data:InDoRES
Not a member yet
398 research outputs found
Sort by
Yonne: Cours de l'Yonne depuis Auxerre jusqu'à Gurgy, carte de Chanoine (1837)
No full textCours de l'Yonne et plan des emplacements des 35 barrages mobiles proposés pour l'amélioration de la navigation de l'Yonne, depuis Auxerre jusqu'à Gurgy.
Carte de Jacques Chanoine, ingénieur ordinaire attaché à la navigation de l'Yonne, à Sens (1837).</p
Replication data for Fig 9.14 + 10.8, UPDs, clan size and clan type vs male ARS, 05 Dec 2025
No full textFILE DESCRIPTION
Keywords: UPDs, clan size, clantype, male ARS
File name = Fig 9.14 + 10.8, UPDs, clan size and clan type vs male ARS, 05 Dec 2025
New/old file name on 20 May 2022: UPDs, male ARS vs clansize, clantype, 20 May 2022
This file checked with Judy on 18 May 2022. This file results from merging of data from two
other files, as noted below. All data from both source files checked TWO TIMES at their creation.
I created this file by adding data from (a) File name = UPDs, Male ARS vs wt, clansize, clantype, 24 Sept 2021 to
the following file: New file name on 10 Jan 2022: UPDs, Male ARS for cops,babies,yrls, NO INFERS, FINAL, 29 Jan 2022
Both of these files were checked TWO TIMES on 18-20 May 2022; See scrambled notes below
Column's G through R are from file = UPDs, Male ARS for cops,babies,yrls, NO INFERS, FINAL, 29 Jan 2022
Columns A through E are from file = UPDs, Male ARS vs wt, clansize, clantype, 24 Sept 2021 to
I have included A through E and G through R together to verify that I matched the UPDs correctly from the two files
I do not know why R01 (F3X) was in one file from 24 Sept 2021 but not the other from 29 Jan 2022
Much information in computer file that is NOT in hard copy
Info for R02 (F3X) in 2005 added on 19 May 2022; NO COPS for R01 in 2005, so no effect on
estimates of ARS or LRS
All paternities from microsatellites = microsats determined by Stephen R Keller and Regina Trott
Sexpartners is my BEST ESTIMATE of a UPD males number of sexual partners. These are the same estimates
I used for Chapter 20 on polygyny for file = Male ARS for cops
Note well: Notes and comments in blue below are hard to follow and understand--but I include them.
Sired weanlings = best estimate of number of emergent juveniles sired by each male
Sired yearlings = best estimate of number of yearlings sired by each male = emergent juveniles that survived for >=9 months
Earsample = Yes = we DID collect an ear-sample for DNA analyses; Earsample = No = no earsample
Earsample = blank = missing data? Sample lost? No useable data from ear-sample?
Clantype = type of clan = No-male or One-male or Multi-male or Half-male
Clan type = 0 = No-male clan
Clan type = 0.5 = Half-male clan--but I do not see any half-male clans in this file!
Clan type = 1 = One-male clan
Clan type = 2 = Multi-male clan
See Chapter 10 of Hoogland 2026 for descriptions of coterie and clan types.
Sexual partners = number of different females with whom male copulated
These UPD data used for Fig 9.14 and 10.8 in Hoogland 2026.
This file ready for longterm storage on 07 Feb 2025.
Male age = male's age in years = number of years since first emergence from natal nursery burrow
All UPD paternities from microsats determined by Stephen R Keller and Regina Trott
Microsat = microsatellite
Note: Comments (in blue in computer file) below are confusing and hard to follow, but I include them.
