Philippa Kaur

1.Cesar, H., Burke, L. & Pet-Soede L. The Economics of Worldwide Coral Reef Degradation (Cesar Environmental Economics Consulting, 2003).2.Pandolfi, J. M. et al. Global trajectories of the long-term decline of coral reef ecosystems. Science 301, 955–958 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Poloczanska, E. S., Skirving, W. & Dove, S. Coral reef ecosystems under climate change and ocean acidification. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 158 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Science 359, 80–83 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Grottoli, A. G., Rodrigues, L. J. & Juarez, C. Lipids and stable carbon isotopes in two species of Hawaiian corals, Porites compressa and Montipora verrucosa, following a bleaching event. Mar. Biol. 145, 621–631 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Grottoli, A. G. et al. The cumulative impact of annual coral bleaching can turn some coral species winners into losers. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 3823–3833 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Underwood, J. N., Smith, L. D., van Oppen, M. J. H. & Gilmour, J. P. Ecologically relevant dispersal of corals on isolated reefs: implications for managing resilience. Ecol. Appl. 19, 18–29 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Nozawa, Y. & Harrison, P. L. Effects of elevated temperature on larval settlement and post-settlement survival in scleractinian corals, Acropora solitaryensis and Favites chinensis. Mar. Biol. 152, 1181–1185 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Heyward, A. J. & Negri, A. P. Plasticity of larval pre-competency in response to temperature: observations on multiple broadcast spawning coral species. Coral Reefs 29, 631–636 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Figueiredo, J., Baird, A. H., Harii, S. & Connolly, S. R. Increased local retention of reef coral larvae as a result of ocean warming. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 498–502 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Munday, P. L. et al. Climate change and coral reef connectivity. Coral Reefs 28, 379–395 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.van Gennip, S. J. et al. Going with the flow: the role of ocean circulation in global marine ecosystems under a changing climate. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 2602–2617 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (eds Field, C. B. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).14.Nishikawa, A. & Sakai, K. Settlement-competency period of planulae and genetic differentiation of the scleractinian coral Acropora digitifera. Zool. Sci. 22, 391–399 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Connolly, S. R. & Baird, A. H. Estimating dispersal potential for marine larvae: dynamic models applied to scleractinian corals. Ecology 91, 3572–3583 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Figueiredo, J., Baird, A. H. & Connolly, S. R. Synthesizing larval competence dynamics and reef-scale retention reveals a high potential for self-recruitment in corals. Ecology 94, 650–659 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Randall, C. J. & Szmant, A. M. Elevated temperature affects development, survivorship, and settlement of the elkhorn coral, Acropora palmata (Lamarck 1816). Biol. Bull. 217, 269–282 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Randall, C. J. & Szmant, A. M. Elevated temperature reduces survivorship and settlement of the larvae of the Caribbean scleractinian coral, Favia fragum (Esper). Coral Reefs 28, 537–545 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Burgess, S. C. et al. Beyond connectivity: how empirical methods can quantify population persistence to improve marine protected-area design. Ecol. Appl. 24, 257–270 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Woolsey, E. S., Keith, S. A., Byrne, M., Schmidt-Roach, S. & Baird, A. H. Latitudinal variation in thermal tolerance thresholds of early life stages of corals. Coral Reefs 34, 471–478 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Rodriguez-Lanetty, M., Harii, S. & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Early molecular responses of coral larvae to hyperthermal stress. Mol. Ecol. 18, 5101–5114 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Andutta, F. P., Kingsford, M. J. & Wolanski, E. ‘Sticky water’ enables the retention of larvae in a reef mosaic. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 54, 655–668 (2012).
Google Scholar 
23.Hock, K. et al. Connectivity and systemic resilience of the Great Barrier Reef. PLoS Biol. 15, e2003355 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Bode, M., Bode, L., Choukroun, S., James, M. K. & Mason, L. B. Resilient reefs may exist, but can larval dispersal models find them? PLoS Biol. 16, e2005964 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Baird, A. H. & Marshall, P. A. Mortality, growth and reproduction in scleractinian corals following bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 237, 133–141 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature 556, 492–496 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Strathmann, R. R. et al. Evolution of local recruitment and its consequences for marine populations. Bull. Mar. Sci. 70, 377–396 (2002).
Google Scholar 
28.Marshall, D. J., Monro, K., Bode, M., Keough, M. J. & Swearer, S. Phenotype–environment mismatches reduce connectivity in the sea. Ecol. Lett. 13, 128–140 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Szmant, A. M. & Gassman, N. J. The effects of prolonged “bleaching” on the tissue biomass and reproduction of the reef coral Montastrea annularis. Coral Reefs 8, 217–224 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Leis, J. M. Nearshore distributional gradients of larval fish (15 taxa) and planktonic crustaceans (6 taxa) in Hawaii. Mar. Biol. 72, 89–97 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Kraines, S. B., Yanagi, T., Isobe, M. & Komiyama, H. Wind-wave driven circulation on the coral reef at Bora Bay, Miyako Island. Coral Reefs 17, 133–143 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Paris, C. B. & Cowen, R. K. Direct evidence of a biophysical retention mechanism for coral reef fish larvae. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49, 1964–1979 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Keshavmurthy, S., Fontana, S., Mezaki, T., Gonzalez, L. C. & Chen, C. A. Doors are closing on early development in corals facing climate change. Sci. Rep. 4, 5633 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Thomas, C. J. et al. Numerical modelling and graph theory tools to study ecological connectivity in the Great Barrier Reef. Ecol. Model. 272, 160–174 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Holstein, D. M., Paris, C. B., Vaz, A. C. & Smith, T. B. Modeling vertical coral connectivity and mesophotic refugia. Coral Reefs 35, 23–37 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Hata, T. et al. Coral larvae are poor swimmers and require fine-scale reef structure to settle. Sci. Rep. 7, 2249 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Gleason, D. F. & Hofmann, D. K. Coral larvae: from gametes to recruits. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 408, 42–57 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Haq, B. U. Jurassic sea-level variations: a reappraisal. GSA Today 28, 4–10 (2017).
Google Scholar 
2.Sahagian, D., Pinous, O., Olferiev, A. & Zakharov, V. Eustatic curve for the Middle Jurassic–Cretaceous based on Russian platform and Siberian stratigraphy: zonal resolution. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull. 80, 1433–1458 (1996).
Google Scholar 
3.Donnadieu, Y. et al. A mechanism for brief glacial episodes in the Mesozoic greenhouse. Paleoceanography 26, PA3212 (2011).
Google Scholar 
4.Korte, C. & Hesselbo, S. P. Shallow marine carbon and oxygen isotope and elemental records indicate icehouse–greenhouse cycles during the Early Jurassic. Paleoceanography 26, PA4219 (2011).
Google Scholar 
5.Dromart, G. et al. Ice age at the Middle–Late Jurassic transition? Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 213, 205–220 (2003).
Google Scholar 
6.Price, G. D. The evidence and implications of polar ice during the Mesozoic. Earth Sci. Rev. 48, 183–210 (1999).
Google Scholar 
7.Rogov, M. A. & Zakharov, V. A. Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous glendonite occurrences and their implication for Arctic paleoclimate reconstructions and stratigraphy. Earth Sci. Front. 17, 345–347 (2010).
Google Scholar 
8.Teichert, B. M. A. & Luppold, F. W. Glendonites from an Early Jurassic methane seep—climate or methane indicators? Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 390, 81–93 (2013).
Google Scholar 
9.Suan, G. et al. Polar record of Early Jurassic massive carbon injection. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 312, 102–113 (2011).
Google Scholar 
10.Brandt, K. Glacioeustatic cycles in the Early Jurassic? Neues Jahrb. Geol. Palaontol. Abh. 5, 257–274 (1986).
Google Scholar 
11.Woolfe, K. J. & Francis, J. E. An Early to Middle Jurassic glaciation-evidence from Allan Hills, Transantarctic Mountains. In Proc. 6th International Symposium on Antarctic Earth Sciences, Japan 652–653 (1991).12.Dera, G. & Donnadieu, Y. Modeling evidences for global warming, Arctic seawater freshening, and sluggish oceanic circulation during the early Toarcian anoxic event. Paleoceanography 27, PA2211 (2012).
Google Scholar 
13.Silva, R. C. & Duarte, L. V. Organic matter production and preservation in the Lusitanian Basin (Portugal) and Pliensbachian climatic hots snaps. Glob. Planet. Change 131, 24–34 (2015).
Google Scholar 
14.Gómez, J. J., Comas-Rengifo, M. J. & Goy, A. Paleoclimatic oscillations in the Pliensbachian (Early Jurassic) of the Asturian Basin (Northern Spain). Clim. Past 12, 1199–1274 (2016).
Google Scholar 
15.Suan, G. et al. Secular environmental precursors to early Toarcian (Jurassic) extreme climate changes. Earth Planet. Sci. 290, 448–458 (2010).
Google Scholar 
16.Fantasia, A. et al. Global versus local processes during the Pliensbachian–Toarcian transition at the Peniche GSSP, Portugal: a multi-proxy record. Earth Sci. Rev. 198, 2932 (2019).
Google Scholar 
17.Sell, B. et al. Evaluating the temporal link between the Karoo LIP and climatic–biologic events of the Toarcian Stage with high-precision U-Pb geochronology. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 408, 48–56 (2014).
Google Scholar 
18.Hesselbo, S. P. et al. Massive dissociation of gas hydrate during a Jurassic oceanic anoxic event. Nature 406, 392–395 (2000).
