127,554 research outputs found
New perspectives on Web search engine research
No full textPurpose–The purpose of this chapter is to give an overview of the context of Web search and search engine-related research, as well as to introduce the reader to the sections and chapters of the book. Methodology/approach–We review literature dealing with various aspects of search engines, with special emphasis on emerging areas of Web searching, search engine evaluation going beyond traditional methods, and new perspectives on Webs earching. Findings–The approaches to studying Web search engines are manifold. Given the importance of Web search engines for knowledge acquisition, research from different perspectives needs to be integrated into a more cohesive perspective. Researchlimitations/implications–The chapter suggests a basis for research in the field and also introduces further research directions. Originality/valueofpaper–The chapter gives a concise overview of the topics dealt with in the book and also shows directions for researchers interested in Web search engines
Dataset associated with the submitted manuscript Wachowiak W, Wόjkiewicz B, Cavers S, Lewandowski A. High genetic similarity between Polish and North European Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) populations at nuclear gene loci. Tree Genetics & Genomes.
No full textDataset associated with the submitted manuscript Wachowiak W, Wόjkiewicz B, Cavers S, Lewandowski A. High genetic similarity between Polish and North European Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) populations at nuclear gene loci. Tree Genetics & Genomes.
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/50521
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
No full textThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
No full textWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
Let’s Make It the Real Mediterranean Diet Not the Supermarket Standard Feeding Plus a Leaf of Basil
No full textThe Mediterranean dietary pattern is the mirror of the history and the traditions of the people of Mediterranean basin, symbol of rural culture such as bread, a variety of whole grains, olive oil, wine, and peppers. Other features enriched the Mediterranean warm climate with discoveries from America such as tomatoes, corn, potatoes, chili, and varieties of beans and nuts that enriched the mix of healthy protein sources of fish, clams, and poultry and more rare bites of red meat and dairy products.
In large population-based studies, this eating pattern turned out to be more effective than low-fat diets in inducing important long-term changes in cardiovascular risk factors and inflammatory markers. The richness of folate, vitamin B12, and methyl donors, n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and the low level of homocysteine and C-reactive protein, affects placental and fetal programming.
Globalization of the agro-industrial system and social changes due to economic development have influenced food consumption and are challenging traditional healthy food patterns in Mediterranean countries. Mediterranean societies are rapidly withdrawing from this eating pattern orienting their food choices toward products typical of the Western diet pattern, fast food eateries, and complete loss of physical activity.
Therefore the today’s generations have to re-discover through science and medical counseling what has been a set of traditional practices, knowledge, and skills passed on from generation to generation: the Mediterranean diet, cited by the UNESCO as an intangible cultural heritage
Manfred Lewandowski, Cantor of Congregation Emanu-El, Philadelphia Portraits Men
No full textDigital ImageCantor; New York and Philadelphi
Eriophyes eremus Druciarek & Lewandowski, 2016, n. sp.
