Genome-Wiide estimates of coancestry, in breeding and effective population size in the Spanish Holstein population

Estimates of effective population size in the Holstein cattle breed have usually been low despite the large number of animals that constitute this breed. Effective population size is inversely related to the rates at which coancestry and inbreeding increase and these rates have been high as a consequence of intense and accurate selection. Traditionally, coancestry and inbreeding coefficients have been calculated from pedigree data. However, the development of genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms has increased the interest of calculating these coefficients from molecular data in order to improve their accuracy. In this study, genomic estimates of coancestry, inbreeding and effective population size were obtained in the Spanish Holstein population and then compared with pedigree-based estimates. A total of 11,135 animals genotyped with the Illumina BovineSNP50 BeadChip were available for the study. After applying filtering criteria, the final genomic dataset included 36,693 autosomal SNPs and 10,569 animals. Pedigree data from those genotyped animals included 31,203 animals. These individuals represented only the last five generations in order to homogenise the amount of pedigree information across animals. Genomic estimates of coancestry and inbreeding were obtained from identity by descent segments (coancestry) or runs of homozygosity (inbreeding). The results indicate that the percentage of variance of pedigree-based coancestry estimates explained by genomic coancestry estimates was higher than that for inbreeding. Estimates of effective population size obtained from genome-wide and pedigree information were consistent and ranged from about 66 to 79. These low values emphasize the need of controlling the rate of increase of coancestry and inbreeding in Holstein selection programmes.

Diminished UV-absorbing nets reduce the Spreads and population density of Macrosiphum euphorbiae in lettuce.

UV-absorbing covers reduce the incidence of injurious insect pests and viruses in protected crops. In the present study, the effect of a UV-absorbing net (Bionet) on the spatio-temporal dynamics of the potato aphid on lettuce plants was evaluated. A field experiment was conducted during three seasons in two identical tunnels divided in four plots. A set of lettuce plants were artificially infested with Macrosiphum euphorbiae adults and the population was estimated by counting aphids on every plant over 7 to 9 weeks. Insect population grew exponentially but a significantly lower aphid density was present on plants grown under the UV-absorbing cover compared to a standard 50 mesh net. Similarly, in laboratory conditions, life table parameters were significantly reduced under the Bionet. Moreover, SADIE analysis showed that the spatial distribution of aphids was effectively limited under the UV-absorbing nets. Our results indicate that UV-absorbing nets should be considered as an important component of lettuce indoor cropping systems preventing pesticide applications and reducing the risk of spread of aphid-borne virus diseases.

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web 1. INTRODUCTION. LINGUISTIC TOOLS AND ANNOTATIONS: THEIR LIGHTS AND SHADOWS Computational Linguistics is already a consolidated research area. It builds upon the results of other two major ones, namely Linguistics and Computer Science and Engineering, and it aims at developing computational models of human language (or natural language, as it is termed in this area). Possibly, its most well-known applications are the different tools developed so far for processing human language, such as machine translation systems and speech recognizers or dictation programs. These tools for processing human language are commonly referred to as linguistic tools. Apart from the examples mentioned above, there are also other types of linguistic tools that perhaps are not so well-known, but on which most of the other applications of Computational Linguistics are built. These other types of linguistic tools comprise POS taggers, natural language parsers and semantic taggers, amongst others. All of them can be termed linguistic annotation tools. Linguistic annotation tools are important assets. In fact, POS and semantic taggers (and, to a lesser extent, also natural language parsers) have become critical resources for the computer applications that process natural language. Hence, any computer application that has to analyse a text automatically and ‘intelligently’ will include at least a module for POS tagging. The more an application needs to ‘understand’ the meaning of the text it processes, the more linguistic tools and/or modules it will incorporate and integrate. However, linguistic annotation tools have still some limitations, which can be summarised as follows: 1. Normally, they perform annotations only at a certain linguistic level (that is, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, etc.). 