Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Mark C. Otto is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Mark C. Otto.


Journal of Business & Economic Statistics | 1998

New Capabilities and Methods of the X-12-ARIMA Seasonal-Adjustment Program

David F. Findley; Brian C. Monsell; William R. Bell; Mark C. Otto; Bor-Chung Chen

X-12-ARIMA is the Census Bureaus new seasonal-adjustment program. It provides four types of enhancements to X-ll-ARIMA—(1) alternative seasonal, trading-day, and holiday effect adjustment capabilities that include adjustments for effects estimated with user-defined regressors; additional seasonal and trend filter options; and an alternative seasonal-trend-irregular decomposition; (2) new diagnostics of the quality and stability of the adjustments achieved under the options selected; (3) extensive time series modeling and model-selection capabilities for linear regression models with ARIMA errors, with optional robust estimation of coefficients; (4) a new user interface with features to facilitate batch processing large numbers of series.


PLOS ONE | 2015

A Collision Risk Model to Predict Avian Fatalities at Wind Facilities: An Example Using Golden Eagles, Aquila chrysaetos

Leslie New; Emily Bjerre; Brian A. Millsap; Mark C. Otto; Michael C. Runge

Wind power is a major candidate in the search for clean, renewable energy. Beyond the technical and economic challenges of wind energy development are environmental issues that may restrict its growth. Avian fatalities due to collisions with rotating turbine blades are a leading concern and there is considerable uncertainty surrounding avian collision risk at wind facilities. This uncertainty is not reflected in many models currently used to predict the avian fatalities that would result from proposed wind developments. We introduce a method to predict fatalities at wind facilities, based on pre-construction monitoring. Our method can directly incorporate uncertainty into the estimates of avian fatalities and can be updated if information on the true number of fatalities becomes available from post-construction carcass monitoring. Our model considers only three parameters: hazardous footprint, bird exposure to turbines and collision probability. By using a Bayesian analytical framework we account for uncertainties in these values, which are then reflected in our predictions and can be reduced through subsequent data collection. The simplicity of our approach makes it accessible to ecologists concerned with the impact of wind development, as well as to managers, policy makers and industry interested in its implementation in real-world decision contexts. We demonstrate the utility of our method by predicting golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) fatalities at a wind installation in the United States. Using pre-construction data, we predicted 7.48 eagle fatalities year-1 (95% CI: (1.1, 19.81)). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service uses the 80th quantile (11.0 eagle fatalities year-1) in their permitting process to ensure there is only a 20% chance a wind facility exceeds the authorized fatalities. Once data were available from two-years of post-construction monitoring, we updated the fatality estimate to 4.8 eagle fatalities year-1 (95% CI: (1.76, 9.4); 80th quantile, 6.3). In this case, the increased precision in the fatality prediction lowered the level of authorized take, and thus lowered the required amount of compensatory mitigation.


Journal of Wildlife Management | 2009

A Double‐Observer Method to Estimate Detection Rate During Aerial Waterfowl Surveys

Mark D. Koneff; J. Andrew Royle; Mark C. Otto; James S. Wortham; John K. Bidwell

Abstract We evaluated double-observer methods for aerial surveys as a means to adjust counts of waterfowl for incomplete detection. We conducted our study in eastern Canada and the northeast United States utilizing 3 aerial-survey crews flying 3 different types of fixed-wing aircraft. We reconciled counts of front- and rear-seat observers immediately following an observation by the rear-seat observer (i.e., on-the-fly reconciliation). We evaluated 6 a priori models containing a combination of several factors thought to influence detection probability including observer, seat position, aircraft type, and group size. We analyzed data for American black ducks (Anas rubripes) and mallards (A. platyrhynchos), which are among the most abundant duck species in this region. The best-supported model for both black ducks and mallards included observer effects. Sample sizes of black ducks were sufficient to estimate observer-specific detection rates for each crew. Estimated detection rates for black ducks were 0.62 (SE = 0.10), 0.63 (SE = 0.06), and 0.74 (SE = 0.07) for pilot-observers, 0.61 (SE = 0.08), 0.62 (SE = 0.06), and 0.81 (SE = 0.07) for other front-seat observers, and 0.43 (SE = 0.05), 0.58 (SE = 0.06), and 0.73 (SE = 0.04) for rear-seat observers. For mallards, sample sizes were adequate to generate stable maximum-likelihood estimates of observer-specific detection rates for only one aerial crew. Estimated observer-specific detection rates for that crew were 0.84 (SE = 0.04) for the pilot-observer, 0.74 (SE = 0.05) for the other front-seat observer, and 0.47 (SE = 0.03) for the rear-seat observer. Estimated observer detection rates were confounded by the position of the seat occupied by an observer, because observers did not switch seats, and by land-cover because vegetation and landform varied among crew areas. Double-observer methods with on-the-fly reconciliation, although not without challenges, offer one viable option to account for detection bias in aerial waterfowl surveys where birds are distributed at low density in remote areas that are inaccessible by ground crews. Double-observer methods, however, estimate only detection rate of animals that are potentially observable given the survey method applied. Auxiliary data and methods must be considered to estimate overall detection rate.


The American Statistician | 2017

An Eight-Step Guide to Creating and Sustaining a Mentoring Program

Eric A. Vance; Erin Tanenbaum; Amarjot Kaur; Mark C. Otto; Richard Morris

ABSTRACT Mentoring is an extremely valuable activity for both individuals and organizations. Mentoring within organizations can develop and integrate employees into their corporate culture. Mentoring outside the mentees’ work groups or through professional development organizations can give broader perspective and support, especially in times of transition. But mentoring programs require tremendous effort to start, organize, and maintain. Few last more than two years. This article provides a structured approach to starting and sustaining a successful program. The steps include understanding an organization’s particular needs, learning from small pilot programs, following up with mentoring pairs during a committed formal mentoring period, and evaluating results from each program’s cycle to learn and grow the program. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.


Journal of Wildlife Management | 2013

Golden eagle population trends in the western United States: 1968–2010

Brian A. Millsap; Guthrie S. Zimmerman; John R. Sauer; Ryan M. Nielson; Mark C. Otto; Emily Bjerre; Robert K. Murphy


Journal of Wildlife Management | 2012

Composite analysis of black duck breeding population surveys in eastern North America

Guthrie S. Zimmerman; John R. Sauer; William A. Link; Mark C. Otto


Archive | 2007

Trends in Duck Breeding Populations, 1955-2007

Khristi Wilkins; Mark C. Otto; Guthrie S. Zimmerman; Emily D. Silverman; Mark D. Koneff


Archive | 2006

Trends in Duck Breeding Populations, 1955-2006

Khristi Wilkins; Mark C. Otto; Mark D. Koneff


Archive | 2005

Trends in Duck Breeding Populations, 1955-2005

Khristi Wilkins; Mark C. Otto; Mark D. Koneff


Journal of Wildlife Management | 2011

Monitoring bald eagles using lists of nests: Response to Watts and Duerr†‡

John R. Sauer; Mark C. Otto; William L. Kendall; Guthrie S. Zimmerman

Collaboration


Dive into the Mark C. Otto's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Guthrie S. Zimmerman

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Mark D. Koneff

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

John R. Sauer

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Brian A. Millsap

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Emily Bjerre

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

William R. Bell

United States Census Bureau

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

David F. Findley

United States Census Bureau

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Emily D. Silverman

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge