https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/12bad5eef1f7f931b4b3c0ff206750ac.pdf ff562cd37c111ac2c813939f1aa6fbc1 PDF Text Text Received: 1 November 2022 | Revised: 30 November 2022 | Accepted: 30 November 2022 DOI: 10.1002/wsb.1422 RESEARCH ARTICLE Influence of camera model and alignment on the performance of paired camera stations Tim C. Swearingen1 Robert W. Klaver2 | Charles R. Anderson Jr. 3 1 Department of Biological Sciences, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL 61455, USA 2 U. S. Geological Survey, Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA 3 Mammals Research Section, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 317 West Prospect Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA Correspondence Robert W. Klaver, U.S. Geological Survey, Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA. Email: bklaver@iastate.edu Funding information Western Illinois University; Illinois Humane; Furbearers Unlimited; Illinois Bobcat Foundation; Illinois Department of Natural Resources | | Christopher N. Jacques1 Abstract The probability of obtaining images of target species may vary across camera models or relative position of cameras at survey locations. Alignment of cameras within paired camera stations (hereafter, stations) could affect species detection due to issues with image exposure. We quantified effects of 3 camera models and alignment (staggered, offset by a perpendicular distance of 4.6 m, and aligned, directly facing one another) on camera performance in a station design. Mean exposure events (flash from one camera overexposes or underexposes pictures) at aligned stations was 3.93 (SE = 1.01; n = 40), whereas no exposure events were documented at staggered (n = 36) stations. Overall frequency of exposure events of mammal images at aligned cameras was 44% (68 exposure events/153 images). On average, 8% (range 0−35%) of mammal images from aligned stations were exposure events. We detected no difference (P = 0.88) in exposure events among paired camera models. Further, we detected no overall differences (P ≥ 0.07) in paired camera performance (i.e., number of mammal images over survey interval) between aligned or staggered stations, though reliability (i.e., percentage of camera stations that lasted entire survey interval) varied (P ≤ 0.001) between model types. Research deploying 2 cameras within a camera station framework can eliminate exposure events by using a staggered camera alignment without affecting the number of usable This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2023 The Authors. Wildlife Society Bulletin published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Wildlife Society. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2023;e1422. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1422 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/wsb | 1 of 11 �| SWEARINGEN ET AL. mammal photos. Rigorous field testing prior to deployment of stations is warranted to optimize reliability. One of our low‐ cost models performed as well as a more expensive model within our paired camera stations at collecting mammal images, and thus could be incorporated into study designs without compromising quality of camera photo data. We suggest a pilot study before large‐scale deployment to evaluate reliability and performance of cameras, particularly when deploying multiple models. KEYWORDS bilateral images, camera reliability, camera trapping, exposure event, paired camera station, performance, sampling bias, spatial alignment Camera trapping over the past decade has become increasingly useful to monitor wildlife and address a variety of natural history and management concerns (Foster and Harmsen 2012, Locke et al. 2012, Newey et al. 2015, O'Connor et al. 2017). Camera data have been combined with mark‐recapture techniques to estimate density (Trolle and Kéry 2003, Thornton and Pekins 2015, Satter et al. 2019), model occupancy (Long et al. 2011, Clare et al. 2015, Pease et al. 2016), survey conservation practices (McCallum 2013, Sandbrook et al. 2018), monitor species richness (Ordeñana et al. 2010, Liu et al. 2012, Ferreras et al. 2017), and identify habitat associations of specific species (Di Bitetti et al. 2006, Kelly and Holub 2008). Until recently, the most common use of camera traps for wildlife research has been to investigate species that are solitary, mobile, and occur at low densities (e.g., felids; Karanth and Nichols 1998, Rowcliffe and Carbone 2008, Balme et al. 2009, Alonso et al. 2015, Jacques et al. 2019). Because bilateral photo‐identification increases precision in population estimates (Kalle et al. 2011, Negrões et al. 2012, McClintock et al. 2013, Rovero et al. 2013) and detection of target species (Tobler et al. 2008), researchers often use 2 cameras per camera station (hereafter, station). Nevertheless, studies employing stations have reported censoring 20%–35% of data because individuals could not be uniquely identified (Steinmetz et al. 2009, Gray and Prum 2012, Rich et al. 2014). Considerations given to the setup and configuration of stations and cost, reliability, and performance of cameras can affect the quality of data collected, which also may affect common limitations and validity of study designs (Negrões et al. 2012, Rovero et al. 2013, Trolliet et al. 2014, Wearn and Glover‐Kapfer 2017, McIntyre et al. 2020). Within a survey design, spatial alignment of one camera directly across from the other increases the likelihood that the flash from one camera overexposes or underexposes pictures from the other camera (Foster and Harmsen 2012). These have been referred to as exposure events, mutual flash interferences, or black‐out events (hereafter, exposure event) (Karanth 1995, Negrões et al. 2012, Rovero et al. 2013). We defined exposure event as the total number of events (rapid‐fire burst = one exposure event) which rendered photos useless for species and individual identification. Exposure events may constitute a source of sampling bias in survey designs for nocturnal‐crepuscular animals (Meek and Pittet 2012, Meek et al. 2014, Wearn and Glover‐Kapfer 2017), though the magnitude of how this effects detection or population estimates of target species