No full text<i>Eriophyes eremus</i> n. sp. <p>(Figs 1–2)</p> <p> <b>Diagnosis.</b> Median line broken; admedian lines complete, slightly divergent, anteriorly curved and almost connected at their beginning with submedian lines; submedian line I and II short, only on anterior part of shield; shield with short lines and granules on lateral and posterior part. Tubercles of setae <i>sc</i> ahead of rear shield margin. Opisthosoma evenly rounded dorsally with 62–69 dorsal and 56–63 ventral annuli; annuli subequal dorso-ventrally with pointed microtubercles. Genital coverflap of female with 2-5 curved, diagonal ridges. Setae and tubercles <i>h1</i> absent. Empodium entire 5–7-rayed.</p> <p> <b>Description.</b> FEMALE (Figs 1 and 2) holotype and 10 paratypes. Body vermiform, 209 (156–214); width 55 (40–59). <b>Gnathosoma</b> 20 (18–21), curved downward, dorsal pedipalpal genual setae <i>d</i> 4 (3–5), setae <i>ep</i> 2, setae <i>v</i> 1, cheliceral stylets 13 (12–15). <b>Prodorsal shield</b> 34 (31–35), 39 (31–39) wide, semicircular in anterior shape without frontal lobe. Shield pattern: median line broken; admedian lines complete, slightly divergent, anteriorly curved and almost connected with submedian lines; submedian line I and II short, only on anterior part of shield; shield with short lines and granules on lateral and posterior part. Tubercles of setae <i>sc</i> 2 (2–3) located ahead of rear shield margin, 18 (16–19) apart; scapular setae <i>sc</i> 17 (13–17). <b>Legs</b> with all usual segments and setae present. Leg I 24 (22–25); femur 7 (6–7), setae <i>bv</i> 10 (8–11), position of <i>bv</i> 3 (2–3); genu 5 (4–5), setae <i>l”</i> 20 (17–22), position of <i>l”</i> 2 (2–3); tibia 5 (5–6), setae <i>l’</i> 7 (7–8), position of <i>l’</i> 2; tarsus 6 (5–7), setae: <i>ft”</i> 20 (17–21), <i>ft’</i> 14 (13–15), <i>u’</i> 5 (4–6); solenidion 5; empodium simple 6 (5–6), bilaterally symmetrical, with 6 (5–7) rays. Leg II 23 (21–23); femur 7 (6–7), setae <i>bv</i> 9 (7–10), position of <i>bv</i> 3; genu 4 (4–5), setae <i>l”</i> 9 (8–11), position of <i>l”</i> 2 (2–3); tibia 5 (4– 5); tarsus 6, setae: <i>ft”</i> 19 (18–21), <i>ft’</i> 6 (5–6), <i>u’</i> 5 (4–5); solenidion 9 (8–10); empodium simple 5 (5–6), bilaterally symmetrical, with 6 (5–6) rays. <b>Coxal</b> plates smooth. Setae <i>1b</i> 8 (7–8), 10 (10–11) apart; setae <i>1a</i> 21 (19–24), 10 (9–11) apart; setae <i>2a</i> 33 (24–36), 24 (23–26) apart; distance between setae <i>1b</i> and <i>1a</i> 7 (6–8), distance between setae <i>1a</i> and <i>2a</i> 9 (8–9). Prosternal apodeme 5 (5–7). <b>External genitalia</b> 13 (11–15), 23 (21–24) wide, genital coverflap with basal part granulated and with 3 (2–5) curved, diagonal ridges on posterior part; setae <i>3a</i> 9 (7–10), 17 (16–18) apart. <b>Opisthosoma</b> with annuli subequal dorsoventrally, 66 (62–69) dorsal and 60 (56–63) ventral annuli, 4 (4–5) coxogenital annuli. Microtubercles placed on rear margin of annuli; pointed on dorsal and ventral side. Setae <i>c2</i> 24 (20–24), 50 (40–54) apart, on 8th (6–9) ventral annulus; setae <i>d</i> 57 (41–58), 34 (31–36) apart, on 18th (17–21) ventral annulus; <i>e</i> 10 (9–14), 20 (17–21) apart, on 32nd (30–36) ventral annulus; <i>f</i> 22 (19–23), 21 (18–22) apart, on 54th (50–57) ventral annulus, 7th (6–7) annulus from rear. Setae and tubercles <i>h1</i> absent; setae <i>h2</i> 46 (40–54), 10 (8–10) apart.