2. They usually introduce a certain rate of errors and ambiguities when tagging. This error rate ranges from 10 percent up to 50 percent of the units annotated for unrestricted, general texts. 3. Their annotations are most frequently formulated in terms of an annotation schema designed and implemented ad hoc. A priori, it seems that the interoperation and the integration of several linguistic tools into an appropriate software architecture could most likely solve the limitations stated in (1). Besides, integrating several linguistic annotation tools and making them interoperate could also minimise the limitation stated in (2). Nevertheless, in the latter case, all these tools should produce annotations for a common level, which would have to be combined in order to correct their corresponding errors and inaccuracies. Yet, the limitation stated in (3) prevents both types of integration and interoperation from being easily achieved. In addition, most high-level annotation tools rely on other lower-level annotation tools and their outputs to generate their own ones. For example, sense-tagging tools (operating at the semantic level) often use POS taggers (operating at a lower level, i.e., the morphosyntactic) to identify the grammatical category of the word or lexical unit they are annotating. Accordingly, if a faulty or inaccurate low-level annotation tool is to be used by other higher-level one in its process, the errors and inaccuracies of the former should be minimised in advance. Otherwise, these errors and inaccuracies would be transferred to (and even magnified in) the annotations of the high-level annotation tool. Therefore, it would be quite useful to find a way to (i) correct or, at least, reduce the errors and the inaccuracies of lower-level linguistic tools; (ii) unify the annotation schemas of different linguistic annotation tools or, more generally speaking, make these tools (as well as their annotations) interoperate. Clearly, solving (i) and (ii) should ease the automatic annotation of web pages by means of linguistic tools, and their transformation into Semantic Web pages (Berners-Lee, Hendler and Lassila, 2001). Yet, as stated above, (ii) is a type of interoperability problem. There again, ontologies (Gruber, 1993; Borst, 1997) have been successfully applied thus far to solve several interoperability problems. Hence, ontologies should help solve also the problems and limitations of linguistic annotation tools aforementioned. Thus, to summarise, the main aim of the present work was to combine somehow these separated approaches, mechanisms and tools for annotation from Linguistics and Ontological Engineering (and the Semantic Web) in a sort of hybrid (linguistic and ontological) annotation model, suitable for both areas. This hybrid (semantic) annotation model should (a) benefit from the advances, models, techniques, mechanisms and tools of these two areas; (b) minimise (and even solve, when possible) some of the problems found in each of them; and (c) be suitable for the Semantic Web. The concrete goals that helped attain this aim are presented in the following section. 2. GOALS OF THE PRESENT WORK As mentioned above, the main goal of this work was to specify a hybrid (that is, linguistically-motivated and ontology-based) model of annotation suitable for the Semantic Web (i.e. it had to produce a semantic annotation of web page contents). This entailed that the tags included in the annotations of the model had to (1) represent linguistic concepts (or linguistic categories, as they are termed in ISO/DCR (2008)), in order for this model to be linguistically-motivated; (2) be ontological terms (i.e., use an ontological vocabulary), in order for the model to be ontology-based; and (3) be structured (linked) as a collection of ontology-based triples, as in the usual Semantic Web languages (namely RDF(S) and OWL), in order for the model to be considered suitable for the Semantic Web. Besides, to be useful for the Semantic Web, this model should provide a way to automate the annotation of web pages. As for the present work, this requirement involved reusing the linguistic annotation tools purchased by the OEG research group (http://www.oeg-upm.net), but solving beforehand (or, at least, minimising) some of their limitations. Therefore, this model had to minimise these limitations by means of the integration of several linguistic annotation tools into a common architecture. Since this integration required the interoperation of tools and their annotations, ontologies were proposed as the main technological component to make them effectively interoperate. From the very beginning, it seemed that the formalisation of the elements and the knowledge underlying linguistic annotations within an appropriate set of ontologies would be a great step forward towards the formulation of such a model (henceforth referred to as OntoTag). Obviously, first, to combine the results of the linguistic annotation tools that operated at the same level, their annotation schemas had to be unified (or, preferably, standardised) in advance. This entailed the unification (id. standardisation) of their tags (both their representation and their meaning), and