I created this file by adding data from (a) File name = UPDs, Male ARS vs wt, clansize, clantype, 24 Sept 2021 to
the following file: New file name on 10 Jan 2022: UPDs, Male ARS for cops,babies,yrls, NO INFERS, FINAL, 29 Jan 2022
Date = 18 Aug 2021
File name = UPDs, Male ARS for cops with 0s, 18 Aug 2021
This file is a REVISION of an earlier file that include MAXCOPS for
Sexpartners
In this file, Sexpartners is now the BEST ESTIMATE of a UPD male's
number of sexual partners. These estimates are the SAME ESTIMATES
that I used for the chapter on Polygyny for MALE ARS FOR COPS
Date = 21 June 2019
This file has been checked two times, once by JLH alone, once with Judy.
If one of could not see a male and his territory well,
then I did not record any information on his copulations.
For a few duplicate eartags in 2005, I added the
suffix "A" to avoid confusion
On 18 Aug 2021, I make the following three changes to SEXPARTNERS: male-12 (H87) in 1997 (from 5 to 4)
male-9 (H51) in 1998 (from 9 to 10), and male-04 (393) in 2004 (from 3 to 4)
This revised file has been checked TWO TIMES on 16 Aug 2021
On 14-17 Aug 2021, I check Sexpartners when Sexpartners >=1.
I do NOT check cases for which SEXPARTNERS = 0. I checked these
values TWO TIMES when I first created this file on 19 June 2019
But I have made a few adjustments to SEXPARTNERS = 0 on
16-17 Aug 2021
On 17 Aug 2021, I delete data for 35 (J71) in 1998. Too many missed cops.
On 20 Dec 2021, I add information for babies from microsats.
This file contains data for ONLY THOSE UPD MALES THAT COPPED WITH
>=1 FEMALE---and
This is probably a good idea to verify that each male was sexually active
I have DELETED DATA FROM MALES THAT DID NOT COP IN A YEAR
In this file, a blank cell for Sexpartners or Babies = 0 or no data
On 21 Dec 2021, I check data on babies TWO TIMES.
Note that data on Sexpartners and Male's age was checked
TWO TIMES when those data entered for another file on 16 Aug 2021
On 22 Dec 2021, I use a global command to change all BLANK CELLS under
Babies to 0. Some of these cells already had 0s.
Note well on 22 Dec 2021: Many problems remain with UPD assignments of
paternities from microsats. If Steve Keller finds a better way to use these
data, then many of the results might change.
Data from earsamples (Yes or No) all checked TWO TIMES on 23 Dec 2021
Data on yearlings entered on 26 Dec 2021
On 27 Dec 2021, information on YEARLINGS checked TWO TIMES.
Other information checked TWO TIMES in earlier versions of this file.
On 05 Jan 2022, I enter "missing data" (.) for the following UPD males for which >=5 loci
are missing: 951, A51X, C81X, C95, D21, and F33X. I got information on these missing loci from
Steve Keller TODAY. For all six UPD males of this list for which I have entered missing data,
the previous scores for babies and yearlings were always 0 and 0.
Note on 05 Jan 2021: Everything in this file has now been checked TWO TIMES
Note well: Info from microsats in 2005 is pathetic. I only use info from microsats
to identify babies for THREE MALES (2, H3X; 14, 323; 46, 523). Information for babies for all other males in
2005 is listed as "missing data" (.).
2005 was out last year at BCNP's Horse Corral Colony. So, I have
NO INFORMATION ON SIRED YEARLINGS FOR ANY MALES FROM 2005
Note on 07 Jan 2021: Today, on 07 Jan 2022, I insert info about INFERRED COPS for UPD males
into this EXCEL file.
I did NOT use information on inferred cops for histogram of ARS for cops of UPD males.
On 08 Jan 2022, I check this file TWO TIMES
Note well: This file contains info on INFERRED COPS. I WILL use info for ARS of babies
and for ARS of yearlings, but I will NOT use info from inferred cops for ARS for Sexpartners.
This is the SAME METHODOLOGY for ARS for cops, babies, and yrls for the other 3 species.
New file name on 10 Jan 2022: UPDs, Male ARS for cops, babies, and yearlings, with 0s, 10 Jan 2022.