is unknown. Karanth (1995) eliminated exposure events when 2 cameras were not aligned; however, camera alignment and setup dimensions were not reported. Comparison of performance differences among camera models have been conducted under field conditions (Hughson et al. 2010, Wellington et al. 2014) and in controlled laboratory settings (Apps and McNutt 2018a). We defined camera performance as the total number of mammal images detected per station over a survey interval (Peterson and Thomas 1998). Differences in camera performance may introduce unintended sources of error, including model type, trigger speed (i.e., time between animal walking through camera detection zone and image 23285540, 0, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1422 by Colorado Parks & Wildlife, Wiley Online Library on [10/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 2 of 11 �| 3 of 11 recording), sensitivity of infrared‐motion detectors, distance between cameras, and camera above ground height (Negrões et al. 2012, Wellington et al. 2014, Wearn and Glover‐Kapfer 2017, Jacobs and Ausband 2018). For research designed to index population size or species richness using camera photographs, differences in detection may be problematic (Bengsen et al. 2011, Li et al. 2012). In these situations, variation in camera performance may be ameliorated by deploying a single camera model (Damm et al. 2010). However, in large‐scale inventories that involve multiple partners, or monitoring projects that deploy multiple camera models, variation in camera performance may inaccurately count species and thus misrepresent population demographics of target species or community dynamics being studied (Erb et al. 2012, Wellington et al. 2014). Although many makes and models of remote cameras are available today, researchers often must balance tradeoffs between deploying expensive and presumably highly‐reliable units with lower‐grade models that are presumed to have limited function and reliability (Swann et al. 2011, Newey et al. 2015, Glover‐Kapfer et al. 2019). We defined reliability as the percentage of camera stations that operated over the duration of the survey interval (Newey et al. 2015). Notwithstanding that several reviews have emphasized limitations in camera traps for wildlife research, issues of camera reliability due to technical difficulties are seldom described in the literature, in part due to the primary goal of reporting on ecological insights afforded by camera trap technology (Meek et al. 2015, Newey et al. 2015). Nevertheless, researchers should consider every opportunity to improve reliability of stations, and thus efficiency of camera trap surveys and estimation of focal parameters (Gerber et al. 2014, Hofmeester et al. 2017, MacKenzie et al. 2017, Sollmann 2018, Tourani et al. 2020). Thus, to examine variation in camera performance and explore possible solutions, our study objectives were to evaluate potential effects of representative camera model types and spatial alignment on exposure events, performance, and reliability of stations for detecting mammals. STUDY AREA Our study was conducted on the Alice L. Kibbe Field Station of Western Illinois University (hereafter Kibbe), located within Hancock County of west‐central Illinois, USA (Latitude: 40.36, Longitude: –91.43). Kibbe is a 0.9 km2 area surrounded by 4 km2 of public land owned by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources along the Mississippi River bluff. Landscape characteristics consisted primarily of flat upland prairies fringed by bluffs and valleys near the Illinois and Mississippi River watersheds, with elevation ranging from 145 to 213 m (Walker 2001). Average summer temperature is 22.9°C and annual precipitation is 97.7 cm (Walker 2001). Dominant overstory woody vegetation included white oak (Quercus alba), post oak (Q. stellata), black oak (Q. velutina), and mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa). Dominant understory vegetation in mixed woodland and upland prairie communities included big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), elmleaf goldenrod (Solidago ulmifolia), white snakeroot (Ageratina altissima), clustered black snakeroot (Sanicula odorata), nodding fescue (Festuca subverticillata), Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica), ironwood (Ostrya virginiana), and roughleaf dogwood (Cornus drummondii). Camera stations were located along mowed paths throughout Kibbe. We selected Kibbe because of the high density of mowed paths and proximity to Kibbe personnel, which maximized photographic detection of mammals while minimizing camera theft. METHO DS Camera settings We used model 1 (Browning Recon Force Model BTC‐7FHD, Prometheus Group, LLC Birmingham, AL, USA), model 2 (Moultrie M‐880 Series, Moultrie Products LLC Alabaster, AL, USA), and model 3 (Reconyx 600 Hyperfire, Reconyx LLP, Holmen, WI, USA) cameras at Kibbe. We standardized camera settings across models as follows: 23285540, 0, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1422 by Colorado Parks & Wildlife, Wiley Online Library on [10/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License CHARACTERISTICS OF PAIRED CAMERA STATION PERFORMANCE �| SWEARINGEN ET AL. sensitivity set to high, passive infrared (PIR), one‐minute delay between triggers (Lepard et al. 2019), set of 3 rapid‐ fire pictures per trigger event, 8 megapixel resolution (highest picture quality shared by all 3 models), 8 GB Sandisk SDHC card (Americas, SanDisk Corporation, Milpitas, CA, USA), and standard alkaline AA batteries (Duracell Company, Bethel, CT, USA) per manufacturer recommendations. We verified that all cameras were functional prior to deployment. Evaluation of camera model and alignment To examine effects of camera model and alignment on station performance and reliability for counting mammals (mammal size range = fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) to white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)), we placed stations along maintained paths and trails; trails are common sites for image capture of mammals with cameras (Harmsen et al. 2010, Tobler and Powell 2013, Rich et al. 2014, Cusack et al. 2015, Thornton and Pekins 2015). We spaced