their format or syntax. Second, to merge the results of the linguistic annotation tools operating at different levels, their respective annotation schemas had to be (a) made interoperable and (b) integrated. And third, in order for the resulting annotations to suit the Semantic Web, they had to be specified by means of an ontology-based vocabulary, and structured by means of ontology-based triples, as hinted above. Therefore, a new annotation scheme had to be devised, based both on ontologies and on this type of triples, which allowed for the combination and the integration of the annotations of any set of linguistic annotation tools. This annotation scheme was considered a fundamental part of the model proposed here, and its development was, accordingly, another major objective of the present work. All these goals, aims and objectives could be re-stated more clearly as follows: Goal 1: Development of a set of ontologies for the formalisation of the linguistic knowledge relating linguistic annotation. Sub-goal 1.1: Ontological formalisation of the EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) de facto standards for morphosyntactic and syntactic annotation, in a way that helps respect the triple structure recommended for annotations in these works (which is isomorphic to the triple structures used in the context of the Semantic Web). Sub-goal 1.2: Incorporation into this preliminary ontological formalisation of other existing standards and standard proposals relating the levels mentioned above, such as those currently under development within ISO/TC 37 (the ISO Technical Committee dealing with Terminology, which deals also with linguistic resources and annotations). Sub-goal 1.3: Generalisation and extension of the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and ISO/TC 37 to the semantic level, for which no ISO/TC 37 standards have been developed yet. Sub-goal 1.4: Ontological formalisation of the generalisations and/or extensions obtained in the previous sub-goal as generalisations and/or extensions of the corresponding ontology (or ontologies). Sub-goal 1.5: Ontological formalisation of the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the previously developed ontology (or ontologies). Goal 2: Development of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, a standard-based abstract scheme for the hybrid (linguistically-motivated and ontological-based) annotation of texts. Sub-goal 2.1: Development of the standard-based morphosyntactic annotation level of OntoTag’s scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996a) and also the recommendations included in the ISO/MAF (2008) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.2: Development of the standard-based syntactic annotation level of the hybrid abstract scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996b) and the ISO/SynAF (2010) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.3: Development of the standard-based semantic annotation level of OntoTag’s (abstract) scheme. Sub-goal 2.4: Development of the mechanisms for a convenient integration of the three annotation levels already mentioned. These mechanisms should take into account the recommendations included in the ISO/LAF (2009) standard draft. Goal 3: Design of OntoTag’s (abstract) annotation architecture, an abstract architecture for the hybrid (semantic) annotation of texts (i) that facilitates the integration and interoperation of different linguistic annotation tools, and (ii) whose results comply with OntoTag’s annotation scheme. Sub-goal 3.1: Specification of the decanting processes that allow for the classification and separation, according to their corresponding levels, of the results of the linguistic tools annotating at several different levels. Sub-goal 3.2: Specification of the standardisation processes that allow (a) complying with the standardisation requirements of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, as well as (b) combining the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.3: Specification of the merging processes that allow for the combination of the output annotations and the interoperation of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.4: Specification of the merge processes that allow for the integration of the results and the interoperation of those tools performing their annotations at different levels. Goal 4: Generation of OntoTagger’s schema, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract scheme for a concrete set of linguistic annotations. These linguistic annotations result from the tools and the resources available in the research group, namely • Bitext’s DataLexica (http://www.bitext.com/EN/datalexica.asp), • LACELL’s (POS) tagger (http://www.um.es/grupos/grupo-lacell/quees.php), • Connexor’s FDG (http://www.connexor.eu/technology/machinese/glossary/fdg/), and • EuroWordNet (Vossen et al., 1998). This schema should help evaluate OntoTag’s underlying hypotheses, stated below. Consequently, it should implement, at least, those levels of the abstract scheme dealing with the annotations of the set of tools considered in this