Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 2 in Dental and tarsal morphology of the European Paleocene/Eocene "condylarth" mammal Microhyus

Fig. 2. Belgicasorex ramboeri, Lower Oligocene, Hoogbutsel, Belgium, IRSNB−M−1903 (holotype). Right maxillary with P4–M2, in labial (A), occlusal (B), and lingual (C) views.

Fig. 3 in Dental and tarsal morphology of the European Paleocene/Eocene "condylarth" mammal Microhyus

Fig. 3. Belgicasorex ramboeri, Lower Oligocene, Hoogbutsel, Belgium, IRSNB−M−1904, right M3 in occlusal view.

Fig. 10 in Dental and tarsal morphology of the European Paleocene/Eocene "condylarth" mammal Microhyus

Fig. 10. Microhyus reisi, Antunes, Estravis, and Russell, 1987, early Ypresian, Silveirinha, Portugal (inverse SEM micrographs of epoxy resin casts). A. Right calcaneus UNLSNC−682 in (A1) dorsal, (A2) medial, (A3) plantar, (A4) lateral, (A5) proximal, and (A6) distal views. B. Right astragalus UNLSNC−674 in proximal view. C. Right astragalus UNLSNC−671 in (C1) distal, (C2) dorsal, (C3) medial, (C4) plantar, and (C5) lateral views.

Fig. 7 in Dental and tarsal morphology of the European Paleocene/Eocene "condylarth" mammal Microhyus

Fig. 7. Bivariate plot of width versus length (in mm) of upper (A) and lower (B) molars and upper (C) and lower (D) premolars of Microhyus reisi.

Fig. 8 in Dental and tarsal morphology of the European Paleocene/Eocene "condylarth" mammal Microhyus

Fig. 8. Coefficients of variation of length and width measurements of premolars and molars of Microhyus reisi.

Fig. 6 in Dental and tarsal morphology of the European Paleocene/Eocene "condylarth" mammal Microhyus

Fig. 6. Microhyus reisi, Antunes, Estravis, and Russell, 1987, early Ypresian, Silveirinha, Portugal (SEM micrographs of epoxy resin casts and interpretative drawings showing some aspects of the variability of the species); all teeth in occlusal view. A. Right DP3, UNLSNC−122. B. Right DP4, UNLSNC−346. C. Right P3, UNLSNC−80. D. Left P4, UNLSNC−111. E. Left P4, UNLSNC−118. F. Left M1, UNLSNC−199. G. Left M1, UNLSNC−156. H. Right M1, UNLSNC−465. I. Right M1, UNLSNC−194. J. Right M2, UNLSNC−8. K. Right M2, UNLSNC−139.

Fig. 4 in Dental and tarsal morphology of the European Paleocene/Eocene "condylarth" mammal Microhyus

Fig. 4. Reconstruction of the mandible of Microhyus reisi based primarily on UNLSV3−3, UNLSV3−418, UNLSNC−11, UNLSNC−87, and UNLSNC−153.

Fig. 2 in Dental and tarsal morphology of the European Paleocene/Eocene "condylarth" mammal Microhyus

Fig. 2. Microhyus musculus Teilhard de Chardin, 1927, earliest Ypresian, Dormaal, Belgium (SEM micrographs). A. Left p4, IRSNB M1336 in labial (A1) and occlusal (A2) views. B. Left m1, IRSNB M1337 in labial (B1) and occlusal (B2) views. C. Right m2, IRSNB M1338 in labial (C1) and occlusal (C2) views. D. Left m3, IRSNB M1339 in labial (D1) and occlusal (D2) views. E. Left p2, IRSNB M1340 in labial (E1) and occlusal (E2) views. F. Right DP4, IRSNB M1341 in labial (F1) and occlusal (F2) views. G. Holotype, left M1, IRSNB M115 in labial (G1) and occlusal (G2) views. H. Right M3, IRSNB M1342 in labial (H1) and occlusal (H2) views.

Fig. 3 in Dental and tarsal morphology of the European Paleocene/Eocene "condylarth" mammal Microhyus

Fig. 3. Microhyus reisi Antunes, Estravis, and Russell, 1987, early Ypresian, Silveirinha, Portugal (SEM micrographs of epoxy resin casts). A. Right m1–m3, UNLSNC−11 in occlusal (A1, stereophotographs) and labial (A2) views. B. Right m2, UNLSNC−216 in occlusal view. C. Right m1, UNLSNC−35 in occlusal view. D. Holotype, left p3–m1, UNLSV3−3 in labial (D1) and occlusal (D2) views. E. Left p2, UNLSNC−153, with c, p1 and p3 alveoli in lingual (E1) and occlusal (E2) views. F. Right Dp4–m1, UNLSNC−155, in occlusal (F1, stereophotographs) and labial (F2) views.

Fig. 5 in Dental and tarsal morphology of the European Paleocene/Eocene "condylarth" mammal Microhyus

Fig. 5. Microhyus reisi, Antunes, Estravis, and Russell, 1987, early Ypresian, Silveirinha, Portugal (SEM micrographs of epoxy resin casts). A. Right P4–M2, UNLSNC−14 in occlusal view (stereophotographs). B. Right M3, UNLSNC−626. C. Right P4–M3, UNLSNC−205 in occlusal (C1) and labial (C2) views.

opencc-by-4.0Aug 2024View details →

Ecological Dynamics and Coexistence Patterns of Wild and Domestic Mammals in an Abandoned Landscape

<p>This repository contains all scripts and data used for analysis and figures for the paper <strong>Zuleger, Annika M., Perino, Andrea, Pereira, Henrique M. (2024): <em>Ecological Dynamics and Coexistence Patterns of Wild and Domestic Mammals in an Abandoned Landscape</em>. Wildlife Biology. DOI: 10.1002/wlb3.01319</strong></p> <p><strong>Full Changelog</strong>: https://github.com/AMZuleger/Dynamics_Coexistence_Peneda/commits/v1.0.0</p> <h2><strong>Abstract</strong></h2> <p>The issue of agricultural land abandonment in Southern Europe has raised concerns about its impact on biodiversity. While abandoned areas can lead to positive developments like creating new habitats and restoring native vegetation, they can also result in human-wildlife conflicts, particularly in areas with extensive farming and free-ranging livestock. To understand habitat selection and use of livestock and wild ungulates, it is essential to study their spatial and temporal distribution patterns. In this context, we conducted a long-term large mammal monitoring project using camera traps in the Peneda-Gerês National Park in Northern Portugal. Our primary focus was on exploring habitat preferences, occupancy dynamics, and potential spatial use correlations between domestic and wild species, utilizing dynamic occupancy models. Most wild species exhibited stable area use patterns, while domestic species experienced marginal declines, and the Iberian ibex displayed signs of repopulation. We observed distinct effects of habitat variables on occupancy, colonization, and extinction, revealing species-specific patterns of habitat utilization. Human disturbance had a notable impact on domestic species but did not affect wild ones. Camera sensitivity emerged as a critical factor, enhancing detection probability for all species. Additionally, habitat and weather variables exerted varying effects on detection probabilities, underscoring the necessity of accounting for these factors in modeling the detection process. We found shared habitat preferences between cattle and horses, both positively correlated with wolves, suggesting potential human-wildlife conflicts. Despite extensive spatial overlap, domestic and wild species seem to exhibit ecological independence due to distinct strategies and low predation pressure. Overall, the study emphasizes the multifaceted factors influencing habitat use. The observed species associations contribute to understanding ecological relationships and potential resource competition, emphasizing the importance of considering environmental variables for effective wildlife conservation and management.</p> <div> <h2><strong>Structure</strong></h2> </div> <ul> <li>R_Ecological_Dynamics_and_Coexistence_Patterns_rv.R --> R Script to perform all analysis from the publication <ul> <li>This is the only file needed to perform the entire analysis. Code will automaticall download data from GitHub and produce all Results and Figures.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <div> <h3><strong>Data</strong></h3> </div> <ul> <li>Presence-absence tables for each species (per grid cell and week) from 2015 to 2022 (e.g. Domestic cattle.csv)</li> <li>SiteCovs_2015_grid.csv --> intial site covariates for the first primary sampling period</li> <li>yearlySiteCovs_grid.rds --> yearly site covariates for each primary sampling period</li> <li>ObsCovs.rds --> observation covariates for each secondary sampling period</li> </ul> <h2><strong>Authors</strong></h2> <p>Annika M. Zuleger*, Andrea Perino and Henrique M. Pereira</p> <p>*Corresponding author: Annika Mikaela Zuleger, German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstraße 4, 04103 Leipzig, Germany Email: <a href="mailto:annika_mikaela.zuleger@idiv.de">annika_mikaela.zuleger@idiv.de</a></p>

Fig. 6 in New dental elements of the oldest proviverrine mammal from the early Eocene of Southern France support possible African origin of the subfamily

Fig. 6. Comparison of phylogenetic trees and of the three hypotheses of hyaenodont origin and dispersals with focus on the Sinopinae and Proviverrinae. A. African origin with subsequent dispersals of the Sinopinae and Proviverrinae into Europe, and of the Sinopinae from Europe to North America. A 1. The phylogenetic tree based on the cladistics analysis of Solé et al. (2014b). A 2. Faunal dispersals during the early Eocene based on the hypothesis of an African origin for the Hyaenodonta. B. Asian origin with subsequent dispersals of Sinopinae and Proviverrinae into Europe, and of Tinerhodon from Europe to Africa. B 1. The phylogenetic tree based on the cladistics analysis of Rana et al. (in press); the position of the Group A is variable—we represent only two of the four possible positions: the basal position implies two dispersal events from Laurasia to Africa, while the more inclusive position implies one single event. B 2. Faunal dispersals around the Paleocene–Eocene transition based on the hypothesis of an Asian origin for the Hyaenodonta. C. Multiregional origin with subsequent dispersals of the Sinopinae from Asia to North America through Europe, and of the Proviverrinae from Africa to Europe. C 1. The phylogenetic tree based on the abstract of Morlo et al. (2010). C 2. Faunal dispersals during the early Eocene based on the hypotheses of an Asian origin for the Sinopinae (Hyaenodontida) and of an African one for the Proviverrinae (Proviverroidea). The phylogeny of Rana et al. in press) is, however, consistent with either an African or an Asian origin for the Hyaenodonta; only the Asian origin is discussed here; the position of Tinerhodon in C 1 is our hypothesis because this taxon is not discussed by Morlo et al. (2010). Abbreviations: A, Africa; L, Laurasia. Bolded, taxa that mainly radiated in Africa; asterisks, paraphyletic subfamilies in Rana et al. (in press). A 2 –C 2 are adapted from Ron Blakey, Eocene, http://www2.nau. edu/rcb7/050Marect.jpg.

Fig. 4. Proviverrine mammal Eoproviverra eisenmanni Godinot, 1981 in New dental elements of the oldest proviverrine mammal from the early Eocene of Southern France support possible African origin of the subfamily

Fig. 4. Proviverrine mammal Eoproviverra eisenmanni Godinot, 1981 from early Eocene, Rians, France; MNHN.F.RI 400, left m2; labial (A), occlusal (B), and lingual (C) views.

Fig. 7 in New dental elements of the oldest proviverrine mammal from the early Eocene of Southern France support possible African origin of the subfamily

Fig. 7. Geographic localisation of the Asian hyaenodonts mentioned in the text, and distributions of the Limnocyoninae and Indohyaenodontinae. Both the geographic distributions of the Limnocyoninae and Indohyaenodontinae include the Mongolian specimen PSS 20-124. Adapted from Ron Blakey, Eocene, http://www2.nau.edu/rcb7/050Marect.jpg.

Fig. 3 in New dental elements of the oldest proviverrine mammal from the early Eocene of Southern France support possible African origin of the subfamily

Fig. 3. Proviverrine mammal Parvagula palulae Lange-Badré in Godinot et al., 1987 from Fournes (A, C, D) and Fordones (B), France, early Eocene. A. UM/FNR 53, right fragmentary dentary bearing p4; labial (A 1), lingual (A2), and occlusal (A3) views. B. UM/FDN 153, left trigonid of m1?; occlusal (B 1), labial (B2), and lingual (B3) views. C. UM/FNR 52, left trigonid of m1?; occlusal (C1), labial (C2), and lingual (C3) views. D. UM/FNR 51, right m1?; labial (D 1), occlusal (D2), and lingual (D3) views. The frame distinguishes the sole specimen from Fordones.

Fig. 1 in New dental elements of the oldest proviverrine mammal from the early Eocene of Southern France support possible African origin of the subfamily

Fig. 1. Eocene palaeogeographic map showing the possible localisation of Rians, Palette, Fournes, Fordones, and Le Quesnoy (France), Dormaal and Erquelinnes (Belgium), Silveirinha (Portugal), and Abbey Wood (England). The earliest proviverrines are restricted to the Southern European Province, while the sinopines are mainly located in the Northern European Province. Redrawn from Marandat et al. (2012: fig. 1).

Fig. 5 in New dental elements of the oldest proviverrine mammal from the early Eocene of Southern France support possible African origin of the subfamily

Fig. 5. Comparison of the p4 (A, C) and m1 (B, D) of the early Eocene Proviverrinae and Sinopinae. A, B. Parvagula palulae Lange-Badré in Godinot et al., 1987 from Fournes, France. A. UM/FNR 53, right p4; occlusal (A1) and lingual (A2) views. B. UM/FNR 51, right m1; occlusal (B1) and lingual (B2) views. C, D. Prototomus minimus Smith and Smith, 2001 from Dormaal, Belgium. C. IRSNB M1286, right p4; lingual (C1) and occlusal (C2) views. D. IRSNB M1287, left m1; lingual (D1) and occlusal (D2) views, reversed. Not to scale.

opencc-by-4.0May 2011View details →

Fig. 3 in Reappraisal of the tribosphenidan mammals from the Trinity Group (Aptian-Albian) of Texas and Oklahoma

Fig. 3. The deltatheroidans Oklatheridium szalayi Davis, Cifelli, and Kielan−Jaworowska, 2008 (A–E) and O. minax sp. nov. (F–H) from the Early Cretaceous of Oklahoma and Texas. A. OMNH 62411, LM1 in occlusal (A1) and buccal (A2) views. B. PM 1238, LM1 in occlusal (B1) and buccal (B2) views. C. OMNH 62410, LM2 (holotype) in occlusal (C1) and buccal (C2) views. D. OMNH 61180, LM2 in occlusal (D1) and buccal (D2) views. E. OMNH 63986, RM3 in occlusal (E1) and buccal (E2) views. F. PM 884, LM1 in occlusal (F1) and buccal (F2) views. G. OMNH 33455, LM2 (holotype) in occlusal (G1) and buccal (G2) views. H. OMNH 63727, RM3 in occlusal (H1) and buccal (H2) views.

opencc-by-4.0May 2011View details →

Fig. 9. The tribosphenidan Slaughteria eruptens Butler, 1978 in Reappraisal of the tribosphenidan mammals from the Trinity Group (Aptian-Albian) of Texas and Oklahoma

Fig. 9. The tribosphenidan Slaughteria eruptens Butler, 1978 from the Early Cretaceous of Oklahoma and Texas. A. PM 1098, Rp5 in in occlusal (A1) and lingual (A2) views. B. OMNH 63726, Rmx in occlusal (B1) and lingual (B2) views. C. OMNH 63721, Rmx in occlusal (C1) and lingual (C2) views. D. SMP−SMU 61992, left dentary fragment with p2, p3, dp4, and dp5 (holotype) in occlusal (D1) and lingual (D2) views. E. 3−D reconstruction of SMP−SMU 61992 from CT data (in lingual view, bone removed), with developing p4 and p5 indicated (modified from Davis 2011).