1,721,092 research outputs found
sandbergii
No full textLomatium sandbergii (J.M. Coulter & Rose) J.M. Coulter & RoseSandberg's desert-parsley;Sandberg's biscuitrootlomatium de SandbergLomatium sandbergiiridge east of Whistler Mt.alpine meadow7100Natural Areas Data Bank, Alberta Forestry Lands and Wildlif
sandbergii
No full textLomatium sandbergii (J.M. Coulter & Rose) J.M. Coulter & RoseSandberg's desert-parsley;Sandberg's biscuitrootlomatium de SandbergLomatium sandbergiiRuby Ridge, N.E. Shale crest7800Natural Areas Data Bank, Alberta Forestry Lands and Wildlif
sandbergii
No full textLomatium sandbergii (J.M. Coulter & Rose) J.M. Coulter & RoseSandberg's desert-parsley;Sandberg's biscuitrootlomatium de SandbergLomatium sandbergiiPrairie Bluff: Sheltered crest of red shale ridge7000 feetamong dwarfed Pinus flexilisNatural Areas Data Bank, Alberta Forestry Lands and Wildlif
sandbergii
No full textLomatium sandbergii (J.M. Coulter & Rose) J.M. Coulter & RoseSandberg's desert-parsley;Sandberg's biscuitrootlomatium de SandbergLomatium sandbergiiCarthew Mt.dry open screes and ridge8400'Natural Areas Data Bank, Alberta Forestry Lands and Wildlif
sandbergii
No full textLomatium sandbergii (J.M. Coulter & Rose) J.M. Coulter & RoseSandberg's desert-parsley;Sandberg's biscuitrootlomatium de SandbergLomatium sandbergiiWest Castle; Hastings Ridge; Carbondale area; roadside4600 feetNatural Areas Data Bank, Alberta Forestry Lands and Wildlif
sandbergii
No full textLomatium sandbergii (J.M. Coulter & Rose) J.M. Coulter & RoseSandberg's desert-parsley;Sandberg's biscuitrootlomatium de SandbergLomatium sandbergiiSlopes west of Bertha lakerock and shale slopes7000Herb. Natural Areas Data Bank, Alberta Forestry Lands and Wildlif
sandbergii
No full textLomatium sandbergii (J.M. Coulter & Rose) J.M. Coulter & RoseSandberg's desert-parsley;Sandberg's biscuitrootlomatium de SandbergLomatium sandbergiiMt. Crandell: northeast ridge7000'in Abies-Pinus forest on ridgeNatural Areas Data Bank, Alberta Forestry Lands and Wildlif
Parasitization of a hydrothermal vent limpet (Lepetodrilidae, Vetigastropoda) by a highly modified copepod (Chitonophilidae, Cyclopoida)
No full textThe limpet Lepetodrilus fucensis McLean is very abundant at hydrothermal vents on the Juan de Fuca and Explorer Ridges in the northeast Pacific Ocean. This limpet is parasitized by an undescribed chitonophilid copepod throughout the limpet's range. The parasite copepodite enters the mantle cavity and attaches to the afferent branchial vein. The initial invasive stage is a vermiform endosome within the vein that develops an extensive rootlet system causing an enlargement of the afferent branchial vein. Subsequently, an ectosomal female body grows outside the vein to sizes up to 2 mm in width. Once a dwarf male attaches, egg clusters form and nauplii are released. In over 3000 limpets examined from 30 populations, prevalence averaged about 5% with localized infections in female limpets over 25%. After the establishment of limpet populations at new vents, copepod prevalence increased over the succeeding months to 3 years. Host effects were marked and included castration of both sexes and deterioration in gill condition which affected both food acquisition and the gill symbiont. There was a significantly greater parasite prevalence in larger females which likely modifies the reproductive and competitive success of local host populations
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe 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
- …