implementation. This includes the morphosyntactic, the syntactic and the semantic levels. Goal 5: Implementation of OntoTagger’s configuration, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract architecture for this set of linguistic tools and annotations. This configuration (1) had to use the schema generated in the previous goal; and (2) should help support or refute the hypotheses of this work as well (see the next section). Sub-goal 5.1: Implementation of the decanting processes that facilitate the classification and separation of the results of those linguistic resources that provide annotations at several different levels (on the one hand, LACELL’s tagger operates at the morphosyntactic level and, minimally, also at the semantic level; on the other hand, FDG operates at the morphosyntactic and the syntactic levels and, minimally, at the semantic level as well). Sub-goal 5.2: Implementation of the standardisation processes that allow (i) specifying the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation according to the requirements of OntoTagger’s schema, as well as (ii) combining these shared level results. In particular, all the tools selected perform morphosyntactic annotations and they had to be conveniently combined by means of these processes. Sub-goal 5.3: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the combination (and possibly the improvement) of the annotations and the interoperation of the tools that share some level of annotation (in particular, those relating the morphosyntactic level, as in the previous sub-goal). Sub-goal 5.4: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the integration of the different standardised and combined annotations aforementioned, relating all the levels considered. Sub-goal 5.5: Improvement of the semantic level of this configuration by adding a named entity recognition, (sub-)classification and annotation subsystem, which also uses the named entities annotated to populate a domain ontology, in order to provide a concrete application of the present work in the two areas involved (the Semantic Web and Corpus Linguistics). 3. MAIN RESULTS: ASSESSMENT OF ONTOTAG’S UNDERLYING HYPOTHESES The model developed in the present thesis tries to shed some light on (i) whether linguistic annotation tools can effectively interoperate; (ii) whether their results can be combined and integrated; and, if they can, (iii) how they can, respectively, interoperate and be combined and integrated. Accordingly, several hypotheses had to be supported (or rejected) by the development of the OntoTag model and OntoTagger (its implementation). The hypotheses underlying OntoTag are surveyed below. Only one of the hypotheses (H.6) was rejected; the other five could be confirmed. H.1 The annotations of different levels (or layers) can be integrated into a sort of overall, comprehensive, multilayer and multilevel annotation, so that their elements can complement and refer to each other. • CONFIRMED by the development of: o OntoTag’s annotation scheme, o OntoTag’s annotation architecture, o OntoTagger’s (XML, RDF, OWL) annotation schemas, o OntoTagger’s configuration. H.2 Tool-dependent annotations can be mapped onto a sort of tool-independent annotations and, thus, can be standardised. • CONFIRMED by means of the standardisation phase incorporated into OntoTag and OntoTagger for the annotations yielded by the tools. H.3 Standardisation should ease: H.3.1: The interoperation of linguistic tools. H.3.2: The comparison, combination (at the same level and layer) and integration (at different levels or layers) of annotations. • H.3 was CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s ontology-based configuration: o Interoperation, comparison, combination and integration of the annotations of three different linguistic tools (Connexor’s FDG, Bitext’s DataLexica and LACELL’s tagger); o Integration of EuroWordNet-based, domain-ontology-based and named entity annotations at the semantic level. o Integration of morphosyntactic, syntactic and semantic annotations. H.4 Ontologies and Semantic Web technologies (can) play a crucial role in the standardisation of linguistic annotations, by providing consensual vocabularies and standardised formats for annotation (e.g., RDF triples). • CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s RDF-triple-based annotation schemas. H.5 The rate of errors introduced by a linguistic tool at a given level, when annotating, can be reduced automatically by contrasting and combining its results with the ones coming from other tools, operating at the same level. However, these other tools might be built following a different technological (stochastic vs. rule-based, for example) or theoretical (dependency vs. HPS-grammar-based, for instance) approach. • CONFIRMED by the results yielded by the evaluation of OntoTagger. H.6 Each linguistic level can be managed and annotated independently. • REJECTED: OntoTagger’s experiments and the dependencies observed among the morphosyntactic annotations, and between them and the syntactic annotations. In fact, Hypothesis H.6 was already rejected when OntoTag’s ontologies were developed. We observed then that several linguistic units stand on an interface between levels, belonging thereby to both of them (such as morphosyntactic units, which belong to both the morphological level and the syntactic level). Therefore, the annotations of these levels overlap and cannot be handled independently when merged into a unique multileveled annotation. 