data:InDoRES
Not a member yet
398 research outputs found
Sort by
Coastal Protected Areas in the Anthropocene: An inventory of reconnection projects to the sea and alternative management strategies in Europe (RECOSEA)
No full textOver the past 50 years, nature conservation has greatly increased along the European coastlines, reflecting both a strong diversification of protection frameworks (Nature Reserves, National Parks, Natura 2000…) and an increase in the number of protected areas. Conservation projects have been then implemented by various stakeholders with many different targets (birds, ecosystems, habitats, landscapes…) but have been progressively threatened by climate change, and especially by sea level rise and storms intensity. Given their long history of land reclamation, coastal wetlands are here particularly affected. In such a context, nature conservation projects and strategies have increasingly shifted by planning to reconnect all or part of the areas concerned to the sea or by letting nature take its course (Andreu-Boussut and Chadenas, 2022), or less frequently by reinforcing coastal defences. In other words, nature conservation strategies and practices are progressively dealing with coastline protection and managed realignment in order to restore intertidal habitats and to provide ecosystem services such as protection from flooding or carbon storage. This dataset therefore provides an inventory of these alternative conservation projects, already implemented or in the process of implementation, categorized by a typology ranging from strategies of maintaining and defending the current coastline, strategies of adaptation by managed realignment, strategies of ecological restoration and strategies of less intervention and do nothing approaches (Chadenas and al., 2021; de la Vega and al., 2025). 307 conservation projects have been collected up to April 2024 in eight countries: Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, United Kingdom, Ireland and Spain. Each project is unique and tailor-made and may combine several methods and different strategies in a more or less complex way. This dataset was initiated within the WILD EUROPE research project (https://eso.cnrs.fr/fr/node/projet-de-recherche/8901/7444/towards-wilder-europe; https://alliance-europa.eu/en/project/wild-europe-towards-a-wilder-europe/) and the typology of scenarios was then tested in the PEDALO research project (https://letg.cnrs.fr/recherche/pedalo-les-espaces-naturels-proteges-dans-le-contexte-du-changement-global-auront-ils-les-pieds-dans-leau/). The database was finally completed within the Horizon Europe REWRITE research project (https://rewriteproject.eu/)
Replication data for: Fig 10.2, Upper left, BTPDs, coterie size vs coterie type vs copulating females, 10 Dec 2025
No full textFILE DESCRIPTION
Keywords: black-tailed prairie dog, coterie size, coterie type, copulating females
File name = Fig 10.2, Upper left, BTPDs, coterie size vs coterie type vs copulating females, 10 Dec 2025
OLDFile name = BTPDs, Cottype vs cotsize and vs copfems, 11 Feb 2025
This file is IDENTICAL to BTPDs, Male ARS for cops, babies, and yearlings vs coterie size, 02 Sept 2021
See notes immediately below.
I also studied BTPDs at my study colony in 1987. I do not know why 1987 data are not shown here.
I created this file from SYSTAT file = MRSVSCOT.SYS, which I created on 10 Oct 1989
I assume that I checked this file TWO TIMES for my first book (Hoogland 1995)
File name = BTPDs, Male ARS for cops, babies, and yearlings vs coterie size, 02 Sept 2021
In this file, cops = number of sexual partners, babies = number of emergent babies sired,
and yearling = number of yearlings sired for BTPD males
Year = year when coterie was scored for coterie size, coterie type, and so forth.
Cotsize = coterie size = number of adult and yearling BTPDs living in same coterie territory
Cottype = Coterie type. See below for definitions.
Females that copulated = number of females in coterie that copulated
Litters = number of litters weaned for each coterie
All sirings determined via electrophoresis by David Foltz
Weanlings = number juveniles in coterie that emerged from natal burrow entrance
Yearling = number of weanlings in coterie that survived for >=9 months
These data used for Figure 10.2 in Hoogland 2026.
This file ready for longterm storage on 11 Feb 2025.
Adult females = number of >=2-year old females
All females = number of adult and yearling females
No-male coterie had no resident sexually mature male in May
Half-male coterie shared a single sexually mature male in May with another coterie
One-male coterie had a single resident sexually mature male in May
Multi-male coterie had >=2 sexually mature males in May
For more information about coterie types, see Chapter 10 of Hoogland 2025
Yrlfems = yearling females = females that were one-year old
MOST yearling BTPD females did not copulate, but a few did.
File name = Fig 10.2, Upper left, BTPDs, coterie size vs coterie type vs copulating females, 10 Dec 2025
All BTPD coterie sizes and coterie types are from either April or MAY
Morphometric data of 42 deep-pelagic fish species sampled in the bay of Biscay (Northeast Atlantic ocean)
No full textThe dataset contains measurements of 29 morphological traits taken from 722 individuals belonging to 42 species of epipelagic, mesopelagic, and bathypelagic fish. The samples were collected using night-time pelagic trawling in the Bay of Biscay (Northeast Atlantic Ocean) between 2001 and 2022 during EVHOE (Evaluation Halieutique de l'Ouest de l'Europe) scientific cruises (https://doi.org/10.18142/8). These morphological traits were recognized as playing a role in species' foraging strategies (Parin, 1971; Gatz, 1979; Webb, 1984; Sibbing and Nagelkerke, 2000; Karpouzi and Stergiou, 2003; Dumay et al., 2004; Boyle and Horn, 2006; Diderich, 2006; Albouy et al., 2011; Keat-Chuan et al., 2017; Habib et al., 2019; Andresen et al., 2024). To ensure the replication of the measurements, between three and 38 individuals per species were measured. Of these 29 morphological traits, 19 were numeric (e.g. standard length, mouth width and eye diameter), seven were categorical (e.g. the presence or absence of ventral photophores or fang teeth) and two were ordinal with three categories (i.e. gill raker types and oral gape axis)
Replication data for: BTPDs, coterie extinction, coterie size; 05 Dec 2025
No full textFILE DESCRIPTION
Keywords: BTPDs, coterie extinction, coterie size
File name = BTPDs, coterie extinction, coterie size; 05 Dec 2025
OLD File name = BTPDs, Extinction vs coterie size, 18 Sept 2021
I created this file from SYSTAT file = Extinction.sys, 08 October 1989
I will use this file to compare probability for extinction of a coterie
vs coterie size.
Sample size here = 273 clans. Sample size in Hoogland 1995 (Figure 13.28,
Page 327) was 275. I cannot explain the difference, and will not pursue.
Extinct = 0 = Coterie DID go extinct (N = 23) before next mating season
Extinct = 1 = Coterie DID NOT go extinct (N = 250) before next mating season
I assume that I checked SYSTAT file = Extinction.sys, 08 October 1989
TWO TIMES at creation, because I used it for Hoogland 1995 (page 327)
These data used for Figure 9.13 in Hoogland 2026.
This file ready for longterm storage on 06 Feb 2025.
year = 76 = 1976, year = 80 = 1980, year - 87 = 1987
coterie size = number of adult and yearling BTPDs living in same coterie territory in MAY
BTPD adult female was >=2 years old
This file does NOT contain any information about juveniles in home coterie territory
File name = BTPDs, coterie extinction, coterie size; 05 Dec 202
Replication data for: Fig 9.5 + 9.6 + 0.7 + 0.9, WTPDs, clansize, clantype, clancomps, 04 Dec 2025
No full textFILE DESCRIPTION
Keywords: WTPDs, clansize, clantype, clancomps
File name = Fig 9.5 + 9.6 + 0.7 + 0.9, WTPDs, clansize, clantype, clancomps, 04 Dec 2025
OLD File name = WTPDs, clan sizes, clan comps, 04 April 2020
Date = 04 April 2020
For WTPDs, I knew the exact area for the following study areas: 35-90, Jane, John, Kathleen,
Oreo, Rick, and West Barn Triangle. I know these areas from calculations by David McCray
of Valles Caldera National Preserve.
From these exact areas, I have calculated the approximate area for each clan territory for
2006 through 2012. Usually I did that by dividing the exact area by the number of clans
in each study area. But sometimes I gave more area to certain clans and less area to
other clans, depending on our observations of who slept and interacted where.
I have checked this file ONE TIME ONLY.
Note well: For this file, I counted each male in a half-male coterie as 1 rather than 0.5.
I used this same logic for half-male coteries of BTPDs and half-male clans of GPDs.
Clan type = 0 = No male clan = no resident sexually mature male
Clan type = 0.5 = half-male clan
Clan type = 1 = one-male clan
Clan type = 2 = two-male clan
NM = No Male = No resident sexually mature male in home territory
For more information about clan types, see Chapter 10 of Hoogland 2026
SM males = sexually mature males, regardless of age
Ad fems = adult females, all of whom copulated
I assume that all sexually mature Adult males copulated at least once, but I did not always SEE that cop
SIM Yrl males = sexually immature yearling males
Note well: I could not easily match territory size and clan density for
for No-Male clans--so I have just entered NO DATA for values for
territory size and clan density for NM clans
These clan sizes are for MAY.