stations ≥9 m apart, which was double the distance of the camera field‐of‐view (hereafter, FOV), and ensured station independence (i.e., flash from one station would not affect images at subsequent stations). We alternated camera model and alignment treatments to minimize the likelihood that environmental variation (e.g., different vegetation types) affected image capture (Damm et al. 2010, Hofemeester et al. 2017, Apps and McNutt 2018a, Flores‐Morales et al. 2019) across camera station model and alignment treatments. Maintenance personnel mowed paths and where needed, removed vegetation using a hand grass shear to ensure that the camera FOV was not obstructed (Meek et al. 2014, Wearn and Glover‐Kapfer 2017, Moll et al. 2020). At each station, we attached cameras to wooden surveyor stakes (61.0 cm × 7.6 cm) placed into the ground ~9 cm (Swann et al. 2004, Apps and McNutt 2018b). We used ratchet straps to mount cameras to stakes at a height of 0.3 m above ground level (measured to center of lens; Flores‐Morales et al. 2019). We set paired cameras 4.6 m across from each other and perpendicular to the trail to increase the likelihood of bilateral images of passing mammals (Karanth and Nichols 1998, Trolle and Kéry 2003, Swann et al. 2004, Newey et al. 2015). We visually leveled each camera, and tested FOV using a standard visibility marker flag (Hofmeester et al. 2017, Wearn and Glover‐Kapfer 2017, Moll et al. 2020); none of the camera models detected our visibility marker flag at >3 m. To evaluate potential effects of aligned cameras on station performance, we placed like model cameras directly across from one another, and perpendicular to maintained paths and trails (Figure 1). To examine the performance of stations with staggered cameras, we faced the cameras directly across a maintained path or trail and offset them by 4.6 m. Stations were not baited (i.e., to minimize bias [Newbolt et al. 2017, Fidino et al. 2020]) and set up to capture F I G U R E 1 Diagram of a 2 paired camera station; alignment options included alternating camera models between aligned camera stations (4.6 m across from each other and perpendicular to the trail) and staggered camera stations (4.6 m across from each other and perpendicular to the trail and offset by 4.6 m) evaluated at Kibbe Station, Warsaw, Illinois, USA, summer 2018. Paired camera stations were separated by ≥9 m to ensure independence (i.e., flash from one station would not impact images at subsequent stations) between successive stations, and we alternated camera station models across treatments to minimize environmental bias. 23285540, 0, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1422 by Colorado Parks & Wildlife, Wiley Online Library on [10/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 4 of 11 �| 5 of 11 images of mammals walking parallel through the FOV of cameras. Stations were deployed for 2, 7‐day intervals with similar environmental conditions during 10–17 June 2018. We selected survey intervals to minimize failure and theft of our repository of cameras (Damm et al. 2010, Kays et al. 2010, Wellington et al. 2014, Glover‐Kapfer et al. 2019). Data analyses We pooled mammal images, and exposure events within camera model and alignment treatments because there was no statistical difference between our response variables across years (F1,92 ≤ 1.49, P ≥ 0.23). We treated stations as a single sampling unit (Sollmann 2018). To standardize operational time across all treatment effects we only used data when both cameras were operational during the entire sampling period. We addressed cross‐ classification designs with unbalanced data using Type III SS in Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) models. We compared mammal images and exposure events across camera models and spatial alignment to evaluate differences in stations (Kelly and Holub 2008, Wellington et al. 2014). We used a Shapiro‐Wilk test to confirm that our dependent variables were normally distributed within groups (Shapiro and Wilk 1965). We used Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to quantify potential effects of camera alignment (aligned vs. staggered) and camera model (model 1 vs. model 2 vs. model 3) on mammal images and exposure events recorded at stations. We performed one‐way ANOVA on failure day as a function of camera model and used Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) multi‐comparison procedure to test for differences in camera model reliability between camera manufacturers. We analyzed 2018 survey data to understand frequency of exposure events to total night photos and total night mammal photos. We conducted statistical analyses using Program R, Version 3.6.2 (R Core Team 2018); statistical tests were conducted at α = 0.05. RESULTS We used 76 stations (43 model 1, 19 model 2, and 14 model 3 cameras; 40 aligned cameras, 36 staggered cameras) in our analyses to evaluate camera alignment, model performance, and reliability. Mean percent of exposure events for all aligned cameras was 8% (SE = 0.99%, min–max = 0–35%). Of the total night photos captured, aligned cameras recorded 68 exposure events/386 night photos (18%); of 386 night photos, 153 (40%) were mammal images. Of 153 mammal images, frequency of exposure events was 44% (n = 68). Mean exposure events at aligned cameras was 3.93 per station (SE = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.95–5.90). We detected no difference (F2,73 = 0.13, P = 0.88) in exposure events among model 1 (x̄ = 4.14, SE = 0.70, 95% CI = 2.76–5.52), model 2 (x̄ = 4.20, SE = 1.05, 95% CI = 2.14–6.26), and model 3 (x̄ = 3.00, SE = 0.63, 95% CI = 1.77–4.23) at aligned stations. We documented no exposure events at staggered stations. We detected no statistical difference (F1,74 = 3.36, P = 0.07) in the number of mammal images collected between aligned ( x̄ = 60.83, SE = 5.34, 95% CI = 50.02–71.63) and staggered ( x̄ = 48.33, SE = 4.05, 95% CI = 40.11–56.56) stations. Similarly, we detected no overall difference (F2,73 = 2.42, P = 0.10) in the number of mammal images collected between model 1 ( x̄ = 59.64, SE = 8.56, 95% CI = 42.85–76.42), model 2 ( x̄ = 46.40, SE = 3.27, 95% CI = 39.98–52.82), and model 3 (x̄ = 82.13, SE = 8.37, 95% CI = 65.73–98.52) aligned stations. Additionally, we detected no overall difference (F1,74 = 3.36, P = 0.07) in mammal images between model 1 ( x̄ = 39.14, SE = 4.78, 95% CI = 29.78–48.51), model 2 ( x̄ = 66.78, SE = 8.38, 95% CI = 50.36–83.20), and model 3 ( x̄ = 52.83, SE = 6.02, 95% CI = 41.04–64.63) staggered stations. We detected a difference (F2,93 = 17.81, P ≤ 0.001) in the percentage of cameras that operated over the survey interval. Post‐hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that reliability was similar (P = 0.99) between model 1 (98%) and model 3 (95%) cameras. However, reliability of model 2 cameras over the duration of the survey interval (52%) was significantly lower (P ≤ 0.001; Table 1). 