4. OTHER MAIN RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS First, interoperability is a hot topic for both the linguistic annotation community and the whole Computer Science field. The specification (and implementation) of OntoTag’s architecture for the combination and integration of linguistic (annotation) tools and annotations by means of ontologies shows a way to make these different linguistic annotation tools and annotations interoperate in practice. Second, as mentioned above, the elements involved in linguistic annotation were formalised in a set (or network) of ontologies (OntoTag’s linguistic ontologies). • On the one hand, OntoTag’s network of ontologies consists of − The Linguistic Unit Ontology (LUO), which includes a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of linguistic elements (i.e., units) identifiable in a written text; − The Linguistic Attribute Ontology (LAO), which includes also a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of features that characterise the linguistic units included in the LUO; − The Linguistic Value Ontology (LVO), which includes the corresponding formalisation of the different values that the attributes in the LAO can take; − The OIO (OntoTag’s Integration Ontology), which  Includes the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the LUO, the LAO and the LVO;  Can be viewed as a knowledge representation ontology that describes the most elementary vocabulary used in the area of annotation. • On the other hand, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the knowledge included in the different standards and recommendations for linguistic annotation released so far, such as those developed within the EAGLES and the SIMPLE European projects or by the ISO/TC 37 committee: − As far as morphosyntactic annotations are concerned, OntoTag’s ontologies formalise the terms in the EAGLES (1996a) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Morphosyntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/MAF, 2008) standard; − As for syntactic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the terms in the EAGLES (1996b) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Syntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/SynAF, 2010) standard draft; − Regarding semantic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies generalise and extend the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and, since no stable standards or standard drafts have been released for semantic annotation by ISO/TC 37 yet, they incorporate the terms in SIMPLE (2000) instead; − The terms coming from all these recommendations and standards were supplemented by those within the ISO Data Category Registry (ISO/DCR, 2008) and also of the ISO Linguistic Annotation Framework (ISO/LAF, 2009) standard draft when developing OntoTag’s ontologies. Third, we showed that the combination of the results of tools annotating at the same level can yield better results (both in precision and in recall) than each tool separately. In particular, 1. OntoTagger clearly outperformed two of the tools integrated into its configuration, namely DataLexica and FDG in all the combination sub-phases in which they overlapped (i.e. POS tagging, lemma annotation and morphological feature annotation). As far as the remaining tool is concerned, i.e. LACELL’s tagger, it was also outperformed by OntoTagger in POS tagging and lemma annotation, and it did not behave better than OntoTagger in the morphological feature annotation layer. 2. As an immediate result, this implies that a) This type of combination architecture configurations can be applied in order to improve significantly the accuracy of linguistic annotations; and b) Concerning the morphosyntactic level, this could be regarded as a way of constructing more robust and more accurate POS tagging systems. Fourth, Semantic Web annotations are usually performed by humans or else by machine learning systems. Both of them leave much to be desired: the former, with respect to their annotation rate; the latter, with respect to their (average) precision and recall. In this work, we showed how linguistic tools can be wrapped in order to annotate automatically Semantic Web pages using ontologies. This entails their fast, robust and accurate semantic annotation. As a way of example, as mentioned in Sub-goal 5.5, we developed a particular OntoTagger module for the recognition, classification and labelling of named entities, according to the MUC and ACE tagsets (Chinchor, 1997; Doddington et al., 2004). These tagsets were further specified by means of a domain ontology, namely the Cinema Named Entities Ontology (CNEO). This module was applied to the automatic annotation of ten different web