Google Scholar 
19.Hesselbo, S. P., Jenkyns, H. C., Duarte, L. V. & Oliveira, L. C. V. Carbon-isotope record of the Early Jurassic (Toarcian) ocean anoxic event from fossil wood and marine carbonate (Lusitanian Basin, Portugal). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 253, 455–470 (2007).
Google Scholar 
20.Schubert, B. A. & Jahren, A. H. Incorporating the effects of photorespiration into terrestrial paleoclimate reconstruction. Earth Sci. Rev. 177, 637–642 (2018).
Google Scholar 
21.Miller, K. G., Wright, J. D. & Browning, J. V. Visions of ice sheets in a greenhouse world. Mar. Geol. 217, 215–231 (2005).
Google Scholar 
22.Gómez, J. J., Goy, A. & Canales, M. L. Seawater temperature and carbon isotope variations in belemnites linked to mass extinction during the Toarcian (Early Jurassic) in Central and Northern Spain. Comparison with other European sections. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 258, 28–58 (2008).
Google Scholar 
23.Rosales, I., Quesada, S. & Robles, S. Paleotemperature variations of Early Jurassic seawater recorded in geochemical trends of belemnites from the Basque–Cantabrian basin, northern Spain. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 203, 253–275 (2004).
Google Scholar 
24.van de Schootbrugge, B. et al. Early Jurassic climate change and the radiation of organic-walled phytoplankton in the Tethys Ocean. Paleobiology 31, 73–97 (2010).
Google Scholar 
25.Vera, E. I. & Césari, S. N. New species of conifer wood from the Baqueró Group (Early Cretaceous) of Patagonia. Ameghiniana 52, 468–471 (2015).
Google Scholar 
26.Wilson, J. P. et al. Dynamic Carboniferous tropical forests: new views of plant function and physiological forcing of climate. New Phytol. 215, 1333–1353 (2017).
Google Scholar 
27.Lomax, B. H., Lake, J. A., Leng, M. J. & Jardine, P. E. An experimental evaluation of the use of Δ13C as a proxy for palaeoatmospheric CO2. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 247, 162–174 (2019).
Google Scholar 
28.Tipple, B. J., Meyers, S. R. & Pagani, M. Carbon isotope ratio of Cenozoic CO2: a comparative evaluation of available geochemical proxies. Paleoceanography 25, PA3202 (2010).
Google Scholar 
29.Diefendorf, A. F., Freeman, K. H. & Wing, S. L. Distribution and carbon isotope patterns of diterpenoids and triterpenoids in modern temperate C3 trees and their geochemical substantial. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 85, 342–356 (2012).
Google Scholar 
30.Lenton, T. M., Daines, S. J. & Mills, B. J. W. COPSE reloaded: an improved model of biogeochemical cycling over Phanerozoic time. Earth Sci. Rev. 178, 1–28 (2018).
Google Scholar 
31.McElwain, J. C., Wade-Murphy, J. & Hesselbo, S. P. Changes in carbon dioxide during an oceanic anoxic event linked to intrusion into Gondwana coals. Nature 435, 479–482 (2005).
Google Scholar 
32.Ruebsam, W., Reolid, M. & Schwark, L. δ13C of terrestrial vegetation records Toarcian CO2 and climate gradients. Sci. Rep. 10, 117 (2020).
Google Scholar 
33.Huang, C. & Hesselbo, S. P. Pacing of the Toarcian oceanic anoxic event (Early Jurassic) from astronomical correlation of marine sections. Gondwana Res. 25, 1348–1356 (2014).
Google Scholar 
34.Fung, M. K., Katz, M. E., Miller, K. G., Browning, J. V. & Rosenthal, Y. Sequence stratigraphy, micropaleontology, and foraminiferal geochemistry, Bass River, New Jersey paleoshelf, USA: implications for Eocene ice-volume changes. Geosphere 15, 502–532 (2019).
Google Scholar 
35.Oerlemans, J. A model of the Antarctic ice sheet. Nature 297, 550–553 (1982).
Google Scholar 
36.Esch, M. B. & Herterich, K. A two-dimensional coupled atmosphere–ice sheet–continent model designed for paleoclimatic simulations. Ann. Glaciol. 14, 55–57 (1990).
Google Scholar 
37.Foster, G. L. & Rohling, E. J. Relationship between sea level and climate forcing by CO2 on geological timescales. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 1209–1214 (2013).
Google Scholar 
38.Gasson, E., DeConto, R. M., Pollard, D. & Levy, R. H. Dynamic Antarctic ice sheet during the early to mid-Miocene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 3459–3464 (2016).
Google Scholar 
39.Booth, B. B. et al. Narrowing the range of future climate projections using historical observations of atmospheric CO2. J. Clim. 30, 3039–3053 (2017).
Google Scholar 
40.Hesselbo, S. P. & Pienkowski, G. Stepwise atmospheric carbon-isotope excursion during the Toarcian oceanic anoxic event (Early Jurassic, Polish Basin). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 301, 365–372 (2011).
Google Scholar 
41.Storm, M. S. et al. Orbital pacing and secular evolution of the Early Jurassic carbon cycle. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 3974–3982 (2020).
Google Scholar 
42.Jenkyns, H. C. & Clayton, C. J. Lower Jurassic epicontinental carbonates and mudstones from England and Wales: chemostratigraphic signals and the early Toarcian anoxic event. Sedimentology 44, 687–706 (1997).
Google Scholar 
43.Hermoso, M., Minoletti, F. & Pellenard, P. Black shale deposition during Toarcian super-greenhouse driven by sea level. Clim. Past 9, 2703–2712 (2013).
Google Scholar 
44.Schouten, S., van Kaam-Peters, M. E., Rijpstra, W. I. C., Schoell, M. & Damste, J. S. S. Effects of an oceanic anoxic event on the stable carbonate isotopic composition of early Toarcian carbon. Am. J. Sci. 300, 1–22 (2000).
Google Scholar 
45.Sabatino, N. et al. Carbon-isotope records of the Early Jurassic (Toarcian) oceanic anoxic event from the Valdobia (Umbria-Marche Apennines) and Monte Mangart (Julian Alps) sections: palaeooceaogrpahic and stratigraphic implications. Sedimentology 56, 1307–1328 (2009).
Google Scholar 
46.Garbe, J., Albrecht, T., Levermann, A., Donges, J. & Winkelmann, R. The hysteresis of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Nature 585, 538–544 (2020).
Google Scholar 
47.Suan, G., Mattioli, E., Pittet, B., Mailliot, S. & Lécuyer, C. Evidence for major environmental perturbation prior to and during the Toarcian (Early Jurassic) oceanic anoxic event form the Lusitanian Basin, Portugal. Paleoceanography 23, PA1202 (2008).
Google Scholar 
48.Müller, T. et al. New multiproxy record of the Jenkyns Event (also known as the Toarcian anoxic event) from the Mecsek Mountains (Hungary): differences, duration and drivers. Sedimentology 64, 66–86 (2017).
Google Scholar 
49.Ogg, J. G. & Hinnov, A. L. in The Geologic Time Scale 2012 (eds Gradstein, F. M. et al.) Ch. 26 (Elsevier, 2012).50.McCarroll, D. & Loader, N. J. Stable isotopes in tree rings. Quat. Sci. Rev. 23, 771–801 (2004).
Google Scholar 
51.Voelker, S. L. et al. A dynamic leaf gas-exchange strategy is conserved in woody plants under changing ambient CO2: evidence from carbon isotope discrimination in paleo and CO2 enrichment studies. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 889–902 (2016).
Google Scholar 
52.Tholen, D. & Zhu, X. G. The mechanistic basis of internal conductance: a theoretical analysis of mesophyll cell photosynthesis and CO2 diffusion. Plant Physiol. 156, 90–105 (2011).
Google Scholar 
53.Cui, Y. & Schubert, B. A. Quantifying the uncertainty of past pCO2 determined from changes in C3 plant carbon isotope fractionation. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 172, 127–138 (2016).
Google Scholar 
54.Schubert, B. A. & Jahren, A. H. The effect of atmospheric CO2 concentration on carbon isotope fractionation in C3 land plants. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 96, 29–43 (2012).
Google Scholar 
55.Philippe, M. et al. The palaeolatitudinal distribution of fossil wood genera as a proxy for European Jurassic terrestrial climate. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 466, 373–381 (2017).
Google Scholar 
56.Zhou, Z. A heterophyllous conifer from the Cretaceous of East China. Palaeontology 26, 789–811 (1983).
Google Scholar 
57.Farjon A. A. Natural History of Conifers (Timber Press, 2008).58.Diefendorf, A. F., Mueller, K. E., Wing, S. L., Koch, P. L. & Freeman, K. H. Global patterns in leaf 13C discrimination and implications for studies of past and future climate. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 5738–5743 (2010).
Google Scholar 
59.Kohn, M. J. Carbon isotope compositions of terrestrial C3 plants as indicators of (paleo)ecology and (paleo)climate. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 19691–19695 (2010).
Google Scholar 
60.Schlesser, G. H., Helle, G., Lücke, A. & Vos, H. Isotope signals as climate proxies: the role of transfer functions in the study of terrestrial archives. Quat. Sci. Rev. 18, 927–943 (1999).
Google Scholar 
61.Silva, R. L., Duarte, L. V. & Filho, J. G. M. Optical and geochemical characterization of upper Sinemurian (Lower Jurassic) fossil wood from the Lusitanian Basin (Portugal). Geochem. J. 47, 489–498 (2013).
Google Scholar 
62.Lukens, W. E., Eze, P. & Schubert, B. A. The effect of diagenesis on carbon isotope values of fossil wood. Geology 47, 987–991 (2019).
Google Scholar 
63.Armendáriz, M. et al. An approach to estimate Lower Jurassic seawater oxygen isotope composition using δ18O and Mg/Ca ratios of belemnite calcites (early Pliensbachian, northern Spain). Terra Nova 25, 439–445 (2013).
Google Scholar 
64.Lear, C. H., Elderfield, H. & Wilson, P. A. Cenozoic deep-sea temperatures and global ice volumes from Mg/Ca in benthic foraminiferal calcite. Science 287, 269–272 (2000).
Google Scholar 
65.Hollis, C. J. et al. The DeepMIP contribution to PMIP4: methodologies for selection, compilation and analysis of latest Paleocene and early Eocene climate proxy data, incorporating version 0.1 of the DeepMIP database. Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 3149–3206 (2019).
Google Scholar 
66.Rosales, I. et al. Isotope records (C–O–Sr) of late Pliensbachian–early Toarcian environmental perturbations in the westernmost Tethys (Majorca Island, Spain). Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 497, 168–185 (2018).
Google Scholar 
67.Val, J., Bádenas, B., Aurell, M. & Rosales, I. Cyclostratigraphy and chemostratigraphy of a bioclastic storm-dominated carbonate ramp (late Pliensbachian, Iberian Basin). Sediment. Geol. 355, 93–113 (2017).
Google Scholar 
68.Grossman, E. in The Geologic Time Scale 2012 (eds Gradstein, F. M. et al.) Ch. 10 (Elsevier, 2012).69.Ruebsam, W., Munzberger, P. & Schwark, L. Chronology of the early Toarcian environmental crisis in the Lorraine Sus-Basin (NE Paris Basin). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 404, 273–282 (2014).
Google Scholar 
70.Pittet, B., Suan, G., Fabien, L., Duarte, L. V. & Mattioli, E. Carbon isotope evidence for sedimentary discontinuities in the lower Toarcian of the Lusitanian Basin (Portugal): sea level change at the onset of the oceanic anoxic event. Sediment. Geol. 303, 1–14.71.Royer, D. L., Pagani, M. & Beerling, D. J. Geobiological constraints on Earth system sensitivity of CO2 during the Cretaceous and Cenozoic. Geobiology 10, 298–310 (2012).
Google Scholar 
72.Metodiev, L. & Koleva-Rekalova, E. Stable isotope records (δ18O and δ13C) of Lower–Middle Jurassic belemnites from the Western Balkan mountains (Bulgaria): palaeoenvironmental application. Appl. Geochem. 23, 2845–2856 (2008).
Google Scholar 
73.McArthur, J. M., Donovan, D. T., Thirlwall, M. F., Fouke, B. W. & Mattey, D. Strontium isotope profile of the early Toarcian (Jurassic) oceanic anoxic event, the duration of ammonite biozones, and belemnite palaeotemperatures. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 179, 269–285 (2000).
Google Scholar 
74.Jenkyns, H. G., Jones, C. E., Gröcke, D., Hesselbo, S. P. & Parkinson, D. N. Chemostratigraphy of the Jurassic System: applications, limitations and implications for palaeoceanography. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 159, 351–378 (2002).
Google Scholar 
75.Ullmann, C. V., Thibault, N., Ruhl, M., Hesselbo, S. P. & Korte, C. Effect of a Jurassic oceanic anoxic event on belemnite ecology and evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 10073–10076 (2014).
Google Scholar 
76.Harazim, D. et al. Spatial variability of watermass conditions within the European Epicontinental Seaway during the Early Jurassic (Pliensbachian–Toarcian). Sedimentology 60, 359–390 (2010).
Google Scholar 
77.Dera, G. et al. Water mass exchange and variations in seawater temperature in the NW Tethys during the Early Jurassic: evidence from neodymium and oxygen isotopes of fish teeth and belemnites. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 286, 198–207 (2009).
Google Scholar 
78.Bailey, T. R., Rosenthal, Y., McArthur, J. M., van de Schootbrugge, B. & Thirlwall, M. F. Paleoceanographic changes of the late Pliensbachian–early Toarcian interval: a possible link to the genesis of an oceanic anoxic event. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 212, 307–320 (2003).
Google Scholar 
79.Montañez, I. P. & Poulsen, C. J. The late Paleozoic ice age: an evolving paradigm. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 41, 629–656 (2013).
Google Scholar 
80.Ahokas, J. M., Nystuen, J. P. & Martinius, A. W. Stratigraphic signatures of punctuated rise in relative sea-level in an estuary-dominated heterolithic succession: incised valley fills of the Toarcian Ostrealv Formation, Neill Klinter Group (Jameson Land, East Greenland). Mar. Pet. Geol. 50, 103–129 (2014).
Google Scholar 
81.Krencker, F.-C., Kindstrom, S. & Bodin, S. A major sea-level drop briefly precedes the Toarcian oceanic anoxic event: implication for Early Jurassic climate and carbon cycle. Sci. Rep. 9, 12518 (2014).
Google Scholar 
82.Marjanac, T. & Steel, R. J. Dunlin Group sequence stratigraphy in the northern North Sea: a model for Cook Sandstone deposition. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull. 81, 276–292 (1997).
Google Scholar  More

Combining agent mobility patterns and SIR modelTo take into account agent mobility19 in a scenario compatible with a SIR model, we developed the model pictorially illustrated in Fig. 1. As explained in details in the Methods Section, the agents can move on a lattice through jumps processes, modelled using a Lévy walk of jump parameter (beta)36,37,38. When (beta) becomes large, i.e., for (beta rightarrow 2), agents tend to perform a Brownian random walk with very short jumps. As (beta rightarrow 1), agents can travel long distances in just one step. There are no constraints on the number of agents that can occupy a single cell. In each cells, agents can be infected by neighbours according to the SIR rules. Thus, the parameters that control the model are the jump parameter (beta) plus the standard SIR parameters, infection rate (alpha) and removal rate (gamma). The agent-based lattice model considered here reduces to a standard SIR model when the well-mixed population condition is satisfied, i. e. when large jumps dominate the dynamics (Fig. 2).Figure 1Agent-based SIR model on a lattice. (a) Agents of different colors, representing the SIR states, move on a lattice. White cells represent empty sites. Green cells are occupied by susceptible (S) agents, blue cells contain only removed (R) agents. Red cells contain only infected (I) agents. Shaded cells contain agents in a mixture of states. Agents can move among cells performing jumps (black arrows) whose length follows Lévy statistics. The letters i and j, with (i=1,..,N_b) and (j=1,…,N_b) define the location of the cell (i, j). (b,c) Agents in the same cell undergo a SIR dynamics: (b) S become I at a rate (alpha); (c) I become R at rate (gamma). (d) The jump dynamics allows an agent to move from the cell (i, j) to ((i+k,j+l)). The probability to perform a large/small jump is controlled by the parameter (beta in [1.0,1.99]). Large (beta) values correspond to small jumps, i. e., a random walk that gives rise to Brownian motion. Small (beta) values correspond to large jumps.Full size imageFor reproducing the kinetics of real data we made the following assumptions:

In the absence of containing strategies, the infection is characterized by a high infection rate (we take (alpha =0.9)) and a low removal rate ((gamma =0.025) or 0.05). Using as a unit of time the update of all agent positions (see Methods for details), the removal rate introduce a time scale (tau _I = gamma ^{-1}=40) or (20). This characteristic time scale represents the average time an agent remains infected and can thus spread the infection. This condition ensures that we are in an epidemic regime, i. e., the mean-field value is (R_t gg 1). We stress that, since the SIR dynamics with only three sub-populations is a simplification of the real chain of epidemic transmission, the parameters we choose for the epidemic spreading are not strictly related to those of Covid-19. Because we are interested in the effect of mobility restriction on epidemic spreading, we fix the epidemic parameters in a way that, without mobility restrictions, we are sure to stay in the worst-case scenario with an exponentially fast spreading of the infection.

The parameter (beta in [1,1.99]) tunes the intensity of mobility restrictions. The higher its value, the stricter the limitations. (beta) is one of the fitting parameters.

Other interventions that mitigate the epidemic spreading tend to increase the removal rate (gamma). We thus assume that (gamma) is another fitting parameter. This is because typical measures, for instance, quarantine, remove infected agents from the system. In this way, we reabsorb the presence of many hidden sub-populations into an effective value of (gamma).

We define the parameter (delta), i. e., the fraction of infected agents at the epidemic peak with respect to the entire population, that provides a quantitative measure of the reduction of the epidemic peak. In other words, the parameter (delta) represents the efficiency of a given containing strategy compared to the uncontrolled situation where all the agents turn out to contract the infection (which is the case of our model for (gamma ll alpha), (alpha =0.9), and (beta =1)).

To detail how mobility restrictions induce deviations from the SIR model, we calculate, via numerical simulations, the epidemic curves as a function of time for different values of (beta) as illustrated in Fig. 2a. Here, the SIR parameters are (alpha =0.9) and (gamma =0.025), i. e., the corresponding SIR model is in the fully blown epidemic regime. For small (beta) the epidemic growth is well captured by the exponential function, indicating that we are in the epidemic regime. As (beta) increases the curve turns out to be flattened and the peak reduces to (80%). Moreover, the growth of the epidemic for the largest (beta) examined is well described by the power law (I(t) sim t^{2}). The value of the exponent is comparable with those measured in different countries during the COVID(-19) epidemic wave23. The model considered here suggests that the crossover from exponential growth to power-law might be related to changes of the mobility patterns that, in our picture, shift from being dominated by large jumps to small ones. This finding is consistent with the observation that a sub-exponential growth in the number of infected people is a consequence of containing strategies23. Moreover, in the microscopic description adopted here, the crossover in the kinetics of I(t) is driven by just one parameter.Figure 2Agent dynamics impacts the epidemic spreading process. (a) The graph shows the dependency of the epidemic curves on (beta =1.20,1.50,1.75,1.80,1.85,1.87,1.90,1.92,1.95,1.97,1.99) (increasing values of (beta) from yellow to violet). As (beta) decreases, the epidemic grows exponentially fast (dotted black curve) and approaches the evolution of SIR model in well-mixed population (dashed red curve). The dash-dot blue curve is a power law (sim t^2). The parameters of the SIR reactions are (alpha =0.9) and (gamma =0.025). (b–g) Typical configurations taken at the same fraction of infected agents (I/N sim 0.25) for increasing values of (beta =1.0,1.2,1.4,1.6,1.8,1.9) (red are infected sites, green the susceptible ones, we keep white the sites populated by removed agents). (h) The probability distribution function of the local density of infected sites. (i) Radius of the cluster of infected agents ((beta =1.99)) as a function of time. The red dashed line is a linear fit.Full size imageThe crossover from exponential to power-law growth reflects the drastic change in the structure of clusters of infected agents, as illustrated in Fig. 2b–g, where typical configurations with the same fraction of infected agents are shown ((I/N=0.25, alpha =0.9, gamma =0.025)). As one can see, in the high mobility region ((beta = 1)), infected agents are spread almost everywhere in the system. As (beta) increases, infected sites tend to form a single cluster. This phenomenology is consistent with the literature of mobile agents undergoing SIR dynamics39,40. This structural change is quantitatively documented by the density distribution of infected sites shown in panel (h) of the same figure (see section Methods for details). As one can appreciate, the distribution becomes double-peaked as (beta) increases. The first peak around zero indicates the presence of an extended region of susceptible agents. The peak at high values is due to the growing cluster of infected agents. As highlighted in panel (i), the cluster grows linearly in time and thus the number of infected grows with (t^2).Another interesting aspect to understand with this model is the trade off between mobility restrictions and and other kind of interventions that have the effect of increasing the removal rate. In particular in Asian countries41, NPIs applied during the COVID-19 waves have relied mostly on contact tracing and/or preventive quarantine, with little mobility reduction, leading to effective and durable control of epidemic spreading, as reviewed by Ref.21. To understand if there is an optimal balance between containing strategies (characterized by (beta)) and efficiency in removing infected agents (denoted by (gamma)), we calculate the fraction of infected population at the epidemic peak (the maximum of I(t)) as a function of the jump parameter (beta) and of the removal rate (gamma). As above, the initial occupation number of each site is, on average, one. The infection rate is (alpha =0.9). The resulting phase diagram is shown in Fig. 3. The color indicates the fraction of infected population: in the violet region, this fraction goes to zero (epidemic is suppressed) while in the yellow region such a value goes to one, indicating an epidemic regime. The phase diagram fully recapitulates the effectiveness of the two strategies used to mitigate the infection spread, a strong lockdown with limited contact tracing, or an efficient contact tracing a moderate reduction of the mobility.Figure 3Effect of different containment strategies. The phase diagram is obtained considering as control parameters (beta), that represents mobility restrictions, and (gamma), the efficiency in removing infected agents. The color scale represents the fraction of the initial susceptible population that becomes infected, ranging between 0 (epidemic suppression, violet region) and 1 (fully-blown epidemic, yellow region). Containment is achieved as (beta) increases (corresponding to increasing mobility restrictions) even with low removal rate, or increasing (gamma) (effective removal of infected agents), even with limited mobility restrictions.Full size imageHowever, even under the strictest lockdown, several activities could not be stopped (hospitals, food supply chain, …), meaning that a single mobility parameter cannot fully describe this varied situation. To understand what could be the impact of heterogeneous motility patterns on the evolution of the epidemic, we introduce in the model some regions characterized by a high mobility (jump parameter, (beta _2)), while the majority of the the cells have restricted mobility, with a jump parameter (beta _1=1.99) (see Methods for more details). By varying (beta _2) and the density of more mobile cells (parameter (rho)) we are able to draw the phase diagram shown in Fig. 4.Figure 4Sites of different mobility affect epidemic spreading. (a) Each cell labelled by (i, j) is characterized by its own mobility parameter (beta _{ij}). We consider the special case of a binary mixture ((beta _{ij} = beta _{1,2})) of high and low mobility regions. Changing the density (rho) of (beta _2) sites and the value of (beta _2), we obtain the the phase diagram presented in panel (b), obtained for (beta _1=1.99), (alpha =0.9), and (gamma =0.05), conditions that grant contained epidemic spreading thanks to the low-mobility group. A small amount of sites with small values of (beta _2) can trigger the epidemic spreading.Full size imageAs in the previous case, in the violet area the epidemic spreading is stopped, while in the yellow area the epidemic peak reaches the entire population. Epidemic spreading takes place above a critical curve: for a given value of mobility (beta _2 More

Andersson E, Bodin Ö (2009) Practical tool for landscape planning? an empirical investigation of network-based models of habitat fragmentation. Ecography 32(1):123–132
Google Scholar 
Angelone S, Kienast F, Holderegger R (2011) Where movement happens—scale-dependent landscape effects on genetic differentiation in the European tree frog. Ecography 34(5):714–722
Google Scholar 
Arnaud J-F (2003) Metapopulation genetic structure and migration pathways in the land snail Helix aspersa: influence of landscape heterogeneity. Landsc Ecol 18(3):333–346
Google Scholar 
Awade M, Boscolo D, Metzger JP (2012) Using binary and probabilistic habitat availability indices derived from graph theory to model bird occurrence in fragmented forests. Landsc Ecol 27(2):185–198
Google Scholar 
Balkenhol N, Pardini R, Cornelius C, Fernandes F, Sommer S (2013) Landscape-level comparison of genetic diversity and differentiation in a small mammal inhabiting different fragmented landscapes of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Conserv Genet 14(2):355–367
Google Scholar 
Baranyi G, Saura S, Podani J, Jordán F (2011) Contribution of habitat patches to network connectivity: redundancy and uniqueness of topological indices. Ecol Indic 11(5):1301–1310
Google Scholar 
Barr KR, Kus BE, Preston KL, Howell S, Perkins E, Vandergast AG (2015) Habitat fragmentation in coastal southern California disrupts genetic connectivity in the Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus). Mol Ecol 24(10):2349–2363PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soci Series B (Methodological) 57(1):289–300
Google Scholar 
Bergés L, Avon C, Bezombes L, Clauzel C, Duflot R, Foltête J-C, Gaucherand S, Girardet X, Spiegelberger T (2020) Environmental mitigation hierarchy and biodiversity offsets revisited through habitat connectivity modelling. J Environ Manag 256:1–10
Google Scholar 
Bertin A, Gouin N, Baumel A, Gianoli E, Serratosa J, Osorio R, Manel S (2017) Genetic variation of loci potentially under selection confounds species-genetic diversity correlations in a fragmented habitat. Mol Ecol 26(2):431–443PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bönsel AB, Sonneck A-G (2011) Habitat use and dispersal characteristic by Stethophyma grossum: the role of habitat isolation and stable habitat conditions towards low dispersal. J Insect Conserv 15(3):455–463
Google Scholar 
Boulanger E, Dalongeville A, Andrello M, Mouillot D, Manel S (2020) Spatial graphs highlight how multi-generational dispersal shapes landscape genetic patterns. Ecography 15(1):1–13
Google Scholar 
Bowcock AM, Ruiz-Linares A, Tomfohrde J, Minch E, Kidd JR, Cavalli-Sforza LL (1994) High resolution of human evolutionary trees with polymorphic microsatellites. Nature 368(6470):455–457PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Capurucho JMG, Cornelius C, Borges SH, Cohn-Haft M, Aleixo A, Metzger JP, Ribas CC (2013) Combining phylogeography and landscape genetics of Xenopipo atronitens (Aves: Pipridae), a white sand campina specialist, to understand Pleistocene landscape evolution in Amazonia. Biol J Linnean Soc 110(1):60–76
