Hey all,

Based on this journal post:
https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/loarie/49823-question-about-the-traditional-project-aggregator
We've turned off the automatic aggregator for this project. The project still exists, the observations made are still a part of the project, but we'll only aggregate after longer periods of time (by manually selecting this option) to add more observations.

In the meantime, since this is addressing a taxon and a place, the explore feature is a better way to examine the data (and better for iNat as a whole).

Here are the carnivores of DFW using the explore function:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=57484&taxon_id=41573

If you have any questions or comments, be sure to mention them here! Thanks!

I just turned on the 'automatic aggregator' for this project. The two rules: the observation must be within the DFW metroplex and it must be of the order Carnivora.

Set up some camera traps, look for tracks, and always keep that camera ready! Thanks for all of the contributions.

Congratulations everyone on reaching 1,000 observations on the DFW Carnivores Project!

Due to the lack of vegetation and a lot of moisture, NOW is the time of year when carnivores and their sign can be seen. On your next hike/walk/outing, keep an eye out for carnivore sign. Mud puddles, stream banks, sand bars, and culverts are great places to detect tracks, but as always, be safe and know your surroundings.

Keep up the excellent work!

I recently gave a presentation on the DFW Carnivores iNaturalist Project at the International Urban Wildlife Conference in Chicago, IL. For that presentation, all the data was analyzed and here are some results of that analysis:

As of February 7, 2015...
o The project consisted of 581 Observations
o 83% of Observations contained a photo, 88% of those without a photo contained a narrative
o 11 different species and 17 Taxa were represented
o Most observations for native carnivores: 202 Bobcat, 173 Coyote, 117 Raccoon, 20 Striped Skunk, 15 Gray Fox, & 7 River Otter,
o Observation Types: 55% Visual, 19% Trail Camera, 15% Tracks, 7% Bones/Carcass, 4% Scat, < 1% for Call/Vocalization & Other
o Observations occurred in 48 incorporated municipalities
o The top 25 contributors contributed 80% of the data and each user averaged 6.5 observations submitted to the DFW Carnivores Project
o 37% of Observations used the Obscured or Private Geoprivacy Option

Requests:

1. Please continue to adjust your Spatial Accuracy values to reflect your level of confidence in the location of your observation. That has profound implications for use in developing habitat models.
2. Complete your iNaturalist Profile! It helps us gauge your experience and credibility, especially when you’re unable to include a photo (we’ve all been there!). You certainly don’t need to be an expert, but when Users have an obscure Username and no Profile, it’s very difficult to include their observation/s in an analysis when maintaining integrity in the data.
   
3. Keep Up The Great Work!

Derek

A very nice segment on the DFW Urban Bobcat Study aired on the Texas Parks & Wildlife PBS Television Show. http://youtu.be/0mbGhS9ZNhQ

Bobcat sightings reported to this project will be used in many ways, but one use is to test products (e.g. habitat models and maps) generated using bobcat GPS collar data.

Now that the ground is soft, vegetation is gone, and breeding season is underway, late winter is often the best time of year for observing carnivores and their sign. As you're out fighting off cabin fever, be sure to look for tracks in the mud and (dare I say) snow!

Keep up the good work!

A paper was recently published on a study that collected bobcat sightings from the public in order to 1) test habitat models/maps created from GPS collared bobcats and 2) create habitat models and maps using that sightings data to see if such a technique was practical technique for identifying habitat and population demographics to aid in conservation.

One issue the researchers attempted to address was the bias associated with public sightings. In their situation, bobcats were frequently viewed in backyards and crossing roads, thus habitat models and maps reflected that bias.

Data collected on the DFW Carnivores Project will be used in a similar way, but for more species than just bobcats. Analyzing this data will also include addressing bias, but we suspect observer bias in Dallas-Ft Worth will be quite different than New Hampshire. If you have ideas or suggestions on how to address this bias then please share!
Article: Modeling Bobcat Lynx rufus Habitat Associations Using Telemetry Locations and Citizen-Scientist Observations: Are the Results Comparable?
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2981/wlb.00022

Sharing a post from the Mammals of Texas...

The folks over at the LA Museum of Natural History project recently posted a great article on the importance of accuracy in iNaturalist. They call it "the least obvious, most important data element."

