Factors Affecting Elicitation of Vocal Response from Coyotes and Population-Level Response to a Pulsed Resource Event

Long-distance vocalizations by canids play an important role in communication among individuals. I evaluated efficacy of broadcasted coyote (Canis latrans) group-yip calls and gray wolf (C. lupus) lone howls to elicit vocal responses from 18 GPS-collared coyotes on 144 occasions. I concluded that eliciting coyote vocalizations where wolves are present will not bias responses, and recommend eliciting coyote vocalizations using recorded coyote group-yip howls during July–September to estimate species’ presence or density. From foraging theory, generalist predators should increase consumption of prey if prey availability increases. I estimated densities for coyotes, adult deer, and fawns, and collected coyote scat to estimate occurrence and biomass of adult and fawn deer consumed by coyotes during 2 periods. I suggest that consumption rates of coyotes was associated positively with increases in fawn density, and fawn consumption by coyotes follows predictions of foraging theory during this pulsed resource event

Constructing Paul, (dis)placing Ephesians: the Pauline book and the dilemma of Ephesians

The problem of how to situate Ephesians vis-à-vis Paul and Paulinism—one with a long and venerable history in Pauline scholarship, although now largely taken for granted—is better characterised as the problem of how to read Ephesians vis-à-vis the corpus Paulinum. Any study of Paul, working in historical mode, has to reckon with the nature of the evidence: to study Paul is to be a student, firstly, of a letter collection. Any judgment about Ephesians, then, is, in the end, born from a judgment about how to read a letter collection. This thesis, therefore, comprises three parts. Part 1 recounts the rise of a distinctively modern way of (not) reading Paul's letter collection, which privileges discrete letters, chronologically arranged, as the raw data for narrating Pauline biography and early Christianity (chapter one), and the effect that this reading strategy has on Ephesians, which is now displaced—one strand of the welter of the Pauline legacy (chapter two). Together, chapters one and two make the negative argument that the consensus on Ephesians, more than a scientific reconstruction of history, is a hermeneutical construct of modern criticism. Part 2 turns to Paul's late-ancient tradents to ask the same two questions: how do these readers read Paul's letter collection (chapter three), and how does this impact how they read Ephesians (chapter four)? Chapter three finds that late-antique Paulinists privilege, at one and the same time, both the collectivity/arrangement of the corpus and fragmentary ways of reading it that derive from the practices of late-ancient grammar. The priority of the collection, together with reading strategies that negotiate rather than dis- place difference, serves to place Ephesians consistently near the centre of late-ancient portraits of Paul—so the argument of chapter four. A different way of reading a letter collection generates a different way of reading Ephesians vis-à-vis Paul. This is the cumulative argument of Part 2. Part 3, then, picks up one of the most pervasive contemporary judgements about Ephesians—its developed image of Paul (chapter five) as inscribed in 3.1-13—in order to ask a simple question: if one does not begin with assumptions about authenticity and chronology, how do this text read vis-à-vis relevant co-texts within Paul's letter collection? Contemporary rhetoric aside, chapter five argues that Ephesians holds together various tensions in the collection's image of Paul that surface not just between so-called disputed and undisputed letters, but between the undisputed letters themselves. Rather than developed, a less hermeneutically loaded designation of the difference would be to call Eph 3.1-13 a generalised account of what we find ad hoc in the other letters. But this does not allow one to make claims about historical distance. At least with respect to its image of Paul, then, I argue that Ephesians is a source for Paul, whether Paul wrote it or not. This relatively simple argument has three rather significant implications: [1] scholars of early Christianity lose a key text frequently used to situate Ephesians in the middle of developmental trajectories of Pauline reception; [2] scholars of Paul may not buttress one-sided accounts of Paul by appeal to the 'divergent' or 'developed' account of the same in Ephesians—that is, they must deal with the data of Ephesians, or provide an account of why they do not; and [3] scholars of Ephesians, not least of 3.1-13, will need to learn to speak of Paul, and not just the Pauline legacy, again

Investigating Critical Friendship: Peeling Back the Layers

This self-study documents two teacher educators’ professional inquiry into the notions of critical friendship. Specifically, we asked: How does our interactive inquiry on the topic of critical friendship lead us to new understandings of critical friends? Three theoretical perspectives framed this study – More Knowledgeable Others, Thought Collective, and reflection. Data sources included (a) artifacts from the self-study scholarship/literature, (b) written and real-time (audio recorded) dialogue, and (c) critical friend response memos. We systematically analyzed our data, linking the initial themes to our theoretical frame. These themes led to three findings about critical friendship: flexible definitions, complex characteristics, and multiple learning phases. Based on these findings, we created two research tools useful for researchers enacting critical friendship – the Critical Friend Definition Continuum and the Critical Friend Guide for Quality Assurance. Ultimately, we assert that we, along with our colleagues, must be responsible brokers of critical friendship by explicitly explaining our purposes, definitions and uses of critical friendship within our work as self-study researchers

Disentangling canid howls across multiple species and subspecies: Structure in a complex communication channel.