If one SI male was in a clan and another SI male lived in that clan and
shared another clan, I consider the number of SI males to be TWO.
If two SI males shared the same two clans, then I consider each clan
to have TWO SI males (e.g., 6A-42A and 6B-42Bin 2008).
Some changes made on 04 April 2020:
For 2012, I consider 13, 14, and 17 as sexually immature
In 2009, I consider 38 as sexually immature
For 2008, I consider 49 as sexually mature. Not sure about this assignment.
For 2006, 21 was PS, No DT--so I consider him sexually mature
15, 20, and 38 all copulated in 2010
8 copulated in 2009
I did NOT calculate the territory sizes for certain WTPD clans. I knew
the clan sizes for many clans but had not information about the territory size.
I did NOT calculate the territory sizes for certain GPD clans at PEFO. I knew
the clan sizes for many clans but had no information about the territory size.
All data in this file checked TWO TIMES by JLH alone on 04 April 2020
Note on 21 April 2020: Notice that entry for clan-9-43 in 2011 is CORRECT--
i.e., no data for male-9, who disappeared in late March 2011
Clansize = Clan size = Number of adults and yearlings in same territory
Clan comp = composition of clan regarding adult sexes and sexually immature yearling males
SIM Yrl male = Sexually Immature Yearling Male = Yearling male that showed no evidence
of sexual maturity--i.e., scrotum NOT pigmented, and NO descended testes and
observed copulations.
These data used for Figures 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.9, and 10.5 in Hoogland 2026.
This file ready for longterm storage on 05 Feb 2025.
File name = Fig 9.5 + 9.6 + 0.7 + 0.9, WTPDs, clansize, clantype, clancomps, 04 Dec 202
Replication data for: Fig 9.2, Coterie and clan lifespans, BGW, 03 December 2025
No full textFILE DESCRIPTION
Keywords: coterie lifespan, clan lifespan, BGW
File name: Fig 9.2, Coterie and clan lifespans, BGW, 03 December 2025
Here I compare (A) Lifespan of BTPD territory vs (b) Lifespan of GPD territory
vs lifespan of WTPD territory
For BTPDs, I cut and paste data from SYSTAT file = cotspan.sys, which I used for
Hoogland 1995 (my first book, The black-tailed prairie dog) and created on
�� 10 October 1989. I assume all data checked TWO TIMES upon creation.
Coterie or clan number = numerical designation for each coterie or clan.
For GPDs, I cut and paste data from SYSTAT file = gterrdur.sys, which I used
for Hoogland 1999 (Philopatry, dispersal, and social organization...) . I assume all GPD data
checked TWO TIMES UPON CREATION.
Lifespan = number of consecutive years for which at least one coterie or clan female--or their
their female descendants--survived.
No data for Utah prairie dogs, because I did not calculate UPD territories every year
Output for both BTPDs and GPDs is identical to output for Hoogland 1995 and Hoogland 1999.
BTPD = black-tailed prairie dog, GPD = Gunnison's prairie dog,
WTPD = white-tailed prairie dog
These data used for Figure 9.2 in Hoogland 2026.
This file ready for longterm storage on 04 Feb 2025.
I add WTPD data on 03 Nov 2025. These WTPD data not published previously
File name: Fig 9.2, Coterie and clan lifespans, BGW, 03 December 202
Aisne: Cours de l'Aisne de Condé-sur-Aisne à Pontavert (18ème siècle)
No full textCarte explicative des travaux faits par les entrepreneurs de la rivière d'Aisne suivant le plan dressé en 1784 de Condé-sur-Aisne à Pontavert.
Carte du 18ème siècle géoréférencée à l'aide de la carte d’État-Major. Il n'y a pas suffisamment de repères hors de la rivière pour effectuer un géoréférencement correct mais on distingue le gué (à l'emplacement de l'actuel pont) de Pontavert, une boucle de l'Aisne dans Pontavert qui alimente le moulin et plusieurs îles en amont de Pontavert.
Raster GeoTIFF : EAT_Aisne_Conde_Pontavert_1784.tif
Service des Cartes et Plans des Archives Nationales. Cote AN F/14/10049/1/7.