Check out the article here: http://www.inaturalist.org/projects/959/journal/3263

The ‘DFW Carnivores’ project is nearing 300 observations! An update in February 2014 revealed that 94% of the then 246 observations contained a photo for identification and occurred within 29 different cities. Most observations were of a live animal (64%), but trail camera photos were also common (23%), and tracks, scat, and roadkill/carcasses made up the rest (13%).
At that time, there were 80 bobcat observations (now nearing 90), 93% contained a photo, and were also in 29 different cities. Now that bobcats have been equipped with GPS collars, it will be interesting to see if any of their sightings get reported to this project.
Pleasant surprises include 4 river otter and 3 mink observations! Hopefully more are submitted to shed light on the presence and distribution of these semiaquatic mammals.
Please continue to spread word of this iNaturalist project and thank you for your contributions!
A local news story on the DFW Urban Bobcat Project and iNaturalist:
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/24676653/lone-star-adventure-urban-bobcat-study
Texas Parks and Wildlife News Release:
http://www.tpwd.texas.gov/newsmedia/releases/?req=20140210c&nrtype=all&nrspan=2014&nrsearch=

As you continue to add observations to iNaturalist, it’s very helpful to periodically review and edit your past observations. Why? Well, as time passes following the observation, we forget the fine details regarding the location, time of day, animal behavior, and all the other features not captured in the photo. Ideally, we should include all the fine details when first adding a new observation, but in reality many of us don’t have the time, especially if we’re adding numerous observations in one sitting! Those things are important to your experience as the lucky observer, but also to everyone interested in those details or hopes to use that observation for research. With winter coming, managing your personal observations is a good way to relive your outdoor adventures on a cold winter day!

Here are a few things to look for when reviewing and editing your personal observations:

SPECIES NAME. If you agree with the suggestions made for your observation (whether they disagree with your original ID or they’re responding to your request for assistance), be sure to select the ‘agree’ link. Also, remove an observation from the ‘ID Please’ list if you agree with the suggestions you received. Failing to do so will keep that yellow ‘ID Please’ tag on your observation.

TIME. To be fair, iNaturalist doesn’t have a unique window just for time, so we rarely include it in an observation. Time might be a tough thing to remember of a past observation, but a digital time stamp or trail camera caption are easy sources for that information.

ACCURACY LEVEL. You may have selected the exact location of your observation on the map, but the accuracy level hasn’t been edited to reflect your confidence in that location. iNaturalist has its own way of trying to access accuracy (it does so by considering how zoomed in you are on the Google Map window before selecting the location), but that can be very far off. For example, if you know the location of a bridge where you recorded skunk tracks, your accuracy level should not be greater than the width of the bridge, right? But if you selected that bridge while the map was zoomed out to a city-wide scale, your accuracy level might be >2000 meters! You might also have a wildly high accuracy value if you used your phone app and the GPS was performing poorly. My phone is notorious for doing that!

You can manually insert an accuracy value or grow/shrink the accuracy buffer (i.e. red circle) around your location. To a researcher, the accuracy of an observation location is often exceedingly more valuable than the quality of the photo!

GEOPRIVACY LEVEL. You may be inclined to increase or decrease your geoprivacy level for observations. Concerned about an animal being harassed or revealing the location of your favorite birding spot, trail camera, or home? Then increase the geoprivacy. Not concerned about revealing the location of a plant or animal that’s found everywhere? Consider decreasing the geoprivacy.

DESCRIPTION. Have a story to go along with the observation? The description window is where you can add the story and as many details as possible. Did you have a chance encounter with a critter and weren’t able to get a photo? Here’s where you can describe what you saw to establish credibility for the sighting.

ALSO examine the unique fields for the various projects you contribute to. In the DFW Carnivores project these fields include:

DETECTION TYPE.
Examine your observation to see if you have selected the appropriate option from the dropdown list. For example, if you saw a dead animal, the selection should be ‘bones/carcass’ and not ‘visual’, the option designated for observing a live animal.

TRAIL CAMERA TYPE.
This optional field is for iNaturalists to share the brand and model of the trail camera (also known as a game camera) that took the photo, and hopefully the ‘Trail Camera’ is selected in the Detection Type field! Those devices are advancing rapidly and it’s helpful to see the how they compare. Some have included the brand of personal camera used to obtain the photograph, but there’s nothing wrong with that, it still helps for those of us interested in product performance!

Please add a comment to this post to share your input!

Some great advice from the Mammals of Texas iNat project:

Tracks are an excellent way to document many of the more secretive mammals, but how you photograph them dramatically effects whether others will be able see enough to provide an identification.
Here are a few tips on taking photos of tracks that will help make it easy for others to identify them later.

1) Include a scale. Whenever possible, include a ruler in the photo. If you don't have a ruler, use a coin or paper currency as those are a consistent size. Pocket knives come in many sizes and are therefore unhelpful for use as a scale.

2) Shade the track. In bright light, your photos will often look much better if the track is shaded. This also eliminates dark shadows that can distort the track.

3) Take a close up and a contextual photo. Take a good close up photo of the track as well as a photo from a little ways back that includes the gait pattern and other associated tracks. A photo of the general area that shows the habitat can also be helpful. Because iNat allows it, submit all of these photos in a single observation as they all serve as clues for track/sign identification.

Good luck & keep up the good work!