pages containing cinema reviews (that is, around 5000 words). In addition, the named entities annotated with this module were also labelled as instances (or individuals) of the classes included in the CNEO and, then, were used to populate this domain ontology. • The statistical results obtained from the evaluation of this particular module of OntoTagger can be summarised as follows. On the one hand, as far as recall (R) is concerned, (R.1) the lowest value was 76,40% (for file 7); (R.2) the highest value was 97, 50% (for file 3); and (R.3) the average value was 88,73%. On the other hand, as far as the precision rate (P) is concerned, (P.1) its minimum was 93,75% (for file 4); (R.2) its maximum was 100% (for files 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10); and (R.3) its average value was 98,99%. • These results, which apply to the tasks of named entity annotation and ontology population, are extraordinary good for both of them. They can be explained on the basis of the high accuracy of the annotations provided by OntoTagger at the lower levels (mainly at the morphosyntactic level). However, they should be conveniently qualified, since they might be too domain- and/or language-dependent. It should be further experimented how our approach works in a different domain or a different language, such as French, English, or German. • In any case, the results of this application of Human Language Technologies to Ontology Population (and, accordingly, to Ontological Engineering) seem very promising and encouraging in order for these two areas to collaborate and complement each other in the area of semantic annotation. Fifth, as shown in the State of the Art of this work, there are different approaches and models for the semantic annotation of texts, but all of them focus on a particular view of the semantic level. Clearly, all these approaches and models should be integrated in order to bear a coherent and joint semantic annotation level. OntoTag shows how (i) these semantic annotation layers could be integrated together; and (ii) they could be integrated with the annotations associated to other annotation levels. Sixth, we identified some recommendations, best practices and lessons learned for annotation standardisation, interoperation and merge. They show how standardisation (via ontologies, in this case) enables the combination, integration and interoperation of different linguistic tools and their annotations into a multilayered (or multileveled) linguistic annotation, which is one of the hot topics in the area of Linguistic Annotation. And last but not least, OntoTag’s annotation scheme and OntoTagger’s annotation schemas show a way to formalise and annotate coherently and uniformly the different units and features associated to the different levels and layers of linguistic annotation. This is a great scientific step ahead towards the global standardisation of this area, which is the aim of ISO/TC 37 (in particular, Subcommittee 4, dealing with the standardisation of linguistic annotations and resources).

Localization and Tracking in Energy-Constrained Networks with Dynamic Connectivity

Systems used for target localization, such as goods, individuals, or animals, commonly rely on operational means to meet the final application demands. However, what would happen if some means were powered up randomly by harvesting systems? And what if those devices not randomly powered had their duty cycles restricted? Under what conditions would such an operation be tolerable in localization services? What if the references provided by nodes in a tracking problem were distorted? Moreover, there is an underlying topic common to the previous questions regarding the transfer of conceptual models to reality in field tests: what challenges are faced upon deploying a localization network that integrates energy harvesting modules? The application scenario of the system studied is a traditional herding environment of semi domesticated reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) in northern Scandinavia. In these conditions, information on approximate locations of reindeer is as important as environmental preservation. Herders also need cost-effective devices capable of operating unattended in, sometimes, extreme weather conditions. The analyses developed are worthy not only for the specific application environment presented, but also because they may serve as an approach to performance of navigation systems in absence of reasonably accurate references like the ones of the Global Positioning System (GPS). A number of energy-harvesting solutions, like thermal and radio-frequency harvesting, do not commonly provide power beyond one milliwatt. When they do, battery buffers may be needed (as it happens with solar energy) which may raise costs and make systems more dependent on environmental temperatures. In general, given our problem, a harvesting system is needed that be capable of providing energy bursts of, at least, some milliwatts. Many works on localization problems assume that devices have certain capabilities to determine unknown locations based on range-based