Wolves, coyotes, and other canids are members of a diverse genus of top predators of considerable conservation and management interest. Canid howls are long-range communication signals, used both for territorial defence and group cohesion. Previous studies have shown that howls can encode individual and group identity. However, no comprehensive study has investigated the nature of variation in canid howls across the wide range of species. We analysed a database of over 2000 howls recorded from 13 different canid species and subspecies. We applied a quantitative similarity measure to compare the modulation pattern in howls from different populations, and then applied an unsupervised clustering algorithm to group the howls into natural units of distinct howl types. We found that different species and subspecies showed markedly different use of howl types, indicating that howl modulation is not arbitrary, but can be used to distinguish one population from another. We give an example of the conservation importance of these findings by comparing the howls of the critically endangered red wolves to those of sympatric coyotes Canis latrans, with whom red wolves may hybridise, potentially compromising reintroduced red wolf populations. We believe that quantitative cross-species comparisons such as these can provide important understanding of the nature and use of communication in socially cooperative species, as well as support conservation and management of wolf populations.Recording work was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Tennessee. AK is supported by a Herchel Smith postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Cambridge. Part of this work was carried out while AK was a Postdoctoral Fellow at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, an Institute sponsored by the National Science Foundation through NSF Award #DBI-1300426, with additional support from The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. BH is thankful to the State Forest Departments of Himachal Pradesh, J&K, and Maharashtra, and to various zoos in India for permitting us to record howls. HRG is grateful to all who helped with the project: the staff at Colchester Zoo; the Wildwood Trust, the Borror Laboratory of Bioacoustics; the British Library; Lupus Laetus; Polish Mammal Research Institute; Tigress Productions; the BBC Natural History Unit; Longleat Safari Park; Tierstimmen Archiv; Wild Sweden; Wolf Park; the Macaulay Sound Library and the UK Wolf Conservation Trust; and Mike Collins, Teresa Palmer, Monty Sloan, Karl-Heinz Frommolt, Yorgos Iliopoulos, Christine Anhalt, Louise Gentle, Richard Yarnell, Victoria Allison Hughes and Susan Parks. BRM thanks the USDA/APHIS/WS/National Wildlife Research Center for supporting his doctoral research and providing access to captive coyotes; recording work was approved by the NWRC IACUC. SW thanks Mariana Olsen for assistance with data collection, and Yellowstone National Park for permission to record.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2016.01.00

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 2020: A second coordinated national camera trap survey of the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic

Managing wildlife populations in the face of global change requires regular data on the abundance and distribution of wild animals, but acquiring these over appropriate spatial scales in a sustainable way has proven challenging. Here we present the data from Snapshot USA 2020, a second annual national mammal survey of the USA. This project involved 152 scientists setting camera traps in a standardized protocol at 1485 locations across 103 arrays in 43 states for a total of 52,710 trap-nights of survey effort. Most (58) of these arrays were also sampled during the same months (September and October) in 2019, providing a direct comparison of animal populations in 2 years that includes data from both during and before the COVID-19 pandemic. All data were managed by the eMammal system, with all species identifications checked by at least two reviewers. In total, we recorded 117,415 detections of 78 species of wild mammals, 9236 detections of at least 43 species of birds, 15,851 detections of six domestic animals and 23,825 detections of humans or their vehicles. Spatial differences across arrays explained more variation in the relative abundance than temporal variation across years for all 38 species modeled, although there are examples of significant site-level differences among years for many species. Temporal results show how species allocate their time and can be used to study species interactions, including between humans and wildlife. These data provide a snapshot of the mammal community of the USA for 2020 and will be useful for exploring the drivers of spatial and temporal changes in relative abundance and distribution, and the impacts of species interactions on daily activity patterns. There are no copyright restrictions, and please cite this paper when using these data, or a subset of these data, for publication

