camera trap sites from 110 camera trap arrays covering 12 different ecoregions across four development zones. This effort resulted in 166,036 unique detections of 83 species of mammals and 17 species of birds. All images were processed through the Smithsonian's eMammal camera trap data repository and included an expert review phase to ensure taxonomic accuracy of data, resulting in each picture being reviewed at least twice. The results represent a timely and standardized camera trap survey of the USA. All of the 2019 survey data are made available herein. We are currently repeating surveys in fall 2020, opening up the opportunity to other institutions and cooperators to expand coverage of all the urban-wild gradients and ecophysiographic regions of the country. Future data will be available as the database is updated at eMammal.si.edu/snapshot-usa, as well as future data paper submissions. These data will be useful for local and macroecological research including the examination of community assembly, effects of environmental and anthropogenic landscape variables, effects of fragmentation and extinction debt dynamics, as well as species-specific population dynamics and conservation action plans. There are no copyright restrictions; please cite this paper when using the data for publication.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Heavy Quarkonium Production in Z Decays

We report measurements of the inclusive production of heavy quarkonium states in $\mathrm {Z}$ decays based on the analysis of 3.6 million hadronic events collected by the L3 detector at LEP. The measurement of inclusive J production and an improved $95\%$ confidence level upper limit on $\Upsilon$ production are presented. In addition, two independent measurements of the ratio, $f_{\mathrm{p}}$, of prompt J mesons to those from B decay are made using two different isolation cuts to separate prompt J mesons from J mesons produced in the decays of b hadrons. The results are: % \begin{eqnarray} \mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{Z} \rightarrow \mathrm{J} + \mathrm{X}) & = & (3.21 \pm 0.21 \; \mathrm{(stat.)} \; ^{+ 0.19}_{- 0.28} \; \mathrm{(sys.)} ) \times 10^{-3} \; , \nonumber \\ \mathrm{Br}(\mathrm {Z} \rightarrow \Upsilon(\mathrm{1S} + X) & < & 4.4 \times 10^{-5} \; , \nonumber \\ %% f_{\mathrm{p}} & = & (7.1 \pm 2.1 \; \mathrm{(stat.)} \; \pm 1.2 \; \mathrm{(sys.)} \; ^{+1.5}_{-0.8} \;\mathrm{(theo.)} ) \times 10^{-2} \; . \nonumbe