Numérisation en 2014. Géoréférencement en 2016 par Laurence LESTEL. Métadonnées par Laurence LESTEL. Mise en ligne en avril 2016.</p
Database of 75 endocasts and 75 brains obtained on the same sample of volunteers
No full textA total of 75 patients (36 females, 39 males, age range: 18–75 years) were recruited during the PaleoBRAIN project for complementary biological and behavioural experiments. MRI acquisitions occurred at the Center for Neuroimaging Research, Brain Institute, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France, in 2022 and 2023. The ‘Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud-Méditerranée II’ approved the research protocol for the imaging centre used for this study (comity reference 221 B38, identification number 2021-A02404-37). All volunteers underwent, in particular, T1 and ultrashort time-to-echo (UTE) sequences. Those data were used to reconstruct 3D models of the brain and endocast of each of the volunteers
Dataset of UAV photogrammetry, electromagnetic surveys, and sedimentary archives from the mid-late holocene on the Ras al-Jinz site (Sultanate of Oman)
No full textThis dataset is composed of 7 files and folders (2 files and 5 folders) and a Read_me file :
- DEM: Digital Elevation Model produced by SFM with high resolution (4.5 cm) (.tif)
- 14C_Dates_RJ3: C14 dating of sediment logs (.csv)
- Trenches : Vector file of trenches location in UTM zone 40N (.shp)
- RJ3-Electromag: Vector file of geophysical measurements location in UTM zone 40N (.shp)
- Ras_al_Jinz_Img: Drone images of Ras al Jinz site (.jpg)
- Log_location: Vector files of sedimentary logs location by periods in UTM zone 40N (.shp)
- Drone_targets: Vector file of drone targets in UTM zone 40N (.shp
Replication data for: Fig 9.4 + 9.6, BTPDs, cotsize, cottype, cotcomps, 04 Dec 2020
No full textFILE DESCRIPTION
Keywords: BTPDs, coterie sizes, coterie types, coterie compositions
File name = Fig 9.4 + 9.6, BTPDs, cotsize, cottype, cotcomps, 04 Dec 2020
OLD File name = BTPDs, cotsize, cottype, SM females, 01 May 2020
* = Change made on 14 or 15 April 2020
Note well: These numbers are for MAY. Prior to today, most of my BTPD counts are from APRIL.
For example, all data for coterie sizes in Hoogland 1995 are for APRIL rather than May.
To ponder: Should I use APRIL COUNTS for infanticide data?--because so many BTPD kills
occurred in April rather than the May kills for UPDs and GPDs.
Note Appendix B in Hoogland 1995, for example: Almost ALL kills occur in April rather than May.
By contrast, most UPD and GPD kills occurred in May rather than April.
For this table, SM male = sexually mature male., including some BTPD yearling males that copulated.
Adfem = >=2 year old female. I do NOT score yearlings that copulated as Adfems for this table.
If a BTPD male was >=2 years old but showed not evidence of sexual activity (No Pigmented Scrotum [PS],
No Descended testes [DT] or no observed copulations), then I scored that male as a SI male.
SI male = sexually inactive in year of observation.
Conclusion: I SHOULD use April counts for infanticides vs ward density for BTPDs--I think.
On 15 April 2020, I check everything in this table TWO TIMES.
On 01 May 2020, I include fems that did not cop, and I add yearling fems that copped or weaned a litter
On 01 May 2020 I also compute the column of SM-Allfems. This column includes (a) adult BTPD fems
that copped; (b) subtracts fems that did NOT cop; and (c) adds yearling fems that either copped or weaned
a litter.
Adfems-No cop = adult BTPD fems that did not cop--to be subtracted to compute SM-Allfems
Yrlfens w/cop = yearling BTPDs that either copped or weaned a litter.
This file has been checked TWO TIMES on 01 May 2020
Cottype = Type of coterie = One-male (1), Multi-male (2), Half-male (0.5), and No-Male (0)
See Chapter 10 of Hoogland 2026 for more information about types of coteries
Yrlfems = yearling females = one-year old females.
In 1986, R51 and R76 came into estrus two times. In 1987, R71 came
into estrus two times. I score each of these double-estrus females
one time only in this file. I also scored several double-estrous
ADULT FEMALES one time only in this file.
These data used for Figures 9.4 and 9.6 in Hoogland 2026.
This file ready for longterm storage on 04 Feb 2025.
SM-Allfems = summation females of all ages that copulated
76 = 1976, 79 = 1979, 80 = 1980, 87 = 1987, etc.
Cotsize = coterie size = number of adults and yearlings in home coterie territory in May
SM males = sexually mature/active males
File name = Fig 9.4 + 9.6, BTPDs, cotsize, cottype, cotcomps, 04 Dec 202