Google Scholar 
Carrascal LM, Galván I, Gordo O (2009) Partial Least Squares regression as an alternative to current regression methods used in ecology. Oikos 118(5):681–690
Google Scholar 
Cushman SA, Shirk A, Landguth EL (2012) Separating the effects of habitat area, fragmentation and matrix resistance on genetic differentiation in complex landscapes. Landsc Ecol 27(3):369–380
Google Scholar 
Díaz SM, Settele J, Brondízio E, Ngo H, Guèze M, Agard J, Arneth A, Balvanera P, Brauman K, Butchart S, et al. (2019). The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services: summary for policy makers. Technical report, Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem ServicesDidham RK, Kapos V, Ewers RM (2012) Rethinking the conceptual foundations of habitat fragmentation research. Oikos 121(2):161–170
Google Scholar 
DiLeo MF, Wagner HH (2016) A landscape ecologist’s agenda for landscape genetics. Curr Landsc Ecol Rep 1(3):115–126
Google Scholar 
Dyer RJ (2015) Population graphs and landscape genetics. Annu Rev Ecol, Evolut Syst 46:327–342
Google Scholar 
Fahrig L (2013) Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J Biogeogr 40(9):1649–1663
Google Scholar 
Flavenot T, Fellous S, Abdelkrim J, Baguette M, Coulon A (2015) Impact of quarrying on genetic diversity: an approach across landscapes and over time. Conserv Genet 16(1):181–194
Google Scholar 
Foltête J-C, Clauzel C, Vuidel G (2012) A software tool dedicated to the modelling of landscape networks. Environ Model Softw 38:316–327
Google Scholar 
Foltête J-C, Savary P, Clauzel C, Bourgeois M, Girardet X, Sahraoui Y, Vuidel G, Garnier S (2020) Coupling landscape graph modeling and biological data: a review. Landsc Ecol 35(5):1035–1052
Google Scholar 
Frankham R (2005) Genetics and extinction. Biol Conserv 126(2):131–140
Google Scholar 
Frankham R (2015) Genetic rescue of small inbred populations: Meta-analysis reveals large and consistent benefits of gene flow. Mol Ecol 24(11):2610–2618PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Frankham R, Ballou JD, and Briscoe DA (2004) A primer of conservation genetics. Cambridge University PressGaggiotti OE, Foll M (2010) Quantifying population structure using the F-model. Mol Ecol Resour 10(5):821–830PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Galpern P, Manseau M, Fall A (2011) Patch-based graphs of landscape connectivity: a guide to construction, analysis and application for conservation. Biol Conserv 144(1):44–55
Google Scholar 
Greenbaum G, Fefferman NH (2017) Application of network methods for understanding evolutionary dynamics in discrete habitats. Mol Ecol 26(11):2850–2863PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Griffioen R (1996) Over het dispersievermogen van de moerassprinkhaan. Nieuwsbrief Saltabel 15(1):39–41
Google Scholar 
Hahn T, Kettle CJ, Ghazoul J, Hennig EI, Pluess AR (2013) Landscape composition has limited impact on local genetic structure in mountain clover Trifolium montanum L. J Heredity 104(6):842–852
Google Scholar 
Hedrick P (2011) Genetics of populations. Jones & Bartlett LearningHolzhauer SI, Ekschmitt K, Sander A-C, Dauber J, Wolters V (2006) Effect of historic landscape change on the genetic structure of the bush-cricket Metrioptera roeseli. Landsc Ecol 21(6):891–899
Google Scholar 
Hutchison DW, Templeton AR (1999) Correlation of pairwise genetic and geographic distance measures: inferring the relative influences of gene flow and drift on the distribution of genetic variability. Evolution 53(6):1898–1914PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ingvarsson PK (2001) Restoration of genetic variation lost-the genetic rescue hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 16(2):62–63PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jackson ND, Fahrig L (2015) Habitat amount—not habitat configuration—best predicts population genetic structure in fragmented landscapes. Landsc Ecol 31(5):951–968
Google Scholar 
Joly CA, Metzger JP, Tabarelli M (2014) Experiences from the Brazilian atlantic forest: ecological findings and conservation initiatives. New Phytol 204(3):459–473PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kalinowski ST (2004) Counting alleles with rarefaction: private alleles and hierarchical sampling designs. Conserv Genet 5(4):539–543
Google Scholar 
Keller D, Holderegger R, Strien MJ (2013) Spatial scale affects landscape genetic analysis of a wetland grasshopper. Mol Ecol 22(9):2467–2482PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Keyghobadi N (2007) The genetic implications of habitat fragmentation for animals. Can J Zool 85(10):1049–1064
Google Scholar 
Keyghobadi N, Roland J, Matter SF, Strobeck C (2005) Among- and within-patch components of genetic diversity respond at different rates to habitat fragmentation: an empirical demonstration. Proc R Soc B 272(1562):553–560PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kierepka EM, Anderson SJ, Swihart RK, Rhodes OE (2020) Differing, multiscale landscape effects on genetic diversity and differentiation in eastern chipmunks. Heredity 124(3):457–468PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Koen EL, Bowman J, Wilson PJ (2016) Node-based measures of connectivity in genetic networks. Mol Ecol Resour 16(1):69–79PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Koschuh A (2004) Verbreitung, lebensräume und gefährdung der sumpfschrecke (stethophyma grossum, l., 1758)(saltatoria) in der steiermark. Joannea, Zool 6:223–246
Google Scholar 
Krause S (1996) Populationsstruktur, Habitatbindung und Mobilität der Larven von Stethophyma grossum (Linné, 1758). Articulata 11(2):77–89
Google Scholar 
Latta RG (2006) Integrating patterns across multiple genetic markers to infer spatial processes. Landsc Ecol21(6):809–820
Google Scholar 
Lehnen L, Jan P-L, Besnard A-L, Fourcy D, Kerth G, Biedermann M, Nyssen P, Schorcht W, Petit E, and Puechmaille S (2021) Genetic diversity in a long-lived mammal is explained by the past’s demographic shadow and current connectivity. Mol Ecol, 00(1)Long FH (2013) Multivariate analysis for metabolomics and proteomics data. In Proteomic and metabolomic approaches to biomarker discovery, pages 299–311. ElsevierMalkus J (1997) Habitatpräferenzen und mobilität der sumpfschrecke (stethophyma grossum l. 1758) unter besonderer berücksichtigung der mahd. Articulata 12(1):1–18
Google Scholar 
Marzelli M (1994) Ausbreitung von mecostethus grossus auf einer ausgleichs-und renaturierungsfläche. Articulata 9(1):25–32
Google Scholar 
Miguet P, Fahrig L, Lavigne C (2017) How to quantify a distance-dependent landscape effect on a biological response. Methods Ecol Evol 8(12):1717–1724
Google Scholar 
Millette KL, Keyghobadi N (2015) The relative influence of habitat amount and configuration on genetic structure across multiple spatial scales. Ecol Evol 5(1):73–86PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83(4):1131–1145
Google Scholar 
Mony C, Abadie J, Gil-Tena A, Burel F, Ernoult A (2018) Effects of connectivity on animal-dispersed forest plant communities in agriculture-dominated landscapes. J Veg. Sci. 29(2):167–178
Google Scholar 
Murphy MA, Evans JS, Storfer A (2010) Quantifying Bufo boreas connectivity in Yellowstone National Park with landscape genetics. Ecology 91(1):252–261PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landsc Ecol 21(7):959–967
Google Scholar 
Pasinelli G, Meichtry-Stier K, Birrer S, Baur B, Duss M (2013) Habitat quality and geometry affect patch occupancy of two Orthopteran species. PLoS One 8(5):e65850PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pérez-Rodríguez A, Khimoun A, Ollivier A, Eraud C, Faivre B, Garnier S (2018) Habitat fragmentation, not habitat loss, drives the prevalence of blood parasites in a Caribbean passerine. Ecography 41(11):1835–1849
Google Scholar 
Peterman WE, Anderson TL, Ousterhout BH, Drake DL, Semlitsch RD, Eggert LS (2015) Differential dispersal shapes population structure and patterns of genetic differentiation in two sympatric pond breeding salamanders. Conserv Genet 16(1):59–69
Google Scholar 
Rayfield B, Fortin M-J, Fall A (2011) Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. Ecology 92(4):847–858PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Reinhardt K, Köhler G, Maas S, Detzel P (2005) Low dispersal ability and habitat specificity promote extinctions in rare but not in widespread species: the Orthoptera of Germany. Ecography 28(5):593–602
Google Scholar 
Roy K, Kar S, and Das RN (2015) Statistical methods in QSAR/QSPR. In A primer on QSAR/QSPR modeling, pages 37–59. SpringerRozenfeld AF, Arnaud-Haond S, Hernández-Garcia E, Eguíluz VM, Serrão EA, Duarte CM (2008) Network analysis identifies weak and strong links in a metapopulation system. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(48):18824–18829PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Saura S (2018) The amount of reachable habitat—jointly measuring habitat amount and connectivity in space and time. In Proceedings of international conference of ecological sciences of the French Society for Ecology and EvolutionSaura S (2021) The Habitat Amount Hypothesis implies negative effects of habitat fragmentation on species richness. J Biogeogr 48(1):11–22
Google Scholar 
Saura S, Bodin Ö, Fortin M-J (2014) Stepping stones are crucial for species’ long-distance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks. J Appl Ecol 51(1):171–182
Google Scholar 
Saura S and de la Fuente B (2017) Connectivity as the amount of reachable habitat: conservation priorities and the roles of habitat patches in landscape networks. In Gergel, SE and Turner, MG, editors, Learning landscape ecology: a practical guide to concepts and techniques, pages 229–254. SpringerSaura S, Rubio L (2010) A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 33(3):523–537