Behavioral responses of terrestrial mammals to COVID-19 lockdowns

DATA AND MATERIALS AVAILABILITY : The full dataset used in the final analyses (33) and associated code (34) are available at Dryad. A subset of the spatial coordinate datasets is available at Zenodo (35). Certain datasets of spatial coordinates will be available only through requests made to the authors due to conservation and Indigenous sovereignty concerns (see table S1 for more information on data use restrictions and contact information for data requests). These sensitive data will be made available upon request to qualified researchers for research purposes, provided that the data use will not threaten the study populations, such as by distribution or publication of the coordinates or detailed maps. Some datasets, such as those overseen by government agencies, have additional legal restrictions on data sharing, and researchers may need to formally apply for data access. Collaborations with data holders are generally encouraged, and in cases where data are held by Indigenous groups or institutions from regions that are under-represented in the global science community, collaboration may be required to ensure inclusion.COVID-19 lockdowns in early 2020 reduced human mobility, providing an opportunity to disentangle its effects on animals from those of landscape modifications. Using GPS data, we compared movements and road avoidance of 2300 terrestrial mammals (43 species) during the lockdowns to the same period in 2019. Individual responses were variable with no change in average movements or road avoidance behavior, likely due to variable lockdown conditions. However, under strict lockdowns 10-day 95th percentile displacements increased by 73%, suggesting increased landscape permeability. Animals’ 1-hour 95th percentile displacements declined by 12% and animals were 36% closer to roads in areas of high human footprint, indicating reduced avoidance during lockdowns. Overall, lockdowns rapidly altered some spatial behaviors, highlighting variable but substantial impacts of human mobility on wildlife worldwide.The Radboud Excellence Initiative, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the National Science Foundation, Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Dutch Research Council NWO program “Advanced Instrumentation for Wildlife Protection”, Fondation Segré, RZSS, IPE, Greensboro Science Center, Houston Zoo, Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens, Nashville Zoo, Naples Zoo, Reid Park Zoo, Miller Park, WWF, ZCOG, Zoo Miami, Zoo Miami Foundation, Beauval Nature, Greenville Zoo, Riverbanks zoo and garden, SAC Zoo, La Passarelle Conservation, Parc Animalier d’Auvergne, Disney Conservation Fund, Fresno Chaffee zoo, Play for nature, North Florida Wildlife Center, Abilene Zoo, a Liber Ero Fellowship, the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation, Teck Coal, and the Grand Teton Association. The collection of Norwegian moose data was funded by the Norwegian Environment Agency, the German Ministry of Education and Research via the SPACES II project ORYCS, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, Bureau of Land Management, Muley Fanatic Foundation (including Southwest, Kemmerer, Upper Green, and Blue Ridge Chapters), Boone and Crockett Club, Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resources Trust, Knobloch Family Foundation, Wyoming Animal Damage Management Board, Wyoming Governor’s Big Game License Coalition, Bowhunters of Wyoming, Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association, Pope and Young Club, US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Wyoming Wild Sheep Foundation, Wild Sheep Foundation, Wyoming Wildlife/Livestock Disease Research Partnership, the US National Science Foundation [IOS-1656642 and IOS-1656527, the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness, and by a GRUPIN research grant from the Regional Government of Asturias, Sigrid Rausing Trust, Batubay Özkan, Barbara Watkins, NSERC Discovery Grant, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration act under Pittman-Robertson project, the State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport of the Czech Republic, the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, Rufford Foundation, an American Society of Mammalogists African Graduate Student Research Fund, the German Science Foundation, the Israeli Science Foundation, the BSF-NSF, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food and Slovenian Research Agency (CRP V1-1626), the Aage V. Jensen Naturfond (project: Kronvildt - viden, værdier og værktøjer), the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy, National Centre for Research and Development in Poland, the Slovenian Research Agency, the David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation, Disney Conservation Fund, Whitley Fund for Nature, Acton Family Giving, Zoo Basel, Columbus, Bioparc de Doué-la-Fontaine, Zoo Dresden, Zoo Idaho, Kolmården Zoo, Korkeasaari Zoo, La Passarelle, Zoo New England, Tierpark Berlin, Tulsa Zoo, the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Government of Mongolia, the Mongolian Academy of Sciences, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration act and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, the National Science Foundation, Parks Canada, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Alberta Environment and Parks, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club International and Alberta Conservation Association, the Consejo Nacional de Ciencias y Tecnología (CONACYT) of Paraguay, the Norwegian Environment Agency and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, EU funded Interreg SI-HR 410 Carnivora Dinarica project, Paklenica and Plitvice Lakes National Parks, UK Wolf Conservation Trust, EURONATUR and Bernd Thies Foundation, the Messerli Foundation in Switzerland and WWF Germany, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, NASA Ecological Forecasting Program, the Ecotone Telemetry company, the French National Research Agency, LANDTHIRST, grant REPOS awarded by the i-Site MUSE thanks to the “Investissements d’avenir” program, the ANR Mov-It project, the USDA Hatch Act Formula Funding, the Fondation Segre and North American and European Zoos listed at http://www.giantanteater.org/, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, the Yellowstone Forever and the National Park Service, Missouri Department of Conservation, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Grant, and State University of New York, various donors to the Botswana Predator Conservation Program, data from collared caribou in the Northwest Territories were made available through funds from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories. The European Research Council Horizon2020, the British Ecological Society, the Paul Jones Family Trust, and the Lord Kelvin Adam Smith fund, the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute and Tanzania National Parks. The Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe Fish and Game Department and the Wyoming State Veterinary Laboratory, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Kodiak Brown Bear Trust, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Koniag Native Corporation, Old Harbor Native Corporation, Afognak Native Corporation, Ouzinkie Native Corporation, Natives of Kodiak Native Corporation and the State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, and the Slovenia Hunters Association and Slovenia Forest Service. F.C. was partly supported by the Resident Visiting Researcher Fellowship, IMéRA/Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille. This work was partially funded by the Center of Advanced Systems Understanding (CASUS), which is financed by Germany’s Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and by the Saxon Ministry for Science, Culture and Tourism (SMWK) with tax funds on the basis of the budget approved by the Saxon State Parliament. This article is a contribution of the COVID-19 Bio-Logging Initiative, which is funded in part by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF9881) and the National Geographic Society.https://www.science.org/journal/sciencehj2023Mammal Research InstituteZoology and Entomolog