techniques or fingerprinting which cannot be assumed in the approach considered herein. The system presented is akin to range-free techniques, but goes to the extent of considering very low node densities: most range-free techniques are, therefore, not applicable. Animal localization, in particular, uses to be supported by accurate devices such as GPS collars which deplete batteries in, maximum, a few days. Such short-life solutions are not particularly desirable in the framework considered. In tracking, the challenge may times addressed aims at attaining high precision levels from complex reliable hardware and thorough processing techniques. One of the challenges in this Thesis is the use of equipment with just part of its facilities in permanent operation, which may yield high input noise levels in the form of distorted reference points. The solution presented integrates a kinetic harvesting module in some nodes which are expected to be a majority in the network. These modules are capable of providing power bursts of some milliwatts which suffice to meet node energy demands. The usage of harvesting modules in the aforementioned conditions makes the system less dependent on environmental temperatures as no batteries are used in nodes with harvesters--it may be also an advantage in economic terms. There is a second kind of nodes. They are battery powered (without kinetic energy harvesters), and are, therefore, dependent on temperature and battery replacements. In addition, their operation is constrained by duty cycles in order to extend node lifetime and, consequently, their autonomy. There is, in turn, a third type of nodes (hotspots) which can be static or mobile. They are also battery-powered, and are used to retrieve information from the network so that it is presented to users. The system operational chain starts at the kinetic-powered nodes broadcasting their own identifier. If an identifier is received at a battery-powered node, the latter stores it for its records. Later, as the recording node meets a hotspot, its full record of detections is transferred to the hotspot. Every detection registry comprises, at least, a node identifier and the position read from its GPS module by the battery-operated node previously to detection. The characteristics of the system presented make the aforementioned operation own certain particularities which are also studied. First, identifier transmissions are random as they depend on movements at kinetic modules--reindeer movements in our application. Not every movement suffices since it must overcome a certain energy threshold. Second, identifier transmissions may not be heard unless there is a battery-powered node in the surroundings. Third, battery-powered nodes do not poll continuously their GPS module, hence localization errors rise even more. Let's recall at this point that such behavior is tight to the aforementioned power saving policies to extend node lifetime. Last, some time is elapsed between the instant an identifier random transmission is detected and the moment the user is aware of such a detection: it takes some time to find a hotspot. Tracking is posed as a problem of a single kinetically-powered target and a population of battery-operated nodes with higher densities than before in localization. Since the latter provide their approximate positions as reference locations, the study is again focused on assessing the impact of such distorted references on performance. Unlike in localization, distance-estimation capabilities based on signal parameters are assumed in this problem. Three variants of the Kalman filter family are applied in this context: the regular Kalman filter, the alpha-beta filter, and the unscented Kalman filter. The study enclosed hereafter comprises both field tests and simulations. Field tests were used mainly to assess the challenges related to power supply and operation in extreme conditions as well as to model nodes and some aspects of their operation in the application scenario. These models are the basics of the simulations developed later. The overall system performance is analyzed according to three metrics: number of detections per kinetic node, accuracy, and latency. The links between these metrics and the operational conditions are also discussed and characterized statistically. Subsequently, such statistical characterization is used to forecast performance figures given specific operational parameters. In tracking, also studied via simulations, nonlinear relationships are found between accuracy and duty cycles and cluster sizes of battery-operated nodes. The solution presented may be more complex in terms of network structure than existing solutions based on GPS collars. However, its main gain lies on taking advantage of users' error tolerance to reduce costs and become more environmentally friendly by diminishing the potential amount of batteries that can be lost. Whether it is applicable or not depends ultimately on the conditions and requirements imposed by users' needs and operational environments, which is, as it has been explained, one of the topics of this Thesis.