</p> <p> MALE (Fig. 2) (range of 5 specimens). Body vermiform, 155–195; width 51–59. <b>Gnathosoma</b> 19–20, curved downward, dorsal pedipalpal genual setae <i>d</i> 3–4, setae <i>ep</i> 2, setae <i>v</i> 1, cheliceral stylets 14–15. <b>Prodorsal shield</b> 28–33, 34–40 wide, semicircular in anterior shape without frontal lobe and pattern similar to that of female. Tubercles <i>sc</i> 2, located ahead of rear shield margin, 18–21 apart; scapular setae <i>sc</i> 12–14. <b>Legs</b> with all usual segments and setae present. Leg I 21–22; femur 6, setae <i>bv</i> 8–10, position of <i>bv</i> 3; genu 4, setae <i>l”</i> 14–19, position of <i>l”</i> 2–3; tibia 4–5, setae <i>l’</i> 8–11, position of <i>l’</i> 2; tarsus 5–6, setae: <i>ft”</i> 17–19, <i>ft’</i> 9–13, <i>u’</i> 4–6; solenidion 5; empodium simple 4–5, bilaterally symmetrical, with 5 paired rays. Leg II 20–21; femur 6, setae <i>bv</i> 7–8, position of <i>bv</i> 3; genu 4, setae <i>l”</i> 7–8, position of <i>l”</i> 2–3; tibia 3–4; tarsus 5–6, setae: <i>ft”</i> 14–20, <i>ft’</i> 5–7, <i>u’</i> 4–5; solenidion 7– 9; empodium simple 4–5, bilaterally symmetrical, with 5 paired rays. <b>Coxal</b> plates smooth. Setae <i>1b</i> 5–8, 10–11 apart; setae <i>1a</i> 13–17, 8–11 apart; setae <i>2a</i> 24–27, 21–25 apart; distance between setae <i>1b</i> and <i>1a</i> 7–8, distance between setae <i>1a</i> and <i>2a</i> 7–9. Prosternal apodeme 4–5. <b>External genitalia</b> 14–16, 17–19 wide, surface below the eugenital setae with granules; setae <i>3a</i> 5–8, 13–15 apart. <b>Opisthosoma</b> dorsally rounded, annuli subequal dorsoventrally; 57–63 dorsal annuli, 51–59 ventral annuli, 6–7 coxogenital annuli. Microtubercles placed on rear margin of annuli, pointed on dorsal and ventral side. Setae <i>c 2</i> 13–19, 42–53 apart, on 6–9th ventral annulus; <i>d</i> 39– 48, 32–37 apart, on 15–18th ventral annulus; <i>e</i> 7–10, 18–21 apart, on 27–31st ventral annulus; <i>f</i> 16–20, 18–20 apart, on 45–53rd ventral annulus, 6–7th annulus from rear. Setae and tubercles <i>h1</i> absent; setae <i>h 2</i> 31–33, 9–10 apart.</p> <p> NYMPH (range of 5 specimens). Body vermiform, 140–159; width 40–49. <b>Gnathosoma</b> 18–19, curved downward, dorsal pedipalpal genual setae <i>d</i> 2–3, setae <i>ep</i> 1–2, setae <i>v</i> 1, cheliceral stylets 11–13. <b>Prodorsal shield</b> 24–28, 28–37 wide, semicircular in anterior shape without frontal lobe. Shield pattern: median line very weak or absent; admedian line on entire shield length, slightly divergent; submedian line I running from anterior part of shield to base of tubercles <i>sc</i>; all lines very weak and covered with granules. Tubercles <i>sc</i> 1–2 ahead of rear shield margin, 17–19 apart; scapular setae <i>sc</i> 9–12. <b>Legs</b> with all usual segments and setae present. Leg I 14–16; femur 5, setae <i>bv</i> 5–6, position of <i>bv</i> 2; genu 3, setae <i>l”</i> 11–14, position of <i>l”</i> 2; tibia 3, setae <i>l’</i> 4–5, position of <i>l’</i> 1–2; tarsus 3–4, setae: <i>ft”</i> 10–15, <i>ft’</i> 8–11, <i>u’</i> 3; solenidion 4; empodium simple 3–4 with 4–5 paired rays. Leg II 13–15; femur 5, setae <i>bv</i> 4–5, position of <i>bv</i> 1–2; genu 3, setae <i>l”</i> 5–6, position of <i>l”</i> 2; tibia 2–3; tarsus 4, setae: <i>ft”</i> 11–14, <i>ft’</i> 4– 5, <i>u’</i> 2–3; solenidion 6–7; empodium simple 3–4 with 4–5 paired rays. <b>Coxal</b> plates smooth. Setae <i>1b</i> 3–5, 7–10 apart; setae <i>1a</i> 10–13, 7–8 apart; setae <i>2a</i> 18–20, 20–22 apart; distance between setae <i>1b</i> and <i>1a</i> 6, distance between setae <i>1a</i> and <i>2a</i> 7–8. Prosternal apodeme 2–3. Setae <i>3a</i> 4–5, 8–9 apart. <b>Opisthosoma</b> dorsally rounded, annuli subequal dorsoventrally; 52–58 dorsal annuli, 41–46 ventral annuli, 5–7 coxogenital annuli. Microtubercles pointed on dorsal and ventral side. Setae <i>c 2</i> 9–15, 36–44 apart, on 7–8th ventral annulus; <i>d</i> 26–31, 26–34 apart, on 14–17th ventral annulus; <i>e</i> 5–7, 14–17 apart, on 22–26th ventral annulus; <i>f</i> 13–17, 17–20 apart, on 36–41st ventral annulus, 6th annulus from rear. Setae and tubercles <i>h1</i> absent; setae <i>h 2</i> 20–22, 8 apart.