New file name on 10 Jan 2022: UPDs, Male ARS for cops, babies, and yearlings, with 0s, 10 Jan 2022
***New changes on 22 Jan 2022. These changes will affect ARS and LRS of 00 (C35) and 47 (E83)***
00 (C35) is highly unlikely sire, so I reject on 22 Jan 2022; New rejection
47 (E83) is highly unlikely sire, so I reject on 22 Jan 2022; New rejection
If a male was dominant in two half-male clans, I used the larger clansize for
variable = clansize
File name = Fig 9.14 + 10.8, UPDs, clan size and clan type vs male ARS, 05 Dec 202
Replication data for: Fig 9.10, BTPDs, fission vs coterie size, 05 Dec 2025
No full textFILE DESCRIPTION
Keywords: BTPDs, fission, coterie size
File name = Fig 9.10, BTPDs, fission vs coterie size, 05 Dec 2025
OLD Date = 16 May 2020
This file has data on fission vs coterie size for BTPDs.
I have created this file exactly from SYSTAT file = Fission.SYS,
which I created on 09 October 1989.
I trust this file was checked TWO TIMES upon creation for my book.
The stats that I get are IDENTICAL to the stats for Figure 6.16 of
Hoogland 1995 (page 122)
For this file, Fission = 0 = NO FISSION occurred and Fission = 1 = Fission DID occur
Coterie size and other numerical data are for the coterie in the spring (May)
just before fission or non-fission.
Year = 76 = 1976, 80 = 1980, 87 = 1987, etc.
These data used for Figure 9.10 in Hoogland 2026.
This file ready for longterm storage on 04 Feb 2025.
These data used for Figure 9.11 in Hoogland 2026.
This file ready for longterm storage on 06 Feb 2025.
Notice that I do not have a column with "coterie designation:
Data for each line are from a single coterie in a single year.
I considered data from the same coterie in different years to be independent
File name = Fig 9.10, BTPDs, fission vs coterie size, 05 Dec 2025
Adfems = BTPD females that were >=2 years old
Coterie size = number of adults and yearlings living in the same coterie territory.
All fems includes both adult and yearling BTPD females
File name = Fig 9.10, BTPDs, fission vs coterie size, 05 Dec 202
Replication data for: Fig 8.14, Bottom, Submergers vs nonsubmergers, BTPDs, 21 Nov 2025
No full textFILE DESCRIPTION
Keywords: alarm calls, submergers vs nonsubmergers, BTPDs
Filename = Fig 8.14, Bottom, Submergers vs nonsubmergers, BTPDs, 21 Nov 2025
OLD file name = BTPDs, Alarm calls, submergers vs nonsubmergers, 10 April 2019
These data are from BTPDs of my first book (Hoogland, 1995)
I assume all data were checked TWO TIMES, because that's what
I always did for my first book
598/2255 of BTPD submergers = 26.52% DID give alarm call in response to experimental badger
1657/2255 of BTPD submergers = 73.48% % DID NOT give alarm call in response to experimental badger
688/3299 of BTPD NON-submergers = 20.85% DID give alarm call in response to experimental badgers
2611/3299 of BTPD NON-submergers = 79.15% DID NOT give alarm call in response to experimental badgers
The data in this file are group BY YEAR. The summaries I provide
immediately above and in figure for my new book are the
SUMMATION OF DATA FROM ALL YEARS
Variable = Frequency = number of observations of calling or non-calling for
closest and not closest prairie dogs
Submerger = 1 = prairie dog DID submerge
Submerger = 2 = prairie dog did NOT submerge
Alarm call = 1 = prairie dog DID give alarm call
Alarm call = 2 = prairie dog did NOT give alarm call
For statistical analysis, I did a 2x2 chi-square test
These data used for Fig 8.14, Bottom, in Hoogland 2026.
This file ready for longterm storage on 03 June 2025.
I considered data from the same prairie dog in different years to be independent.
Counts for this file come from study of alarm call raw data sheets.