Google Scholar 
Savary P, Foltête J-C, Moal H, Vuidel G, Garnier S (2021a) Analysing landscape effects on dispersal networks and gene flow with genetic graphs. Mol Ecol Resour 21(4):1167–1185PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Savary P, Foltête J-C, Moal H, Vuidel G, Garnier S (2021b) graph4lg: a package for constructing and analysing graphs for landscape genetics in R. Methods Ecol Evol 12(3):539–547
Google Scholar 
Schoville SD, Dalongeville A, Viennois G, Gugerli F, Taberlet P, Lequette B, Alvarez N, Manel S (2018) Preserving genetic connectivity in the European Alps protected area network. Biol Conserv 218:99–109
Google Scholar 
Shirk A, Cushman S (2011) sGD: software for estimating spatially explicit indices of genetic diversity. Mol Ecol Resour 11(5):922–934PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Slatkin M (1993) Isolation by distance in equilibrium and non-equilibrium populations. Evolution 47(1):264–279PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sonneck A-G, Bönsel A, Matthes J (2008) Der einfluss von landnutzung auf die habitate von stethophyma grossum (linnaeus, 1758) an beispielen aus mecklenburg-vorpommern. Articulata 23:15–30
Google Scholar 
Spielman D, Brook BW, Frankham R (2004) Most species are not driven to extinction before genetic factors impact them. Proc Natl Acad Sci 101(42):15261–15264PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Storfer A, Murphy MA, Spear SF, Holderegger R, Waits LP (2010) Landscape genetics: where are we now? Mol Ecol 19(17):3496–3514PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Szpiech ZA, Jakobsson M, Rosenberg NA (2008) ADZE: a rarefaction approach for counting alleles private to combinations of populations. Bioinformatics 24(21):2498–2504PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Taylor Z, Hoffman S (2014) Landscape models for nuclear genetic diversity and genetic structure in white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus). Heredity 112(6):588–595PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tenenhaus M (1998) La régression PLS: théorie et pratique. Editions TECHNIPToma Y, Imanishi J, Yokogawa M, Hashimoto H, Imanishi A, Morimoto Y, Hatanaka Y, Isagi Y, Shibata S (2015) Factors affecting the genetic diversity of a perennial herb Viola grypoceras A. Gray var. grypoceras in urban fragmented forests. Landsc Ecol 30(8):1435–1447
Google Scholar 
Tournant P, Afonso E, Roué S, Giraudoux P, Foltête J-C (2013) Evaluating the effect of habitat connectivity on the distribution of lesser horseshoe bat maternity roosts using landscape graphs. Biol Conserv 164:39–49
Google Scholar 
Trautner J, Hermann G (2008) Die Sumpfschrecke (Stethophyma grossum L., 1758) im Aufwind-Erkenntnisse aus dem zentralen Baden-Württemberg. Articulata 23(2):37–52
Google Scholar 
Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82(5):1205–1218
Google Scholar 
van Strien MJ (2017) Consequences of population topology for studying gene flow using link-based landscape genetic methods. Ecol Evol 7(14):5070–5081van Strien MJ, Keller D, Holderegger R, Ghazoul J, Kienast F, Bolliger J (2014) Landscape genetics as a tool for conservation planning: predicting the effects of landscape change on gene flow Ecol Appl 24(2):327–339PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Varvio S-L, Chakraborty R, Nei M (1986) Genetic variation in subdivided populations and conservation genetics. Heredity 57(2):189–198PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Villard M-A, Metzger JP (2014) Beyond the fragmentation debate: a conceptual model to predict when habitat configuration really matters. J Appl Ecol 51(2):309–318
Google Scholar 
Wagner HH, Fortin M-J (2013) A conceptual framework for the spatial analysis of landscape genetic data. Conserv Genet 14(2):253–261
Google Scholar 
Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38(6):1358–1370PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wold S, Sjöström M, Eriksson L (2001) PLS-regression: a basic tool of chemometrics. Chemometr Intellig Lab Syst 58(2):109–130
Google Scholar 
Zetterberg A, Mörtberg UM, Balfors B (2010) Making graph theory operational for landscape ecological assessments, planning, and design. Landsc Urban Plan 95(4):181–191
Google Scholar  More

1.Priyadarshani, N., Marsland, S. & Castro, I. Automated birdsong recognition in complex acoustic environments: A review. J. Avian Biol. 49, e01447. https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.01447 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Barker, D. J. & Johnson, A. M. Automated acoustic analysis of 50-kHz ultrasonic vocalizations using template matching and contour analysis. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 141, EL281–EL286. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4977990 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
3.Oswald, J. N., Rankin, S., Barlow, J. & Lammers, M. O. A tool for real-time acoustic species identification of delphinid whistles. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122, 587–595. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2743157 (2007).Article 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
4.Van Segbroeck, M., Knoll, A. T., Levitt, P. & Narayanan, S. MUPET—Mouse Ultrasonic Profile ExTraction: A signal processing tool for rapid and unsupervised analysis of ultrasonic vocalizations. Neuron 94, 465-485.e465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.04.005 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Binder, M. S., Hernandez-Zegada, C. J., Potter, C. T., Nolan, S. O. & Lugo, J. N. A comparison of the Avisoft (5.2) and Ultravox (2.0) recording systems: Implications for early-life communication and vocalization research. J. Neurosci. Methods 309, 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2018.08.015 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Mcloughlin, M. P., Stewart, R. & McElligott, A. G. Automated bioacoustics: Methods in ecology and conservation and their potential for animal welfare monitoring. J. R. Soc. Interface 16, 20190225. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2019.0225 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Castellote, M. & Fossa, F. Measuring acoustic activity as a method to evaluate welfare in captive beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas). Aquat. Mamm. 32, 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.32.3.2006.325 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Clapham, W. M., Fedders, J. M., Beeman, K. & Neel, J. P. S. Acoustic monitoring system to quantify ingestive behavior of free-grazing cattle. Comput. Electron. Agric. 76, 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2011.01.009 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Schön, P. C. et al. Altered vocalization rate during the estrous cycle in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 90, 202–206. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)72621-8 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Cascão, I., Lammers, M. O., Prieto, R., Santos, R. S. & Silva, M. A. Temporal patterns in acoustic presence and foraging activity of oceanic dolphins at seamounts in the Azores. Sci. Rep. 10, 3610. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60441-4 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
11.Manteuffel, G. R. & Schön, P. C. STREMODO, an innovative technique for continuous stress assessment of pigs in housing and transport. Arch. Tierzucht. 47, 173–181 (2004).
Google Scholar 
12.Chedad, A. et al. Recognition system for pig cough based on probabilistic neural networks. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 79, 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1006/jaer.2001.0719 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Bardeli, R. et al. Detecting bird sounds in a complex acoustic environment and application to bioacoustic monitoring. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 31, 1524–1534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2009.09.014 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
14.Jones, K. E. et al. In Biodiversity Monitoring and Conservation: Bridging the Gap Between Global Commitment and Local Action (eds Collen, B., et al.) Ch. 10, (Taylor & Francis, 2013).15.Marques, T. A. et al. Estimating animal population density using passive acoustics. Biol. Rev. 88, 287–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12001 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.Stevenson, B. C. et al. A general framework for animal density estimation from acoustic detections across a fixed microphone array. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12291 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Wrege, P. H., Rowland, E. D., Keen, S. & Shiu, Y. Acoustic monitoring for conservation in tropical forests: Examples from forest elephants. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 1292–1301. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12730 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Haver, S. M. et al. Comparing the underwater soundscapes of four U.S. national parks and marine sanctuaries. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 500. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00500 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Beason, R. D., Riesch, R. & Koricheva, J. AURITA: An affordable, autonomous recording device for acoustic monitoring of audible and ultrasonic frequencies. Bioacoustics 28, 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2018.1463293 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Beeman, K. H., Hopp, S. L., Owren, M. J. & Evans, C. S. E. Animal Acoustic Communication: Sound Analysis and Research Methods (Springer, 1998).
