| 1. |
- Abd Nikooie Pour, Mina, et al.
(author)
-
Results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2022
- 2022
-
In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings. - : CEUR-WS. ; , s. 84-128, s. 84-128
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI) aims at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. These test cases can be based on ontologies of different levels of complexity and use different evaluation modalities. The OAEI 2022 campaign offered 14 tracks and was attended by 18 participants. This paper is an overall presentation of that campaign. © 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
|
|
| 2. |
- Komatsu, Kimberly J., et al.
(author)
-
Global change effects on plant communities are magnified by time and the number of global change factors imposed
- 2019
-
In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. - : National Academy of Sciences. - 0027-8424 .- 1091-6490. ; 116:36, s. 17867-17873
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Accurate prediction of community responses to global change drivers (GCDs) is critical given the effects of biodiversity on ecosystem services. There is consensus that human activities are driving species extinctions at the global scale, but debate remains over whether GCDs are systematically altering local communities worldwide. Across 105 experiments that included over 400 experimental manipulations, we found evidence for a lagged response of herbaceous plant communities to GCDs caused by shifts in the identities and relative abundances of species, often without a corresponding difference in species richness. These results provide evidence that community responses are pervasive across a wide variety of GCDs on long-term temporal scales and that these responses increase in strength when multiple GCDs are simultaneously imposed.Global change drivers (GCDs) are expected to alter community structure and consequently, the services that ecosystems provide. Yet, few experimental investigations have examined effects of GCDs on plant community structure across multiple ecosystem types, and those that do exist present conflicting patterns. In an unprecedented global synthesis of over 100 experiments that manipulated factors linked to GCDs, we show that herbaceous plant community responses depend on experimental manipulation length and number of factors manipulated. We found that plant communities are fairly resistant to experimentally manipulated GCDs in the short term (<10 y). In contrast, long-term (≥10 y) experiments show increasing community divergence of treatments from control conditions. Surprisingly, these community responses occurred with similar frequency across the GCD types manipulated in our database. However, community responses were more common when 3 or more GCDs were simultaneously manipulated, suggesting the emergence of additive or synergistic effects of multiple drivers, particularly over long time periods. In half of the cases, GCD manipulations caused a difference in community composition without a corresponding species richness difference, indicating that species reordering or replacement is an important mechanism of community responses to GCDs and should be given greater consideration when examining consequences of GCDs for the biodiversity–ecosystem function relationship. Human activities are currently driving unparalleled global changes worldwide. Our analyses provide the most comprehensive evidence to date that these human activities may have widespread impacts on plant community composition globally, which will increase in frequency over time and be greater in areas where communities face multiple GCDs simultaneously.
|
|
| 3. |
- Wang, Yan Ming, et al.
(author)
-
Colorado geoid computation experiment : overview and summary
- 2021
-
In: Journal of Geodesy. - : Springer. - 0949-7714 .- 1432-1394. ; 95:12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The primary objective of the 1-cm geoid experiment in Colorado (USA) is to compare the numerous geoid computation methods used by different groups around the world. This is intended to lay the foundations for tuning computation methods to achieve the sought after 1-cm accuracy, and also evaluate how this accuracy may be robustly assessed. In this experiment, (quasi)geoid models were computed using the same input data provided by the US National Geodetic Survey (NGS), but using different methodologies. The rugged mountainous study area (730 km x 560 km) in Colorado was chosen so as to accentuate any differences between the methodologies, and to take advantage of newly collected GPS/leveling data of the Geoid Slope Validation Survey 2017 (GSVS17) which are now available to be used as an accurate and independent test dataset. Fourteen groups from fourteen countries submitted a gravimetric geoid and a quasigeoid model in a 1' x 1' grid for the study area, as well as geoid heights, height anomalies, and geopotential values at the 223 GSVS17 marks. This paper concentrates on the quasigeoid model comparison and evaluation, while the geopotential value investigations are presented as a separate paper (Sanchez et al. in J Geodesy 95(3):1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-021-01481-0, 2021). Three comparisons are performed: the area comparison to show the model precision, the comparison with the GSVS17 data to estimate the relative accuracy of the models, and the differential quasigeoid (slope) comparison with GSVS17 to assess the relative accuracy of the height anomalies at different baseline lengths. The results show that the precision of the 1' x 1' models over the complete area is about 2 cm, while the accuracy estimates along the GSVS17 profile range from 1.2 cm to 3.4 cm. Considering that the GSVS17 does not pass the roughest terrain, we estimate that the quasigeoid can be computed with an accuracy of similar to 2 cm in Colorado. The slope comparisons show that RMS values of the differences vary from 2 to 8 cm in all baseline lengths. Although the 2-cm precision and 2-cm relative accuracy have been estimated in such a rugged region, the experiment has not reached the 1-cm accuracy goal. At this point, the different accuracy estimates are not a proof of the superiority of one methodology over another because the model precision and accuracy of the GSVS17-derived height anomalies are at a similar level. It appears that the differences are not primarily caused by differences in theory, but that they originate mostly from numerical computations and/or data processing techniques. Consequently, recommendations to improve the model precision toward the 1-cm accuracy are also given in this paper.
|
|
