Search

Your search keyword '"Wiersma Y"' showing total 8 results
Start Over Author "Wiersma Y"
8 results on '"Wiersma Y"'

2. Open access solutions for biodiversity journals: Do not replace one problem with another

Author

Peterson, AT, Anderson, RP, Beger, M, Bolliger, J, Brotons, L, Burridge, CP, Cobos, ME, Cuervo-Robayo, AP, Di Minin, E, Diez, J, Elith, J, Embling, CB, Escobar, LE, Essl, F, Feeley, KJ, Hawkes, L, Jiménez-García, D, Jimenez, L, Green, DM, Knop, E, Kühn, I, Lahoz-Monfort, JJ, Lira-Noriega, A, Lobo, JM, Loyola, R, Mac Nally, R, Machado-Stredel, F, Martínez-Meyer, E, McCarthy, M, Merow, C, Nori, J, Nuñez-Penichet, C, Osorio-Olvera, L, Pyšek, P, Rejmánek, M, Ricciardi, A, Robertson, M, Rojas Soto, O, Romero-Alvarez, D, Roura-Pascual, N, Santini, L, Schoeman, DS, Schröder, B, Soberon, J, Strubbe, D, Thuiller, W, Traveset, A, Treml, Eric, Václavík, T, Varela, S, Watson, JEM, Wiersma, Y, Wintle, B, Yanez-Arenas, C, Zurell, D, Peterson, AT, Anderson, RP, Beger, M, Bolliger, J, Brotons, L, Burridge, CP, Cobos, ME, Cuervo-Robayo, AP, Di Minin, E, Diez, J, Elith, J, Embling, CB, Escobar, LE, Essl, F, Feeley, KJ, Hawkes, L, Jiménez-García, D, Jimenez, L, Green, DM, Knop, E, Kühn, I, Lahoz-Monfort, JJ, Lira-Noriega, A, Lobo, JM, Loyola, R, Mac Nally, R, Machado-Stredel, F, Martínez-Meyer, E, McCarthy, M, Merow, C, Nori, J, Nuñez-Penichet, C, Osorio-Olvera, L, Pyšek, P, Rejmánek, M, Ricciardi, A, Robertson, M, Rojas Soto, O, Romero-Alvarez, D, Roura-Pascual, N, Santini, L, Schoeman, DS, Schröder, B, Soberon, J, Strubbe, D, Thuiller, W, Traveset, A, Treml, Eric, Václavík, T, Varela, S, Watson, JEM, Wiersma, Y, Wintle, B, Yanez-Arenas, C, and Zurell, D

Published
2019

3. Open access solutions for biodiversity journals: Do not replace one problem with another

Author

Townsend Peterson, A., Anderson, R.P., Beger, M., Bolliger, J., Brotons, L., Burridge, C.P., Cobos, M.E., Cuervo‐Robayo, A.P., Di Minin, E., Diez, J., Elith, J., Embling, C.B., Escobar, L.E., Essl, F., Feeley, K.J., Hawkes, L., Jiménez‐García, D., Jimenez, L., Green, D.M., Knop, E., Kühn, Ingolf, Lahoz‐Monfort, J.J., Lira‐Noriega, A., Lobo, J.M., Loyola, R., Mac Nally, R., Machado‐Stredel, F., Martínez‐Meyer, E., McCarthy, M., Merow, C., Nori, J., Nuñez‐Penichet, C., Osorio-Olvera, L., Pyšek, P., Rejmánek, M., Ricciardi, A., Robertson, M., Rojas Soto, O., Romero‐Alvarez, D., Roura‐Pascual, N., Santini, L., Schoeman, D.S., Schröder, B., Soberon, J., Strubbe, D., Thuiller, W., Traveset, A., Treml, E.A., Václavík, Tomas, Varela, S., Watson, J.E.M., Wiersma, Y., Wintle, B., Yanez‐Arenas, C., Zurell, D., Townsend Peterson, A., Anderson, R.P., Beger, M., Bolliger, J., Brotons, L., Burridge, C.P., Cobos, M.E., Cuervo‐Robayo, A.P., Di Minin, E., Diez, J., Elith, J., Embling, C.B., Escobar, L.E., Essl, F., Feeley, K.J., Hawkes, L., Jiménez‐García, D., Jimenez, L., Green, D.M., Knop, E., Kühn, Ingolf, Lahoz‐Monfort, J.J., Lira‐Noriega, A., Lobo, J.M., Loyola, R., Mac Nally, R., Machado‐Stredel, F., Martínez‐Meyer, E., McCarthy, M., Merow, C., Nori, J., Nuñez‐Penichet, C., Osorio-Olvera, L., Pyšek, P., Rejmánek, M., Ricciardi, A., Robertson, M., Rojas Soto, O., Romero‐Alvarez, D., Roura‐Pascual, N., Santini, L., Schoeman, D.S., Schröder, B., Soberon, J., Strubbe, D., Thuiller, W., Traveset, A., Treml, E.A., Václavík, Tomas, Varela, S., Watson, J.E.M., Wiersma, Y., Wintle, B., Yanez‐Arenas, C., and Zurell, D.