Google Scholar 
21.Janik, V. M. Pitfalls in the categorization of behaviour: A comparison of dolphin whistle classification methods. Anim. Behav. 57, 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1998.0923 (1999).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Gillespie, D. et al. PAMGUARD: Semiautomated, open source software for real-time acoustic detection and localization of cetaceans. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125, 2547–2547. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4808713 (2009).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
23.Kaleidoscope Pro Analysis Software [Software]. (Wildlife Acoustics, Inc. https://www.wildlifeacoustics.com (2020).24.Ruff, Z. J., Lesmeister, D. B., Duchac, L. S., Padmaraju, B. K. & Sullivan, C. M. Automated identification of avian vocalizations with deep convolutional neural networks. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 6, 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.125 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Coffey, K. R., Marx, R. G. & Neumaier, J. F. DeepSqueak: A deep learning-based system for detection and analysis of ultrasonic vocalizations. Neuropsychopharmacology 44, 859–868. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-018-0303-6 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Oikarinen, T. et al. Deep convolutional network for animal sound classification and source attribution using dual audio recordings. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 145, 654–662. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5087827 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
27.Pozzi, L., Gamba, M. & Giacoma, C. The use of artificial neural networks to classify primate vocalizations: A pilot study on black lemurs. Am. J. Primatol. 72, 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20786 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Gamba, M. et al. Comparative analysis of the vocal repertoire of Eulemur: A dynamic time warping approach. Int. J. Primatol. 36, 894–910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-015-9861-1 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Pozzi, L., Gamba, M. & Giacoma, C. In Leaping Ahead: Advances in Prosimian Biology. (ed Masters, J.) Ch. 34, 305–313 (Springer, 2013).30.Heinicke, S. et al. Assessing the performance of a semi-automated acoustic monitoring system for primates. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 753–763. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12384 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Turesson, H. K., Ribeiro, S., Pereira, D. R., Papa, J. P. & de Albuquerque, V. H. C. Machine learning algorithms for automatic classification of marmoset vocalizations. PLoS One 11, e0163041. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163041 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Bergler, C. et al. ORCA-SPOT: An automatic killer whale sound detection toolkit using deep learning. Sci. Rep. 9, 10997. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47335-w (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
33.Shiu, Y. et al. Deep neural networks for automated detection of marine mammal species. Sci. Rep. 10, 607. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-57549-y (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
34.Zeppelzauer, M., Hensman, S. & Stoeger, A. S. Towards an automated acoustic detection system for free-ranging elephants. Bioacoustics 24, 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2014.906321 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.Venter, P. J. & Hanekom, J. J. Automatic detection of African elephant (Loxodonta africana) infrasonic vocalisations from recordings. Biosyst. Eng. 106, 286–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2010.04.001 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Mac Aodha, O. et al. Bat detective-Deep learning tools for bat acoustic signal detection. PLoS Comput. Biol. 14, e1005995. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005995 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Henriquez, A. et al. An automatic acoustic bat identification system based on the audible spectrum. Expert Syst. Appl. 41, 5451–5465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.02.021 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Hoy, M. B. Alexa, Siri, Cortana, and more: An introduction to voice assistants. Med. Ref. Serv. Q. 37, 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2018.1404391 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
39.López, G., Quesada, L. & Guerrero, L. A. In Advances in Human Factors and Systems Interaction. AHFE 2017. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing Vol. 592 (ed. Nunes, I.) (Springer, 2018).40.Ren, S., He, K., Girshick, R. & Sun, J. Faster R-CNN: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 39, 1137–1149. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2016.2577031 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Barker, D. J., Herrera, C. & West, M. O. Automated detection of 50-kHz ultrasonic vocalizations using template matching in XBAT. J. Neurosci. Methods 236, 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2014.08.007 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Zimmermann, E. In Leaping Ahead: Advances in Prosimian Biology (eds. Masters, J., Gamba, M., & Génin, F.) Ch. 32, 287–295 (Springer, 2013).43.Schopf, C., Schmidt, S. & Zimmermann, E. Moderate evidence for a Lombard effect in a phylogenetically basal primate. PeerJ 4, e2328. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2328 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Niaussat, M. M. & Petter, J. J. Etude de la sensibilité auditive d’un lémurien malgache: Microcebus murinus (J.-F. Miller, 1777). Mammalia 44, 553–558. https://doi.org/10.1515/mamm.1980.44.4.553 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Hasiniaina, A. F. et al. Evolutionary significance of the variation in acoustic communication of a cryptic nocturnal primate radiation (Microcebus spp.). Ecol. Evol. 10, 3784–3797. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6177 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Braune, P., Schmidt, S. & Zimmermann, E. Acoustic divergence in the communication of cryptic species of nocturnal primates (Microcebus ssp.). BMC Biol. 6, 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7007-6-19 (2008).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.Leliveld, L. M. C., Scheumann, M. & Zimmermann, E. Acoustic correlates of individuality in the vocal repertoire of a nocturnal primate (Microcebus murinus). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129, 2278–2288. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3559680 (2011).Article 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
48.Scheumann, M., Zimmermann, E. & Deichsel, G. Context-specific calls signal infants’ needs in a strepsirrhine primate, the gray mouse lemur (Microcebus murinus). Dev. Psychobiol. 49, 708–718. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.20234 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Zimmermann, E. In Handbook of Mammalian Vocalization: An Integrative Neuroscience Approach. (ed. Brudzynski, S. M.) 215–225 (Academic Press, 2010).50.Zimmermann, E. In Handbook of Ultrasonic Vocalization: A Window into the Emotional Brain vol. 25 (ed. Brudzynski, S. M.) 521–533 (Academic Press, 2018).51.Buesching, C. D., Heistermann, M., Hodges, J. K. & Zimmermann, E. Multimodal oestrus advertisement in a small nocturnal prosimian, Microcebus murinus. Folia Primatol. 69(1), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1159/000052718 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Scheumann, M., Linn, S. & Zimmermann, E. Vocal greeting during mother–infant reunions in a nocturnal primate, the gray mouse lemur (Microcebus murinus). Sci. Rep. 7, 10321. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10417-8 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
53.Braune, P., Schmidt, S. & Zimmermann, E. Spacing and group coordination in a nocturnal primate, the golden brown mouse lemur (Microcebus ravelobensis): The role of olfactory and acoustic signals. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 58, 587–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-005-0944-4 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Kessler, S. E., Scheumann, M., Nash, L. T. & Zimmermann, E. Paternal kin recognition in the high frequency/ultrasonic range in a solitary foraging mammal. BMC Ecol. 12, 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-12-26 (2012).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Zimmermann, E. & Hafen, T. G. Colony specificity in a social call of mouse lemurs (Microcebus ssp.). Am. J. Primatol. 54, 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.1018 (2001).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56.Hafen, T., Neveu, H., Rumpler, Y., Wilden, I. & Zimmermann, E. Acoustically dimorphic advertisement calls separate morphologically and genetically homogenous populations of the grey mouse lemur (Microcebus murinus). Folia Primatol. 69, 342–356. https://doi.org/10.1159/000052723 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Zimmermann, E. & Lerch, C. The complex acoustic design of an advertisement call in male mouse lemurs (Microcebus murinus, Prosimii, Primates) and sources of its variation. Ethology 93, 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1993.tb00990.x (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Zimmermann, E. Castration affects the emission of an ultrasonic vocalization in a nocturnal primate, the grey mouse lemur (Microcebus murinus). Physiol. Behav. 60, 693–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(96)81674-X (1996).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
59.Keenan, S., Lemasson, A. & Zuberbühler, K. Graded or discrete? A quantitative analysis of Campbell’s monkey alarm calls. Anim. Behav. 85, 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.10.014 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Tallet, C. et al. Encoding of situations in the vocal repertoire of piglets (Sus scrofa): A comparison of discrete and graded classifications. PLoS One 8, e71841. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071841 (2013).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
61.Hasiniaina, A. F. et al. High frequency/ultrasonic communication in a critically endangered nocturnal primate, Claire’s mouse lemur (Microcebus mamiratra). Am. J. Primatol. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22866 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
62.Boersma, P. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot Int. 5, 341–345 (2001).
Google Scholar 
63.Owren, M. J. GSU Praat Tools: Scripts for modifying and analyzing sounds using Praat acoustics software. Behav. Res. Methods 40, 822–829. https://doi.org/10.3758/Brm.40.3.822 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
64.R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).65.Fränti, P. & Sieranoja, S. How much can k-means be improved by using better initialization and repeats?. Pattern Recogn. 93, 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2019.04.014 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
66.Patterson, J. & Gibson, A. Deep Learning: A Practitioner’s Approach. (O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2017).67.Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (Englisch). 3rd ed. (Sage Publication, 2009).68.Clink, D. J., Tasirin, J. S. & Klinck, H. Vocal individuality and rhythm in male and female duet contributions of a nonhuman primate. Curr. Zool. 66, 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1093/cz/zoz035 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
69.Romero-Mujalli, D., Tárano, Z., Cobarrubia, S. & Barreto, G. Caracterización de silbidos de Tursiops truncatus (Cetacea: Delphinidae) y su asociación con el comportamiento en superficie. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento 6, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.32348/1852.4206.v6.n1.6362 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Papale, E., Gamba, M., Perez-Gil, M., Martin, V. M. & Giacoma, C. Dolphins adjust species-specific frequency parameters to compensate for increasing background noise. PLoS One 10, e0121711. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121711 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