23285540, 0, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1422 by Colorado Parks & Wildlife, Wiley Online Library on [10/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License CHARACTERISTICS OF PAIRED CAMERA STATION PERFORMANCE �| SWEARINGEN ET AL. T A B L E 1 Comparison of paired camera station reliability across camera models for obtaining mammal images in west‐central Illinois, 2017–2018. We defined camera reliability as the percentage of camera stations that failed over the duration of the 7‐day survey interval. Day of camera failure Camera model 1 2 3 4 N Model 1 1 0 0 0 44 Model 2 9 3 1 5 37 Model 3 0 0 0 1 15 DISCUSSION Our trials yielded 4 findings related to the performance and reliability of paired camera stations designed to survey mammals. First, we documented clear differences in exposure events in relation to spatial alignment of paired camera stations. Specifically, we noted that despite variability in the range of exposure events, all instances were associated with aligned camera stations whereas staggered stations had none. Second, nearly 20% of the night images captured at aligned stations were exposure events, and 44% of those events were mammal images. Third the causative factors for variation in camera station reliability between models remains unknown but may be optimized by gathering up‐to‐date information on camera specifications from multiple sources prior to deployment. Lastly, our results yielded surprising similarities in camera performance among models, and that deployment of high‐quality cameras to maximize detection does not appear to be warranted. Rather, researchers may optimize study designs by deploying more low‐ to mid‐grade budget cameras for field studies without compromising data quality of images used in analyses (Fancourt et al. 2017). Before developing our study design, we spoke with camera manufacturers, each of which stated they could not guarantee their cameras would not collect images subject to exposure events. Unlike mechanical issues such as motion trigger delay and failure, minimizing exposure events is under the control of researchers and can be accounted for by modifying study designs. Nearly half (44%) of the nocturnal mammal images obtained during our study were classified as exposure events, which could appreciably reduce the number of photos used in mark‐ recapture analyses, and thus precision of abundance estimates (Balme et al. 2009, Negrões et al. 2012, Alonso et al. 2015). Because night (i.e., monochrome) photos at aligned camera stations were susceptible to exposure events and camera research employing paired camera stations has been conducted with wild felids (Meek et al. 2014), it is likely that offsetting camera stations may reduce, or potentially eliminate, exposure events. Accounting for exposure events in camera‐trap studies has implications for a variety of increasingly sophisticated methods for estimating population density from capture‐recapture studies (Pollock et al. 1990, Williams et al. 2002, Efford 2004, Royle et al. 2014, Jacques et al. 2019) as these methods require positive identification of target animals. Capturing bilateral images at the same camera angle is imperative for identification, depending on the target species of interest and what marks are used for identification (Kelly et al. 2008, Guil et al. 2010). When positive identifications cannot be made due to an exposure event, or only partial identity capture histories exist for individuals, these photos usually are excluded from analyses (Mazzolli 2010, Foster and Harmsen 2012, Clare et al. 2015, Augustine et al. 2018). Negrões et al. (2012) reported a 47% success rate for dual cameras applied to jaguar (Panthera onca). Only about half their photos were captured simultaneously by both cameras, and 10% of those captured were partial images of target species. Missed detections from exposure events likely reduce the number of usable images of target species, and thus precision of model‐derived density estimates. Our results yielded similar performance among camera models. Although camera performance is typically thought to be a function of cost, with more expensive cameras collecting more animal images than mid‐ to low‐ quality budget grade cameras (Rovero et al. 2013, Driessen et al. 2017, Fancourt et al. 2017), this was not the case 23285540, 0, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1422 by Colorado Parks & Wildlife, Wiley Online Library on [10/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 6 of 11 �| 7 of 11 in our paired‐camera survey study. Notably, mid‐grade cameras detected as many mammal images as the professional‐grade cameras, which may reflect our efforts to standardize survey protocol across camera models prior to deployment. We were able to make direct comparisons of paired camera station models and alignments under nearly identical conditions because we replicated each camera model across alignments similarly and alternated across treatments (Ortmann and Johnson 2020). Further, we may have minimized performance differences among camera models by using a standardized station setup designed to capture movement of mammals in a parallel direction through the FOV (Negrões et al. 2012, Fancourt et al. 2017, McIntryre et al. 2020, Moll et al. 2020). We found differences in reliability of camera models tested. Most (≥93%) model 1 and model 3 camera stations lasted our one‐week survey interval, but surprisingly we noted that half of the model 2 camera stations used in our