Filename = Fig 8.14, Bottom, Submergers vs nonsubmergers, BTPDs, 03 June 2025
I considered data from the same prairie dog
on the same day and on different days and in different years to be independent
Replication data for: Fig 7.4, Vigilance vs ward size, BTPDs, 05 Nov 2025
No full textFILE DESCRIPTION
Keywords: BTPDs, focal samples, small vs large wards
Filename = Fig 7.4, Vigilance vs ward size, BTPDs, 05 Nov 2025
OLD File name = BTPDs, Alertness, 1974-1976, 13 Oct 2021
Ward size = 1 = <30 adults in colony
Ward size = 2 = >80 adults in colony
Note that Ward size does NOT include juveniles
I made this EXCEL file from computer output when I was
a graduate student at Michigan
This file has been checked ONE TIME ONLY by John, but
STATS ARE almost IDENTICAL to stats in Hoogland 1979b, and
that indicates that all data are 100% accurate
Only difference: sample size for small wards here is 73.
In Hoogland 1979b, sample size for small wards was 74.
I will not bother to look for the difference.
Note that the data in this file is for absolute times for watching
and absolute times for vigilance.
To calculate the PERCENTAGE of time devoted to BTPD vigilance, I divided
the time devoted to vigilance by the observation time.
These data are from my doctoral research in 1974-1976.
Most of the BTPDs for this file were unmarked and from several colonies,
so I assumed independence of observations--but a few cases might have
from the same BTPD on different days.
These data used for Fig 7.4 in Hoogland 2026.
This file ready for longterm storage on 30 May 2025.
As just noted, I assumed data from all WTPDs were from different
individuals and therefore independent.
All these data are from FOCAL SAMPLES in 1974-1976.
My methods for estimate vigilance from focal samples in 1974-1976
were different from my methods used for focal samples in 2012.
Filename = Vigilance vs ward size, BTPDs, 05 Nov 202
Raw terrains built from LIDAR tiles for some villages of the Nied catchment
No full textThe dataset contains digital terrain models (DTM) built from ground and building classes of LIDAR HD tiles produced by IGN, and saved as .raw images to be imported as Terrain objetcs in the Unity game engine.The process is carried out by using the ReFlood LIDAR viewer (based on the lastools package). The viewer also allows for local modifications to take out structures, or correct inaccuracies.
To date, the dataset contains raw terrains for Boulay-Centre and Filstroff vilages
Replication data for: Fig 10.4, BTPDs, Amicability of interactions vs kinship of males in multi-male coteries, 11 Dec 2025
No full textFILE DESCRIPTION
Keywords: BTPDs, amicability of male-male interactions vs kinship in multi-male coteries
File name: Fig 10.4, BTPDs, Amicability of interactions vs kinship of males in multi-male coteries, 11 Dec 2025
OLD File name: Fig 10.4, BTPDs, Amicability of interactions vs kinship of males in multi-male coteries, 12 Feb 2025
Data are only from Multi-male coteries for which I could be confident
about possible kinship of the copulating males.
I was confident about possible kinship among BTPD males of multi-male coteries for
all 93 coteries shown in this figure.
The number above each bar is the number of dyads of copulating males for which I knew kinships.
These data checked TWO times for similar figure (6.10) in Hoogland 1995.
These data used for Figure 10.4 in Hoogland 2026.
This file ready for longterm storage on 12 Feb 2025.
Note well: On 11 Dec 2025, for "Percentage of multi-male coteries in which 75% of male-male interactions were
amicable" when the "Two copulating males in Multi-male coterie were NOT close kin (r < 0.2500)", I
change the percentage from 14.50% to 13.88%. (10/72 = 13.88%). The number 14.5% came from a poor estimate
of the percentage from Fig 6.10 of Hoogland 1995 (page 111). A close examination of Fig 6.10
of Hoogland shows that 13.88% (10/72) is a better estimate than 14.50% (which does not coincide with either
9/72 (12.5%) or 11/72 (15.27%)
The assumption here is that Fig 6.10 of Hoogland 1995 (page 111) is my best estimate of data for this figure.