Abstract

no abstract

Published
2019

4. Evaluating the success of wildlife crossing structures using genetic approaches and an experimental design: Lessons from a gliding mammal

Author

Wiersma, Y, Soanes, K, Taylor, AC, Sunnucks, P, Vesk, PA, Cesarini, S, van der Ree, R, Wiersma, Y, Soanes, K, Taylor, AC, Sunnucks, P, Vesk, PA, Cesarini, S, and van der Ree, R

Abstract

Millions of dollars are spent on wildlife crossing structures intended to reduce the barrier effects of roads on wildlife. However, we know little about the degree to which these structures facilitate dispersal and gene flow. Our study incorporates two elements that are rarely used in the evaluation of wildlife crossing structures: an experimental design including a before and after comparison, and the use of genetic techniques to demonstrate effects on gene flow at both population and individual levels. We evaluated the effect of wildlife crossing structures (canopy bridges and glider poles) on a gliding mammal, the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis). We genotyped 399 individuals at eight microsatellite markers to analyse population structure, first‐generation migrants and parentage relationships. We found that the freeway was not a complete genetic barrier, with a strong effect evident at only one site. We hypothesise that the presence of corridors alongside the freeway and throughout the surrounding landscape facilitated circuitous detours for squirrel gliders. Installing a crossing structure at the location with a strong barrier effect restored gene flow within just 5 years of mitigation. Synthesis and applications. Our study highlights the importance of using genetic techniques not just to evaluate the success of road‐crossing structures for wildlife, but also to guide their placement within the landscape. Managers wishing to reduce the effects of linear infrastructure on squirrel gliders and other arboreal mammals should aim to preserve and enhance vegetation along roadsides and within centre medians, as well as mitigate large gaps by implementing wildlife crossing structures.

Published
2018

7. Rocky shoreline protocols miss microplastics in marine debris surveys (Fogo Island, Newfoundland and Labrador).

Author

McWilliams M, Liboiron M, and Wiersma Y

Subjects
Atlantic Ocean, Environmental Monitoring methods, Newfoundland and Labrador, Surveys and Questionnaires, Bathing Beaches standards, Plastics analysis, Waste Products analysis
Abstract

Most anthropogenic marine debris shoreline studies are conducted on sandy shores, rather than rocky coastlines. We amended a standardized protocol for monitoring marine debris on a high-loading beach composed of small rocks and cobbles in Newfoundland, Canada. Our protocol had two parts: we conducted stratified sampling to a depth of ~20cm below the surface of the rocks (standing survey), and surveyed accumulation of items on the surface of rocks every other day (loading survey). We found the vast majority of smaller items were below the surface. Only 17.2% of debris were microplastics (<5mm). Types of anthropogenic debris differed significantly between the standing survey and the loading survey. We found no relationship between either wind direction or wind speed, and distributions of debris. This study allows for a better understanding of marine debris detection along rocky coasts, and the limitations of protocols for studying them., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

8. Easier citizen science is better.

Author

Parsons J, Lukyanenko R, and Wiersma Y

Subjects
Animals, Birds, Data Collection standards, Internet statistics & numerical data, Internet trends, Observation, Research Design, Workforce, Data Collection methods, Hobbies statistics & numerical data, Research Personnel statistics & numerical data, Science standards
Published
2011
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results