analyses failed prematurely. Our findings are consistent with reliability of PIR cameras reported previously by Meek et al. (2014) and may be attributable to variation in individual cameras from the same manufacturer (Krauss et al. 2018). Prior to deployment, we consulted the owner's manual for each camera model, used recommended battery types, ensured that all camera models were equipped with new alkaline batteries of the same brand and lot number, and used the same SD cards in all camera models prior to deployment. Despite these efforts, we cannot explain the failure rate in half the model 2 camera stations. Battery life varies greatly among camera trap models (Peterson and Thomas 1998, Meek and Pittet 2012, Newey et al. 2015) and affects the frequency researchers check camera stations (Tobler et al. 2008, Wearn and Glover‐Kapfer 2017, Jacobs and Ausband 2018). We followed recommendations provided in the model 2 owner's manual for battery use (Moultrie M880 Series Instructions Manual 2021); however, the company's website provided conflicting battery recommendations (Moultrie Cameras 2021). Pilot studies designed to evaluate potential effects of battery type (lithium, alkaline) and brand (e.g., Energizer, Duracell) on camera reliability may reduce variation between models prior to long‐term deployments of cameras over multiple seasons. M A N A G E M E N T I M P L I C A TI O N S Variation in reliability among camera models is a potential source of sampling bias and loss of data in camera study designs. Research deploying 2 cameras within a paired camera station framework can eliminate nighttime exposure events by using a staggered camera alignment, and in turn maximize mammal images and positive individual identification of target species. Our reliability results suggest rigorous field testing be conducted prior to deployment of camera stations to ensure study design fits research objectives. One low‐cost model performed as well as a more expensive model within our paired camera stations at collecting mammal images, and thus could be incorporated into study designs without compromising quality of camera photo data. To avoid conflicting information, users of remote cameras for research should contact both the owner's manual and manufacturer websites for updated information on camera specifications to optimize reliability and performance prior to deployment in field studies. A C KN O W L E D G M E N T S We are indebted to A. Bouton, E. Davis, S. Jenkins, J. Lamer, W. Rechkemmer, E. Smith, and J. Williams for field assistance, and upkeep and vigilance of cameras. We thank G. Ritz for use of Reconyx cameras. We thank M. Alldredge, D. Ausband, J. Fusaro, J. Ivan, M. Pieron, and S. Roberts for insightful reviews and editorial suggestions on earlier drafts of our manuscript. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the United States Government. Funding was provided by Federal Aid in Restoration administered by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Furbearers Unlimited, Illinois Humane, Illinois Bobcat Foundation, and Western Illinois University (WIU). CO NFL I CTS OF I NTEREST The authors declare no conflicts of interest. 23285540, 0, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1422 by Colorado Parks & Wildlife, Wiley Online Library on [10/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License CHARACTERISTICS OF PAIRED CAMERA STATION PERFORMANCE �| SWEARINGEN ET AL. ETHICS STATEME NT No ethical information provided. ORCID Robert W. Klaver http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3263-9701 Charles R. Anderson Christopher N. Jacques http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3063-1757 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5225-457X REFERENCES Alonso, R. S., B. T. McClintock, L. M. Lyren, E. E. Boydston, and K. R. Crooks. 2015. Mark‐recapture and mark‐resight methods for estimating abundance with remote cameras: a carnivore case study. PLoS ONE 10(3):e0123032. Apps, P. J., and J. W. McNutt. 2018a. Are camera traps fit for purpose? A rigorous, reproducible and realistic test of camera trap performance. African Journal of Ecology 56:710–720. Apps, P. J., and J. W. McNutt. 2018b. How camera traps work and how to work them. African Journal of Ecology 56: 702–709. Augustine, B. C., J. A. Royle, M. J. Kelly, C. B. Satter, R. S. Alonso, R. E. Boydston, and K. R. Crooks. 2018. Spatial capture‐ recapture with partial identity: an application to camera traps. Annals of Applied Statistics 12:67–95. Balme, G. A., L. T. B. Hunter, and R. Slotow. 2009. Evaluating methods for counting cryptic carnivores. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:433–441. Bengsen, A. J., L. K.‐P. Leung, S. J. Lapidge, and I. J. Gordon. 2011. Using a general index approach to analyze camera‐trap abundance indices. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:1222–1227. Clare, J. D. J., E. M. Anderson, and D. M. MacFarland. 2015. Predicting bobcat abundance at a landscape scale and evaluating occupancy as a density index in central Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management 79:469–480. Cusack, J. J., A. J. Dickman, M. J. Rowcliffe, C. Carbone, D. W. Macdonald, and T. Coulson. 2015. Random versus game trail‐ based camera trap placement strategy for monitoring terrestrial mammal communities. PLoS ONE 10(5):e0126373 Damm, P. E., J. B. Grand, and W. Barnett. 2010. Variation in detection among passive infrared triggered‐cameras used in wildlife research. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association Fish and Wildlife Agencies 64:125–130. Di Bitetti, M. S., A. Paviolo, and C. De Angelo. 2006. Density, habitat use and activity patterns of ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) in the Atlantic Forest of Misiones, Argentina. Journal of Zoology 270:153–163. Driessen, M. M., P. J. Jarman, S. Troy, and S. Callander. 2017. Animal detections vary among commonly used camera trap models. Wildlife Research 44:291–297. Efford, M. 2004. Density estimation in live‐trapping studies. Oikos 106:598–610. Erb, P. L., W. J. McShea, and R. P. Guralnick. 2012. Anthropogenic influences on macro‐level mammal occupancy in the Appalachian Trail Corridor. PLoS ONE 7(8):e42574. Fancourt, B. A., M. Sweaney, and D. B. Fletcher. 