</p> <p> LARVA (1 specimen). Body vermiform, 117; width 41. <b>Gnathosoma</b> 17, curved downward, setae <i>ep</i> 2, cheliceral stylets 12. <b>Prodorsal shield</b> subcylindrical 27, 34 wide. Shield pattern: composed of weak admedian lines only. Tubercles <i>sc</i> 1, ahead of rear shield margin, 19 apart; scapular setae <i>sc</i> 8. <b>Legs</b> with all usual segments and setae present. Leg I 12; femur 4, setae <i>bv</i> 5, position of <i>bv</i> 2; genu 3, setae <i>l”</i> 13, position of <i>l”</i> 1; tibia 3, setae <i>l’</i> 2, tarsus 3, setae: <i>ft”</i> 10, <i>ft’</i> 7, <i>u’</i> 3; solenidion 3; empodium simple 3 with 4 paired rays. Leg II 10; femur 4, genu 2, setae <i>l”</i> 5, position of <i>l”</i> 1; tibia 2; tarsus 4, setae: <i>ft”</i> 9, <i>ft’</i> 5, <i>u’</i> 2; solenidion 5; empodium simple 3 with 4 paired rays. <b>Coxal</b> plates smooth. Setae <i>1b</i> 3, 9 apart; setae <i>1a</i> 10, 6 apart; setae <i>2a</i> 14, 20 apart; distance between setae <i>1b</i> and <i>1a</i> 5, distance between setae <i>1a</i> and <i>2a</i> 7. Prosternal apodeme 4. Setae <i>3a</i> 4, 6 apart. <b>Opisthosoma</b> with 45 dorsal and, 30 ventral annuli with pointed microtubercles, 6 coxogenital annuli. Setae <i>c 2</i> 9, 34 apart, on 7th ventral annulus; setae <i>d</i> 14, 27 apart, on 12th ventral annulus; setae <i>e</i> 3, 16 apart, on 17th ventral annulus; setae <i>f</i> 11, 16 apart, on 26th ventral annulus, 5th annulus from rear. Setae and tubercles <i>h1</i> absent; setae <i>h 2</i> 19, 6 apart.</p> <p> <b>Type material.</b> Holotype female (TD 08/02/14) collected from <i>Rosa</i> sp. (<i>Rosa</i> × <i>hybrida</i>; unkn. cultivar of a ground cover rose) in Haifa, Israel (32°49'07"N 34°59'23"E), 16 February 2014, collected by T. Druciarek. Paratypes: 17 females, 10 males, 22 nymphs and 15 larva (TD 05/02/14 -TD 08/02/14) collected from <i>Rosa</i> sp. (<i>Rosa</i> × <i>hybrida</i>; unkn. cultivar of a ground cover rose) in Haifa, Israel (32°49'07"N 34°59'23"E), 16 February 2014, collected by T. Druciarek.</p> <p> <b>Relation to the host plant.</b> All stages of <i>Eriophyes eremus</i> <b>n. sp.</b> were found inside flower buds and in petiole bases. No apparent damage to the host plant was observed.</p> <p> <b>Etymology.</b> The specific name is derived from the Latin noun ‘eremus’ (meaning ‘desert’), in relation to the dry climate of a type locality.</p> <p>. <b>Species name Damage symptoms Type host Type locality</b></p> <p> <i>Acerimina bajgahi</i> Causing witches’ broom symptom in terminal Hybrid of a <i>Rosa</i> sp. Bajgah, Shiraz, Iran.</p> <p>Kamali,Doryanizadeh & Akrami, 2015 twigs.</p> <p> <i>Calepitrimerus rosarum</i> Lin & Kuang, Not stated. <i>Rosa</i> sp. Lengshuijiang City, Hunan Province,</p> <p>2001 China.</p> <p> <i>Callyntrotus schlechtendali</i> (Nalepa, Causing browning and rusting <i>Rosa canina</i> L., <i>R. multiflora</i> Thunb. Rheinbrohl, Germany.</p> <p>1894) of leafs.</p> <p> <i>Eriophyes rhodites</i> Nalepa, 1914 Causing leaf plication. <i>Rosa spinosissima</i> L. Rauhenstein, Baden bei Wein,</p> <p>Austria.</p> <p> <i>Eriophyes rosae</i> (Mohanasundaram, Not stated. <i>Rosa</i> sp. Doddabetta, Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu,</p> <p>1981) India.</p> <p> <i>Neocalepitrimerus rosa</i> Xie, Wei & Qin, Not stated. <i>Rosa laevigata</i> Michx. Fusui County, China.</p> <p>2007</p> <p> <i>Paracolomerus gonglius</i> Li, Wang, Xue No damage seen. <i>Rosa beggeriana</i> Schrenk ex Fisch. & C. A. Mey. Gongliu county, China.</p> <p>& Zhang, 2015</p> <p> <i>Paraphytoptus rosae</i> Domes, 2000 Causing moderate proliferation through cell- <i>Rosa canina</i> L. Bruchsal, Germany. division.</p> <p> <i>Phyllocoptes adalius</i> Keifer, 1939 Causing mosaic discoloration and leaf <i>Rosa</i> sp., cultivated rose. Berkeley, California, USA. deformation, delay in bud development.</p> <p> <i>hyllocoptes chorites</i> Keifer, 1972 Not stated. <i>Rosa</i> sp. Cuyamaca State Park, California,</p> <p>USA.