71.García, N. C., Barreira, A. S., Kopuchian, C. & Tubaro, P. L. Intraspecific and interspecific vocal variation in three Neotropical cardinalids (Passeriformes: Fringillidae) and its relationship with body mass. Emu 114, 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1071/MU13010 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Lostanlen, V., Salamon, J., Farnsworth, A., Kelling, S. & Bello, J. P. Robust sound event detection in bioacoustic sensor networks. PLoS One 14, e0214168. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214168 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Albin, A. PraatR: An architecture for controlling the phonetics software “Praat” with the R programming language. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 135, 2198. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4877175 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar  More

SettingThis study was conducted in Cantabria, a region of the North coast of Spain.Design and patientsA cross-sectional study with prospective data collection was performed at the Allergy Services of the Marqués de Valdecilla University Hospital in Santander and the Sierrallana Hospital in Torrelavega (Cantabria, Spain).98 patients diagnosed of rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma or both, caused by sensitization to grass pollen, were included in a sequential way from October 2015 to March 2016.Written informed consent was obtained from all patients before entering the study. The study met the principles of the 1975 Helsinki declaration and was reviewed and approved by the local Research Committee of Cantabria (CEIC reference number 2015.207).A serum sample was obtained from each patient and stored at – 20 °C until used.Pollen extract preparationAll methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.Cortaderia selloana (CS) pollen was obtained commercially (Iber-Polen, Jaén, Spain) and then extracted at a 1:10 (w/v) ratio in PBS pH 6.5 with magnetic stirring for 90 min. at 5 °C. The soluble fraction was separated by centrifugation. After dialysis against PBS, the extract was filtered through 0, 22 µm filters. Protein content was determined by Bradford method (BioRad, Hercules, CA, USA). Two different batches were obtained (07 and 09) with consistent results.Part of the extract was adjusted to 0.25 mg protein/ml and formulated in PBS with 50% glycerol, phenol 0.51% (SPT buffer). The remaining extract was stored in aliquots at − 20 °C.Phleum pratense (Phl) pollen extract was made as described for CS. The origin of the pollen in this case was ALK Source Materials, Post Falls, Idaho, USA.The protein profiles of the CS or the Phl extracts were determined by polyacrylamide electrophoresis in the presence of sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS-PAGE) under reducing conditions (Invitrogen-Novex tricine gels 10–20% acrylamide, Fisher Scientific, SL, Madrid Spain).Skin prick testPatients were skin prick tested (SPT) with a commercial extract (ALK-Abelló, S.A. Madrid, Spain) of Phl and the CS extract. Histamine dihydrochloride solution (10 mg/ml) and SPT buffer were used as positive and negative control (no reaction), respectively.The SPT wheal areas were measured by planimetry. A cut-off area of 7 mm2 (about 3 mm average diameter) or higher was considered a positive test result (histamine).The CS extract was tested in 10 control subjects, that were not sensitised to grass pollen, with negative result (no reaction).IgE assaysSerum samples were tested for IgE antibodies against Phleum pratense (Phl) pollen extract and the allergens Phl p 1, Phl p 5, Phl p 7 (polcalcin) and Phl p 12 (profilin) (ImmunoCap FEIA, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Barcelona, Spain).In addition, specific IgE against Phl and CS pollen extracts was determined by RAST (Radio Allergo Sorbent Test). Paper discs were activated with CNBr and sensitised with the pollen extracts as described by Ceska et al.21. Phl and CS discs were incubated overnight with 50 µL of the patient’s serum and after washing (0.1% Tween-20 in PBS), with approximately 100,000 cpm of the iodine 125–labeled anti-IgE mAb HE-2 for 3 h as described22. Finally, the discs were washed, and their radioactivity was determined in a gamma counter. sIgE values in kilounits per litre were determined by interpolating in a standard curve built up with Lolium perenne—sensitised discs and 4 dilutions of a serum pool from patients with grass allergy, which was previously calibrated in arbitrary kU/l.A cut-off value of 0.35 kU/l was considered positive for both ImmunoCap and RAST. There was a very significant correlation between the sIgE against Phl determined by both methods (r Spearman = 0.8874, p  More

The result of this study is presented in three categories, namely; the descriptive statistics, the water quality test result and the ANN model and the model evaluation performance, respectively.The descriptive statistics result is presented in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4. This describes the basic features of the data in this study. They provide simple summaries about the sample and the measures such as the mean, median, maximum, minimum and standard deviation, respectively.Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the analyzed water quality at point 1.Full size tableTable 2 Descriptive statistics of the analyzed water quality at point 2.Full size tableTable 3 Descriptive statistics of the analyzed water quality at point 3.Full size tableTable 4 Descriptive statistics of the analyzed water quality at point 4.Full size tableThe descriptive statistics in Tables 1,2, 3, 4 shows that the mean values of the data set ranges from 6.29 to 6.34, 1956.21 to 2458.19, 3.35 to 7.39 and 39.13 to 51.06 for Ph, TDS (mg/l), EC (dS/m) and Na (mg/l), respectively. The median values of the data set ranges from 6.31 to 6.39, 2010.00 to 2439.50, 3.14 to 4.24 and 39.13 to 51.06 for pH, TDS (mg/l), EC (dS/m) and Na (mg/l), respectively. The Maximum values data set ranges from 6.48 to 6.64, 2286.00 to 2742.00, 2.21 to 5.82, and 64.50 to 88.45 for Ph, TDS (mg/l), EC (dS/m) and Na (mg/l), respectively. The minimum values dataset ranges from 6.00 to 6.09, 1367.00 to 2199.00, 2.01 to 3.18, and 21.21 to 40.24 for Ph, TDS (mg/l), EC (dS/m) and Na (mg/l), respectively. The standard deviation values ranges from 0.08 to 0.16, 114.47 to 213.04, 0.23 to 31.49 and 14.06 to 8.16 for Ph, TDS (mg/l), EC (dS/m) and Na (mg/l), respectively. The low values of standard deviation recorded in this study shows that data set were very close to the mean of the dataset.The water quality analysis test result indicates the level of concentrations of the TDS (mg/l), EC (dS/m) and Na (mg/l) in the Ele river in Nnewi, Anambra State Nigeria. The FAO standard for irrigation water quality for TDS, EC and Na are 0–2000, 0–3 and 0–40, respectively. The water quality results show that the pH values which ranges from 6.01 to 6.87 were within the FAO standard in all the points for both rainy and dry seasons, whereas the TDS (mg/l), EC (dS/m) and Na (mg/l) parametric values range from 2001 to 2506, 3.01 to 5.76, and 40.42 to 73.45 respectively, were above the FAO standard from point 1 to point 3 and falls within the FAO standard at point 4 with values ranging from 1003 to 1994, 2.01 to 2.78 and 31.24 to 39.44, respectively. However, during the dry season, the TDS, EC, and Na values range from 2002 to 2742, 3.04 to 5.82 and 40.14 to 88.45 respectively, were all above the FAO standard. Anthropogenic pollution emitted into water bodies has recently been identified as a significant source of pollutants that need immediate action in order to avoid serious environmental effects11.The results equally revealed that the concentrations decrease along the sampling points going downstream. It is noteworthy that irrigation water with a pH outside the normal range may cause a nutritional imbalance or may contain a toxic ion which is harmful to crops19. The high concentrations of TDS as observed in this study are likely to increase the salinity of the river water, change the taste of the water, and as well decrease the dissolved oxygen level of the surface water making it difficult for the survival of plants and aquatic organisms7.Moreover, these anions and cations which increase the electric conductivity in water affect irrigation adversely since salts settle at crop root zones making it difficult for infiltration, absorption of moisture and nutrients necessary for crop production.The ANN model and forecast for the water quality parameters are shown from Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. Considering the water quality permissible range, River quality modeling and forecast shows different variations seasonally such that the pollution level during dry season was higher than the rainy season.Figure 4(A and B): pH model and forecast graph at point 1.Full size imageFigure 5(A and B): TDS model and forecast graph at point 1.Full size imageFigure 6(A and B): EC model and forecast graph at point 1.Full size imageFigure 7(A and B): Na model and Forecast graph at point 1.Full size imageFigure 8(A and B): Ph model and Forecast graph at point 2.Full size imageFigure 9(A and B): TDS model and Forecast graph at point 2.Full size imageFigure 10(A and B): EC model and Forecast graph at point 2.Full size imageFigure 11(A and B): Na model and Forecast graph at point 2.Full size imageFigure 12(A and B): Ph model and Forecast graph at point 3.Full size imageFigure 13(A and B): TDS model and Forecast graph at point 3.Full size imageFigure 14(A and B): EC model and Forecast graph at point 3.Full size imageFigure 15(A and B): Na model and Forecast graph at point 3.Full size imageFigure 16(A and B): pH model and Forecast graph at point 4.Full size imageFigure 17(A and B): TDS model and Forecast graph at point.Full size imageFigure 18(A and B): EC model and Forecast graph at point 4.Full size imageFigure 19(A and B): Na model and Forecast graph at point 4.Full size imageGenerally, the artificial neural network model the actual data set very well. At various sampling points, the developed ANN models descriptively show insignificant values in deviation for the actual data set. There were continues variations in the developed models and forecasts over time. The feed-forward Multilayer Neural Network (FFMNN) Model Performance Evaluation Results are shown in Table 5. The model performance evaluation was carried out based on the developed ANN model training, Testing and forecast, respectively. The model performance evaluation was carried out using the coefficient of multiple determination R2 and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE).Table 5 Statistical measurement of the trained, test and forecast model.Full size tableThe R2 values were generally observed to have varied in the second decimal place for the training, testing and forecast model, respectively.The training performance evaluation shows that R2 values ranges from 0.981 to 0.990, 0.981 to 0.988, 0.981 to 0.989 and 0981 to 0.989, for pH, TDS, EC, and Na, respectively. The training results shows that the pH model have the best performance followed by EC, and Na.Also, the testing performance shows that the R2 value ranges from 0.952 to 0.967, 0.953 to 0.970, 0.951 to 0.967 and 0.953 to 0.968, for pH, TDS, EC and Na, respectively. However, the testing performance evaluation shows that TDS had the best performance. The forecast performance evaluation shows that the R2 values ranges from 0.945 to 0.968, 0.946 to 0.968, 0.944 to 0.967 and 0.949 to 0.965 for pH, TDS, EC and Na respectively. It was however discovered that the TDS made best forecast followed by the pH. The water quality forecast performance was further evaluated using the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) which ranges from 0.022 to 0.088, 0.012 to 0.087, 0.015 to 0.085and 0.014 to 0.084 for pH, TDS, EC and Na, respectively. The ANN model performed very well as their coefficient of multiple determinations R2 were very close 1, which is in agreement with the study of Awu et al. (2017) and Abrahart et al., (2005). On comparing the performance of the training model to the testing model and forecast, it shows that the training set performed better than the testing set followed by the forecast as its coefficient of multiple determinations, R2, was much closer to 1. More

AffiliationsDepartment of Physiology, Genetics, and Microbiology, University of Alicante, Alicante, SpainFrancisco Martinez-Hernandez, Inmaculada Garcia-Heredia & Manuel Martinez-GarciaDepartment of Biology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USAAwa Diop & Louis-Marie BobayAuthorsFrancisco Martinez-HernandezAwa DiopInmaculada Garcia-HerediaLouis-Marie BobayManuel Martinez-GarciaCorresponding authorCorrespondence to
Manuel Martinez-Garcia. More