2017. More haste, less speed: pilot study suggests camera trap detection zone could be more important than trigger speed to maximise species detections. Australian Mammalogy 206: 293–303. Ferreras, P., F. Díaz‐Ruiz, P. C. Alves, and P. Monterroso. 2017. Optimizing camera‐trapping protocols for characterizing mesocarnivore communities in south‐western Europe. Journal of Zoology 301:23–31. Fidino, M., G. R. Barnas, E. W. Lehrer, M. H. Murray, and S. B. Magle. 2020. Effect of lure on detecting mammals with camera traps. Wildlife Society Bulletin 44:543–552. Flores‐Morales, M., J. Vásquez, A. Bautista, L. Rodríguez‐Martínez, and O. Monroy‐Vilchis. 2019. Response of 2 sympatric carnivores to human disturbances of their habitat: the bobcat and coyote. Mammal Research 64:53–62. Foster, R. J., and B. J. Harmsen. 2012. A critique of density estimation from camera‐trap data. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:224–236. Gerber, B., J. Ivan, and K. Burnham. 2014. Estimating the abundance of rare and elusive carnivores from photographic sampling data when the population size is very small. Population Ecology 56:463–470. Glover‐Kapfer, P., C. A. Soto‐Navarro, and O. R. Wearn. 2019. Camera‐trapping version 3.0: current constraints and future priorities for development. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 5:209–223. Gray, T. N. E., and S. Prum. 2012. Leopard density in post‐conflict landscape, Cambodia: evidence from spatially‐explicit capture‐recapture. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:163–169. Guil, F., S. Agudin, N. El‐Khadir, M. Fernandez‐Olalla, J. Figueredo, F. G. Dominguez, P. Garzon, G. Gonzalez, J. Muñoz‐ Igualada, J. Oria, et al. 2010. Factors conditioning the camera‐trapping efficiency for the Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus). European Journal of Wildlife Research 56:633–640. 23285540, 0, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1422 by Colorado Parks & Wildlife, Wiley Online Library on [10/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 8 of 11 �| 9 of 11 Harmsen, B. J., R. J. Foster, S. Silver, L. Ostro, and C. P. Doncaster. 2010. Differential use of trails by forest mammals and the implications for camera‐trap studies: a case study from Belize. Biotropica 42:126–133. Hofmeester, T. R., J. M. Rowcliffe, and P. A. Jansen. 2017. A simple method for estimating the effective detection distance of camera traps. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 3:81–89. Hughson, D. L, N. W. Darby, and J. D. Dungan. 2010. Comparison of motion‐activated cameras for wildlife investigations. California Fish and Game 96:101–109. Jacobs, C. E., and D. E. Ausband. 2018. An evaluation of camera trap performance—what are we missing and does deployment height matter? Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 1:1–9. Jacques, C. N., R. W. Klaver, T. C. Swearingen, E. D. Davis, C. R. Anderson, J. A. Jenks, C. S. DePerno, and R. D. Bluett. 2019. Estimating density of bobcats in fragmented Midwestern landscapes using spatial capture‐recapture data from camera traps. Wildlife Society Bulletin 43:256–264. Kalle, R., T. Ramesh, Q. Qureshi, and K. Sankar. 2011. Density of tiger and leopard in a tropical deciduous forest of Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, southern India, as estimated using photographic capture‐recapture sampling. Acta Theriologica 56:335–342. Karanth K. U. 1995. Estimating tiger Panthera tigris populations from camera‐trap data using capture‐recapture models. Biology Conservation 71:333–338. Karanth, K. U., and J. D. Nichols. 1998. Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79:2852–2862. Kays, R., S. Tilak, B. Kranstauber, P. A. Jansen, C. Carbone, J. M. Rowcliffe, T. Fountain, J. Eggert, and Z. He. 2010. Monitoring wild animal communities with arrays of motion sensitive camera traps. International Journal of Research and Reviews in Wireless Sensor Networks 1:1–22. Kelly, M. J., and E. L. Holub. 2008. Camera trapping of carnivores: trap success among camera types and across species, and habitat selection by species, on Salt pond mountain, Giles County, Virginia. Northeast Naturalist 15:249–262. Kelly, M. J., A. J. Noss, M. S. Di Bitetti, L. Maffei, R. L. Arispe, A. Paviolo, and Y. E. Di Blanco. 2008. Estimating puma densities from camera trapping across 3 study sites: Bolivia, Argentina, and Belize. Journal of Mammalogy 89: 408–418. Krauss, S. L., D. G. Roberts, R. D. Phillips, and C. Edwards. 2018. Effectiveness of camera traps for quantifying daytime and nighttime visitation by vertebrate pollinators. Ecology and Evolution 8:9304–9314. Lepard, C. C., R. J. Moll, J. D. Cepek, P. D. Lorch, P. M. Dennis, T. Robison, and R. A. Montgomery. 2019. The influence of the delay‐period setting on camera‐trap data storage, wildlife detections and occupancy models. Wildlife Research 46: 37–53. Li, S., W. J. McShea, D. Wang, J. Huang, and L. Shao. 2012. A direct comparison of camera‐ trapping and sign transects for monitoring wildlife in the Wanglang National Nature Reserve, China. Wildlife Society Bulletin 36:538–545. Liu, X., P. Wuc, M. Songerd, Q. Caie, X. Hef, Y. Zhue, and X. Shaoc. 2012. Monitoring wildlife abundance and diversity with infra‐red camera traps in Guanyinshan Nature Reserve of Shaanxi Province, China. Ecological Indicators 33:121–128. Locke, S. L., I. D. Parker, and R. R. Lopez. 2012. Use of remote cameras in wildlife ecology. Pages 311–318 in N. J. Silvy, editor. The wildlife techniques manual. Seventh edition. 1. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Long, R. A., T. M. Donovan, P. MacKay, W. J. Zielinski, and J. S. Buzas. 2011. Predicting carnivore occurrence with noninvasive surveys and occupancy modeling. Landscape Ecology 26:327–340. MacKenzie, D. I., J. D. Nichols, J. A. Royle, K. H. Pollock, L. Bailey, and J. E. Hines. 2017. Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. Elsevier, New York, New York, USA. Mazzolli, M. 2010. Mosaics of exotic forest plantations and native forests as habitat for pumas. Environmental Management 46:237–253. McCallum, J. 2013. Changing use of camera traps in mammalian field research: habitats, taxa and study types. Mammal Review 43:196–206. McClintock, B. T., P. B. Conn, R. S. Alonso, and K. R. Crooks. 