</p> <p> <i>hyllocoptes</i> <i>fructiphilus</i> Keifer, 1940 Causing mosaic discoloration and leaf <i>Rosa californica</i> Cham & Schlecht. Clarksburg, California, USA.</p> <p>deformation. RRV vector.</p> <p> <i>hyllocoptes linegranulatus</i> (Styer, 1974) Chlorotic leaves; or vagrant causing no <i>Rosa</i> sp., a cultivated hybrid rose. Wooster, Ohio, USA. damage.</p> <p> <i>hyllocoptruta beggerianae</i> Li, Wang, No damage seen. <i>Rosa beggeriana</i> Schrenk ex Fisch. & C. A. Mey. Xinyuan county, China.</p> <p>Xue & Zhang, 2015</p> <p> <i>hyllocoptruta huayangiana</i> Xue, Song & No damage seen. <i>Rosa sericea</i> Lindl. subsp. <i>omeiensis</i> (Rolfe) A. V. Changqing, Huayang County,</p> <p>Hong, 2010 Roberts. Shaanxi Province, China.</p> <p> <i>hinophytoptus</i> <i>rosae</i> Roivainen, 1951 Not stated. <i>Rosa villosa</i> L. Kökar, Österbygge, Västra Masskär,</p> <p>Finland.</p> <p> <i>hinophytoptus roxburghis</i> Xue, Song & No damage seen. <i>Rosa roxburghii</i> Tratt. Changqing, Yang Co., Shaanxi</p> <p>Hong, 2006 Province, China.</p> <p> <i>hinophytoptus sericeaomeiensis</i> Xue, No damage seen. <i>Rosa sericea</i> Lindl. subsp. <i>omeiensis</i> (Rolfe) A. V. Changqing Nature Reserve, Huayang</p> <p>ong & Hong, 2009 Roberts. Town, China.</p> <p> <i>hinophytoptus tibetirosae</i> Song, Xue & No damage seen. <i>Rosa</i> sp. Bayi Town, Tibet Autonomous</p> <p>Hong, 2009 Region, China.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> <i>Eriophyes eremus</i> <b>n. sp.</b> is similar in shield pattern to <i>E. rosae</i> (Mohanasundaram 1981), which also inhabits rose plants. However it can be easily differentiated from the latter by the: overall body size (<i>E. eremus</i> 156–214, <i>E. rosae</i> 230–240); genital coverflap with basal part granulated and with only 2–5 curved, diagonal ridges on posterior part (<i>E. rosae</i> 12 vertical lines); and smooth coxal area (with scorings in <i>E. rosae</i>). Both species also differ by the number of opisthosomal annuli (<i>E. eremus</i> 62–69, <i>E. rosae</i> 95), the length of setae <i>3a</i> (<i>E. eremus</i> 7–10, <i>E. rosae</i> 30), and length of setae <i>e</i> (<i>E. eremus</i> 9–14, <i>E. rosae</i> 25). In addition <i>E. eremus</i>, unlike <i>E. rosae</i>, lacks tubercules and setae <i>h1</i>. Furthermore <i>E. rosae</i> was reported as vagrant, whereas the new species is a refuge-seeking type, inhabiting flower buds and petiole bases.</p> <p> <i>Eriophyes eremus</i> <b>n. sp.</b> is also similar to <i>E. rhodites</i> (Nalepa 1914), however the description made one hundred years ago and lack of drawings as well as type specimens do not allow for precise species comparison. Still a few characters, such as body shape, sculpture of genital shield (smooth in case of <i>E. rhodites</i> and with 2–5 diagonal ribs in case of <i>E. eremus</i>) and prodorsal shield differentiate these two species. According to Nalepa’s description, the sculpture of the prodorsal shield of <i>E. rhodites</i> is composed of lines running from the anterior shield margin to its center, then curving to the lateral margin and back to the <i>sc</i> tubercles. Additional lines on the anterior part of the shield are also present in case of <i>E. rhodites</i>; these lines are divided in the middle of prodorsal shield. Again, the life-style also differentiates these two species as <i>E. rhodites</i> is a vagrant and <i>E. eremus</i> a refugeseeker.</p>Published as part of <i>Druciarek, Tobiasz & Lewandowski, Mariusz, 2016, A new species of eriophyoid mite (Acari: Eriophyoidea) on Rosa sp. from Israel, pp. 323-330 in Zootaxa 4066 (3)</i> on pages 324-329, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4066.3.8, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/263686">http://zenodo.org/record/263686</a>
- …