On the importance of shrub encroachment by sprouters, climate, species richness and anthropic factors for ecosystem multifunctionality in semi-arid Mediterranean ecosystems

One of the most important changes taking place in drylands worldwide is the increase of the cover and dominance of shrubs in areas formerly devoid of them (shrub encroachment). A large body of research has evaluated the causes and consequences of shrub encroachment for both ecosystem structure and functioning. However, there are virtually no studies evaluating how shrub encroachment affects the ability of ecosystems to maintain multiple functions and services simultaneously (multifunctionality). We aimed to do so by gathering data from ten ecosystem functions linked to the maintenance of primary production and nutrient cycling and storage (organic C, activity of β-glucosidase, pentoses, hexoses, total N, total available N, amino acids, proteins, available inorganic P, and phosphatase activity), and summarizing them in a multifunctionality index (M). We assessed how climate, species richness, anthropic factors (distance to the nearest town, sandy and asphalted road, and human population in the nearest town at several historical periods) and encroachment by sprouting shrubs impacted both the functions in isolation and M along a regional (ca. 350 km) gradient in Mediterranean grasslands and shrublands dominated by a non-sprouting shrub. Values of M were higher in those grasslands and shrublands containing sprouting shrubs (43 and 62%, respectively). A similar response was found when analyzing the different functions in isolation, as encroachment by sprouting shrubs increased functions by 2–80% compared to unencroached areas. Encroachment was the main driver of changes in M along the regional gradient evaluated, followed by anthropic factors and species richness. Climate had little effects on M in comparison to the other factors studied. Similar responses were observed when evaluating the functions in isolation. Overall, our results showed that M was higher at sites with higher sprouting shrub cover, longer distance to roads and higher perennial plant species richness. Our study is the first documenting that ecosystem multifunctionality in shrublands is enhanced by encroaching shrubs differing in size and leaf attributes. Our findings reinforce the idea that encroachment effects on ecosystem functioning cannot be generalized, and that are largely dependent on the traits of the encroaching shrub relative to those of the species being replaced.

Air quality modeling and mortality impact of fine particles reduction policies in Spain

Background: In recent years, Spain has implemented a number of air quality control measures that are expected to lead to a future reduction in fine particle concentrations and an ensuing positive impact on public health. Objectives: We aimed to assess the impact on mortality attributable to a reduction in fine particle levels in Spain in 2014 in relation to the estimated level for 2007. Methods: To estimate exposure, we constructed fine particle distribution models for Spain for 2007 (reference scenario) and 2014 (projected scenario) with a spatial resolution of 16x16 km2. In a second step, we used the concentration-response functions proposed by cohort studies carried out in Europe (European Study of Cohorts for Air Pollution Effects and Rome longitudinal cohort) and North America (American Cancer Society cohort, Harvard Six Cities study and Canadian national cohort) to calculate the number of attributable annual deaths corresponding to all causes, all non-accidental causes, ischemic heart disease and lung cancer among persons aged over 25 years (2005-2007 mortality rate data). We examined the effect of the Spanish demographic shift in our analysis using 2007 and 2012 population figures. Results: Our model suggested that there would be a mean overall reduction in fine particle levels of 1mg/m3 by 2014. Taking into account 2007 population data, between 8 and 15 all-cause deaths per 100,000 population could be postponed annually by the expected reduction in fine particle levels. For specific subgroups, estimates varied from 10 to 30 deaths for all non-accidental causes, from 1 to 5 for lung cancer, and from 2 to 6 for ischemic heart disease. The expected burden of preventable mortality would be even higher in the future due to the Spanish population growth. Taking into account the population older than 30 years in 2012, the absolute mortality impact estimate would increase approximately by 18%. Conclusions: Effective implementation of air quality measures in Spain, in a scenario with a short-term projection, would amount to an appreciable decline infine particle concentrations, and this, in turn, would lead to notable health-related benefits. Recent European cohort studies strengthen the evidence of an association between long-term exposure to fine particles and health effects, and could enhance the health impact quantification in Europe. Air quality models can contribute to improved assessment of air pollution health impact estimates, particularly in study areas without air pollution monitoring data.