I cannot find the RAW DATA for Fig 10.4 of Hoogland 2026, so I am relying on Fig 6.10 of Hoogland 1995.
For this figure, I paired each copulating BTPD male with every other copulating male in the home Multi-male coterie.
A two-male Multi-male coterie or clan had only one dyad (A x B),
a three male Multi-male coterie or clan had three dyads (A x B, A x C, B x C), and so on.
File name: Fig 10.4, BTPDs, Amicability of interactions vs kinship of males in multi-male coteries, 11 Dec 2025
Data shown here are for Resident males of the same Multi-male coterie from the mating season through weaning
of offspring; the cutoff at 75% for amicability was arbitrary
BeeFunc, a comprehensive trait database for French bees
No full textGiven pollinator's reported decline, it is of utmost importance to better understand the vulnerability of wild bees to human pressures. One way to achieve this goal is to explore how traits are associated with exposure to anthropogenic perturbations. To date, there is no database that synthesizes the several traits of bees at the species level in France, limiting the functional interpretation of inventories for the ecosystem service of pollination. We present BeeFunc 1.0, the first database on functional traits for the entire fauna of French wild bees. Based on extensive literature research and local expert knowledge, the database is structured according to the National Taxonomic Referential Register. BeeFunc is intended to be evolutionary, collaborative, and regularly updated. Bees can finally be better considered from a functional perspective. We expect this database to be widely used by researchers, conservationists, naturalists, and stakeholders, stimulating future research on wild bees
Replication data for: Fig 9.7 and 9.9, GPDs, males and females that copulated vs clan size, 04 Dec 2025
No full textFILE DESCRIPTION
Keywords: GPDs, clan size, copulating males, copulating females, territory size
File name = Fig 9.7 and 9.9, GPDs, males and females that copulated vs clan size, 04 Dec 2025
OLD File name = GPDs, REVISED clan size vs clan density, PEFO only, 11 April 2020
I created this file from SYSTAT file = Clansize, which I created for PEFO GPDs on 21 Oct 1997
I assume that I checked this file TWO TIMES upon creation--but on 09 April 2020 I discover several errors
in data from PEFO GPDs. I have made the corrections in this file.
Most of these errors involves GPDs at PEFO that died in April. Evidently I counted them for 1999 article.
I used data from this file for Hoogland 1999 (Philopatry, dispersal, and social organization…)
All counts on this file on 09 April 2020 are for counts in MAY of every year.
Note: In 1989 only, all yearlings with R + number over 50 were females
In later years, all yearlings with R + ANY NUMBER were MALES.
I made this change because we had no many yearling males in 1990 and beyond.
On 09-10 April 2020, this file has been checked TWO TIMES by JLH alone.
But, I have not re-checked Terrsize on 09-10 April 2020.
For GPDs at RMC and VCC, I enter data on 09-10 April 2020.
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 UPDs.
Clantype = 0 = No male clan = no resident sexually mature male
Clantype = 0.5 = half-male clan
Clantype = 1 = one-male clan
Clantype = 2 = two-male clan
No GPD clan had >2 males
See Chapter 10 of Hoogland 2026 for information about clantypes
Admales = sexually mature males, regardless of age
I assume that all sexually mature Adult males copulated at least once, but I did not always SEE that cop
Adfems = adult female, all of whom copulated
Yrl males = sexually immature yearling males
If a yrlmale was sexually mature, I considered him to be an ADMALE
These clan sizes are for MAY.
If one Admale was in a clan and another Admale lived in that clan and
shared another clan, I consider the number of Admales to be TWO.
If two Admales shared the same two clans, then I consider each clan
to have TWO Admales
Note: On 11 April 2020, I make some edits to this file.