2013. Integrated modeling of bilateral photo‐identification data in a mark‐recapture analyses. Ecology 94:1464–1471. McIntyre, T., T. L.Majelantle, D. J. Slip, and R. G. Harcourt. 2020. Quantifying imperfect camera‐trap detection probabilities: implications for density modeling. Wildlife Research 47:177–185. Meek, P. D., G. Ballard, A. Claridge, R. Kays, K. Moseby, T. G. O'Brien, A. O'Connell, J. Sanderson, D. E. Swann, M. Tobler, et al. 2014. Recommended guiding principles for reporting on camera trapping research. Biodiversity Conservation 23: 2321–2343. Meek, P. D., G. A. Ballard, and P. J. S. Fleming. 2015. The pitfalls of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia. Australian Mammalogy 37:13–22. Meek, P. D., and A. Pittet. 2012. User‐based design specifications for the ultimate camera trap for wildlife research. Wildlife Research 39:649–660. 23285540, 0, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1422 by Colorado Parks & Wildlife, Wiley Online Library on [10/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License CHARACTERISTICS OF PAIRED CAMERA STATION PERFORMANCE �| SWEARINGEN ET AL. Moll, R. J., W. Ortiz‐Calo, J. D. Cepek, P. D. Lorch, P. M. Dennis, T. Robison, and R. A. Montgomery. 2020. The effect of camera‐trap viewshed obstruction on wildlife detection: implications for inference. Wildlife Research 47:158–165. Moultrie Cameras. 2021. Moultrie cameras information and trouble shooting: recommended batteries. <https:// pradcooutdoorbrands.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000699247-Recommended-Batteries>. Accessed 9 Feb 2021. Moultrie M880 Series Instructions Manual. 2021. <https://www.manualslib.com/manual/911497/Moultrie-M-880-Series. html>. Accessed 9 Feb 2021. Negrões, N., R. Sollmann, C. Fonseca, A. T. Jácomo, E. Revilla, and L. Silveira. 2012. One or 2 cameras per station? Monitoring jaguars and other mammals in the Amazon. Ecological Research 27:639–648. Newbolt, C. H., S. Rankin, and S. S. Ditchkoff. 2017. Temporal and sex‐related differences in use of baited sites by white‐tailed deer. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association Fish and Wildlife Agencies 64:109–114. Newey, S., P. Davidson, S. Nazir, G. Fairhurst, F. Verdicchio, R. J. Irvine, and R. van der Wal. 2015. Limitations of recreational camera traps for wildlife management and conservation research: a practitioner's perspective. Ambio 44: 624–635. O'Connor, K. M., L. R. Nathan, M. R. Liberati, M. W. Tingley, J. C. Vokoun, and T. A. G. Rittenhouse. 2017. Camera trap arrays improve detection probability of wildlife: Investigating study design considerations using an empirical dataset. PLoS ONE 12(4):e0175684. Ordeñana, M. A., K. R. Crooks, E. E. Boydston, R. N. Fisher, L. M. Lyren, S. Siudyla, C. D. Haas, S. Harris, S. A. Hathawa, G. M. Turshak, et al. 2010. Effects of urbanization on carnivore species distribution and richness. Journal of Mammalogy 91:1322–1331. Ortmann, C. R., and S. D. Johnson. 2020. How reliable are motion‐triggered camera traps for detecting small mammals and birds in ecological studies? Journal of Zoology 313:202–207. Pease, B. S., C. K. Nielsen, and E. J. Holzmueller. 2016. Single‐camera trap survey designs miss detections: impacts on estimates of occupancy and community metrics. PLoS ONE 11(11):e0166689. Peterson, L. M., and J. A. Thomas. 1998. Performance of Trail‐master infrared sensors in monitoring captive coyotes. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:592–596. Pollock, K. H., J. D. Nichols, C. Brownie, and J. E. Hines. 1990. Statistical inference for capture–recapture experiments. Wildlife Monographs 107:1–97. R Core Team. 2018. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Version 3.6.2. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Rich, L. N., M. J. Kelly, R. Sollmann, A. J. Noss, L. Maffei, R. L. Arispe, A. Paviolo, C. D. De Angelo, Y. E. De Blanco, and M. S. Di Bitetti. 2014. Comparing capture‐ recapture, mark‐resight, and spatial‐mark resight models for estimating puma densities via camera traps. Journal of Mammalogy 95:382–391. Rovero, F., F. Zimmermann, D. Berzi, and P. Meek. 2013. Which camera trap type and how many do I need? A review of camera features and study designs for a range of wildlife research applications. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 24:148–156. Rowcliffe, J. M., and C. Carbone. 2008. Surveys using camera traps: are we looking to a brighter future? Animal Conservation 11:185–186. Royle, J. A., R. B. Chandler, R. Sollmann, and B. Gardner. 2014. Spatial capture‐recapture. Elsevier, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA. Sandbrook, C., R. Luque‐Lora, and W. M. Adams. 2018. Human bycatch conservation surveillance and the social implications of camera traps. Conservation and Society 16:493–504. Satter, C. B., B. C. Augustine, B. J. Harmsen, R. J. Foster, E. E. Sanchez, C. Wultsch, M. L. Davis, and M. J. Kelly. 2019. Long‐ term monitoring of ocelot densities in Belize. Journal of Wildlife Management 83:283–294. Shapiro, S. S., and M. B. Wilk. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591–611. Sollmann, R. 2018. A gentle introduction to camera‐trap data analysis. African Journal of Ecology 56:740–749. Steinmetz, R., W. Chutipong, N. Seuaturien, and B. Poonnil. 2009. Ecology and conservation of tigers and their prey in Kuiburi National Park, Thailand. World Wildlife Fund [WWF] Thailand and Department of National Parks, Bangkok, Thailand. Swann, D. E. C. H., D. C. Dalton Hass, and S. A. Wolf. 2004. Infrared‐triggered cameras for detection wildlife: an evaluation and review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:357–365. Swann, D. E., K. Kawanishi, and J. Palmer. 2011. Evaluating types and features of camera traps in ecological studies: a guide for researchers. Pages 27–43 in K. U. O'Connell, A. F. Nichols, and J. D. Karanth, editors. Camera traps in animal ecology: methods and analyses. Springer‐Verlag, New York, New York, USA. Thornton, D., and C. Pekins. 2015. Spatially explicit capture‐recapture analysis of bobcat (Lynx rufus) density: implications for mesocarnivore monitoring. Wildlife Research 42:394–404. Tobler, M. W., S. E. Carrillo‐Percastegui, R. L. Pitman, R. Mares, and G. Powell. 