Specifically, I add clan names, and I incorporate a few changes from
EXCEL file = GPDs, Clan comps, PEFO and VCNP, 10 April 2020
I have created this file so I can revise figure that depicts GPD clan size
vs (a) clan density and (b) area of home territory
I check edits of 11 April 2020 TWO TIMES on 11 April 2020
On 24 June 2020, I deleted 91 and BB6 from 31-R19A in 1994
This change will affect colony size and colony density
and also clan size and clan density
For 31-R19A in 1994, clansize is now 17, number of Adfems
is now 10, and Clandensity is now 19.32.
Terrsize = area of home clan territory in hectares
These data used for Fig 9.7 and Fig 9.9 in Hoogland 2026.
This file ready for longterm storage on 04 Feb 2025.
File name = Fig 9.7 and 9.9, GPDs, males and females that copulated vs clan size, 04 Dec 2025
All data in this EXCEL file are from GPDs at Petrified Forest National Park in 1989-
through 1995. No data from GPDs at the Redondo Meadow Colony (RMC)
at Valles Caldera National Park (VCNP) or from GPDs at Visitor Center Colony at VCNP
Replication data for: WTPDs, scan samples of vigilance, males vs females, 05 November 2025
No full textFILE DESCRIPTION
Keywords: white-tailed prairie dog, scan samples of vigilance, males vs females
File name = WTPDs, scan samples of vigilance, males vs females, 05 November 2025
OLD file name = Fig 7.3, Sexual asymmetry in vigilance, scan samples, WTPDs, 30 May 2025
OLD File name = WTPDs, Mean vigilance from SCANS, 01 My 2022
The column-headings here are obvious. Sex, Number of days for scan samples,
and the mean percentage of vigilance over days of scan samples.
The overall mean proportion of all daily means of SCAN SAMPLES is a
single data point for 39 WTPD females and 10 WTPD males. Each data point is a single
mean calculated from all the daily means from scan samples for each WTPD.
These data are from 2007 only. I do not know WHY the scan samples
from 2008 are not included with this file.
This file checked TWO TIMES on 01 May 2022 by JLH alone
All scan samples are from 2007
I created this file directly by exporting SYSTAT file named Vig2007.SYS, which I created on 29 Jan 2010
I used this file for Hoogland et al. 2013, and I assumed that I checked it TWO TIMES at creation
WTPD = unique number for each WTPD. I should have used eartag here. Sigh
Sex = 1 = male and Sex = 2 = female
Each line in this file is the MEAN VALUE that uses one estimate for each day of scan samples
On each day, we usually had several scan samples of vigilance for each WTPD
The Number of days for scan samples shows the number of days for which we recorded
scan samples for each WTPD
Note that the data in this file is for overall mean PROPORTIONS. To convert to overall mean PERCENTAGES
for Figs 7.1 and 7.2, I multiplied proportions by 100.
WTPD marker is the Nyanzol marker. No eartag information in this file.
But each Nyanzol marker in this file = unique (N = 50 unique WTPDs for scan samples).
These data were first reported in the following publication:
Hoogland, J. L., S. L. Hale, A. D. Kirk, and Y. D. Sui. 2013. Individual variation in vigilance among
white-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys leucurus). Southwestern Naturalist 58:279-285.
For statistical analyses of WTPD scan samples, I used a single mean estimate of vigilance per individual over the entire field season
calculated from single mean percentages of vigilance per day from all daily scan samples.
These data used for Fig 7.3 in Hoogland 2026.
This file ready for longterm storage on 30 May 2025.
For statistical analysis of Fig 7.3, I used a SINGLE DATA point for 39 WTPD females and 10 WTPD males.
Each single data point was a mean of all the daily mean estimates for each WTPD.
File name = WTPDs, scan samples of vigilance, males vs females, 05 November 2025
Note: Sumary data in Fig 7.3 from scan samples from UPDs are from research by Theodore Manno
P-value estimated for UPDs from Manno (2007, page 559)
Means + SEs for UPDs are CLOSE ESTIMATES from
Figure 3a of Manno (2007, plus personal communication)
Raw data for Manno's research are NOT AVAILABLE--Theo could not find them