2008. An evaluation of camera traps for inventorying large‐ and medium size terrestrial forest mammals. Animal Conservation 11:169–178. 23285540, 0, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1422 by Colorado Parks & Wildlife, Wiley Online Library on [10/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 10 of 11 �| 11 of 11 Tobler, M. W., and G. V. N. Powell. 2013. Estimating jaguar densities with camera traps: problems with current designs and recommendations for future studies. Biological Conservation 159:109–118. Tourani, M., E. N. Brøste, S. Bakken, J. Odden, and R. Bischof. 2020. Sooner, closer, or longer: detectability of mesocarnivores at camera traps. Journal of Zoology 312:259–270. Trolle, M., and M. Kéry. 2003. Estimation of ocelot density in the Pantanal using capture‐recapture analysis of camera‐ trapping data. Journal of Mammalogy 84:607–614. Trolliet, M., M. C. Huynen, C. Vermeulen, and A. Hambuckers. 2014. Use of camera traps for wildlife studies. A review. Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and Environment 18:446–454. Walker, M. B. 2001. Soil survey of Hancock County, Illinois. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., USA. Wearn, O. R., and P. Glover‐Kapfer. 2017. Camera‐trapping for conservation: a guide to best practices. WWF Conservation Technology Series 1:1–181. WWF‐UK, Woking, U.K. Wellington, K., C. Bottom, C. Merrill, and J. A. Litvaitis. 2014. Identifying performance differences among trail cameras used to monitor forest mammals. Wildlife Society Bulletin 38:634–63. Williams, B. K., J. D. Nichols, and M. J. Conroy. 2002. Analysis and management of animal populations. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA. Associate Editor: B. Collier. How to cite this article: Swearingen, T. C., R. W. Klaver, C. R. Anderson, Jr., and C. N. Jacques. 2023. Influence of camera model and alignment on the performance of paired camera stations. Wildlife Society Bulletin e1422. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1422 23285540, 0, Downloaded from https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1422 by Colorado Parks & Wildlife, Wiley Online Library on [10/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License CHARACTERISTICS OF PAIRED CAMERA STATION PERFORMANCE � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Journal Articles Description An account of the resource CPW peer-reviewed journal publications Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Influence of camera model and alignment on the performance of paired camera stations Description An account of the resource The probability of obtaining images of target species may vary across camera models or relative position of cameras at survey locations. Alignment of cameras within paired camera stations (hereafter, stations) could affect species detection due to issues with image exposure. We quantified effects of 3 camera models and alignment (staggered, offset by a perpendicular distance of 4.6&thinsp;m, and aligned, directly facing one another) on camera performance in a station design. Mean exposure events (flash from one camera overexposes or underexposes pictures) at aligned stations was 3.93 (SE&thinsp;=&thinsp;1.01; n&thinsp;=&thinsp;40), whereas no exposure events were documented at staggered (n&thinsp;=&thinsp;36) stations. Overall frequency of exposure events of mammal images at aligned cameras was 44% (68 exposure events/153 images). On average, 8% (range 0−35%) of mammal images from aligned stations were exposure events. We detected no difference (P&thinsp;=&thinsp;0.88) in exposure events among paired camera models. Further, we detected no overall differences (P&thinsp;≥&thinsp;0.07) in paired camera performance (i.e., number of mammal images over survey interval) between aligned or staggered stations, though reliability (i.e., percentage of camera stations that lasted entire survey interval) varied (P&thinsp;≤&thinsp;0.001) between model types. Research deploying 2 cameras within a camera station framework can eliminate exposure events by using a staggered camera alignment without affecting the number of usable mammal photos. Rigorous field testing prior to deployment of stations is warranted to optimize reliability. One of our low-cost models performed as well as a more expensive model within our paired camera stations at collecting mammal images, and thus could be incorporated into study designs without compromising quality of camera photo data. We suggest a pilot study before large-scale deployment to evaluate reliability and performance of cameras, particularly when deploying multiple models. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Swearingen, T. C., R. W. Klaver, C. R. Anderson Jr., and C. N. Jacques. 2023. Influence of camera model and alignment on the performance of paired camera stations. Wildlife Society Bulletin e1422. doi.org/ 10.1002/wsb.1422 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Swearingen, Tim C. Klaver, Robert W. Anderson, Jr, Charles R. Jacques, Christopher N. Subject The topic of the resource Bilateral images Camera trapping Sampling bias Spatial alignment Paired camera station Extent The size or duration of the resource. 11 pages Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/">IN COPYRIGHT - NON-COMMERCIAL USE PERMITTED</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource English Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Wildlife Society Bulletin Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Date Accepted Date of acceptance of the resource. Examples of resources to which a Date Accepted may be relevant are a thesis (accepted by a university department) or an article (accepted by a journal). 11/30/2022 Date Issued Date of formal issuance (e.g., publication) of the resource. 01/10/2023 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 11/30/2022 Date Submitted Date of submission of the resource. Examples of resources to which a Date Submitted may be relevant are a thesis (submitted to a university department) or an article (submitted to a journal). 11/01/2022 Type The nature or genre of the resource Article