@article{WuttkeLiLietal.2019, author = {Wuttke, Matthias and Li, Yong and Li, Man and Sieber, Karsten B. and Feitosa, Mary F. and Gorski, Mathias and Tin, Adrienne and Wang, Lihua and Chu, Audrey Y. and Hoppmann, Anselm and Kirsten, Holger and Giri, Ayush and Chai, Jin-Fang and Sveinbjornsson, Gardar and Tayo, Bamidele O. and Nutile, Teresa and Fuchsberger, Christian and Marten, Jonathan and Cocca, Massimiliano and Ghasemi, Sahar and Xu, Yizhe and Horn, Katrin and Noce, Damia and Van der Most, Peter J. and Sedaghat, Sanaz and Yu, Zhi and Akiyama, Masato and Afaq, Saima and Ahluwalia, Tarunveer Singh and Almgren, Peter and Amin, Najaf and Arnlov, Johan and Bakker, Stephan J. L. and Bansal, Nisha and Baptista, Daniela and Bergmann, Sven and Biggs, Mary L. and Biino, Ginevra and Boehnke, Michael and Boerwinkle, Eric and Boissel, Mathilde and B{\"o}ttinger, Erwin and Boutin, Thibaud S. and Brenner, Hermann and Brumat, Marco and Burkhardt, Ralph and Butterworth, Adam S. and Campana, Eric and Campbell, Archie and Campbell, Harry and Canouil, Mickael and Carroll, Robert J. and Catamo, Eulalia and Chambers, John C. and Chee, Miao-Ling and Chee, Miao-Li and Chen, Xu and Cheng, Ching-Yu and Cheng, Yurong and Christensen, Kaare and Cifkova, Renata and Ciullo, Marina and Concas, Maria Pina and Cook, James P. and Coresh, Josef and Corre, Tanguy and Sala, Cinzia Felicita and Cusi, Daniele and Danesh, John and Daw, E. Warwick and De Borst, Martin H. and De Grandi, Alessandro and De Mutsert, Renee and De Vries, Aiko P. J. and Degenhardt, Frauke and Delgado, Graciela and Demirkan, Ayse and Di Angelantonio, Emanuele and Dittrich, Katalin and Divers, Jasmin and Dorajoo, Rajkumar and Eckardt, Kai-Uwe and Ehret, Georg and Elliott, Paul and Endlich, Karlhans and Evans, Michele K. and Felix, Janine F. and Foo, Valencia Hui Xian and Franco, Oscar H. and Franke, Andre and Freedman, Barry I. and Freitag-Wolf, Sandra and Friedlander, Yechiel and Froguel, Philippe and Gansevoort, Ron T. and Gao, He and Gasparini, Paolo and Gaziano, J. Michael and Giedraitis, Vilmantas and Gieger, Christian and Girotto, Giorgia and Giulianini, Franco and Gogele, Martin and Gordon, Scott D. and Gudbjartsson, Daniel F. and Gudnason, Vilmundur and Haller, Toomas and Hamet, Pavel and Harris, Tamara B. and Hartman, Catharina A. and Hayward, Caroline and Hellwege, Jacklyn N. and Heng, Chew-Kiat and Hicks, Andrew A. and Hofer, Edith and Huang, Wei and Hutri-Kahonen, Nina and Hwang, Shih-Jen and Ikram, M. Arfan and Indridason, Olafur S. and Ingelsson, Erik and Ising, Marcus and Jaddoe, Vincent W. V. and Jakobsdottir, Johanna and Jonas, Jost B. and Joshi, Peter K. and Josyula, Navya Shilpa and Jung, Bettina and Kahonen, Mika and Kamatani, Yoichiro and Kammerer, Candace M. and Kanai, Masahiro and Kastarinen, Mika and Kerr, Shona M. and Khor, Chiea-Chuen and Kiess, Wieland and Kleber, Marcus E. and Koenig, Wolfgang and Kooner, Jaspal S. and Korner, Antje and Kovacs, Peter and Kraja, Aldi T. and Krajcoviechova, Alena and Kramer, Holly and Kramer, Bernhard K. and Kronenberg, Florian and Kubo, Michiaki and Kuhnel, Brigitte and Kuokkanen, Mikko and Kuusisto, Johanna and La Bianca, Martina and Laakso, Markku and Lange, Leslie A. and Langefeld, Carl D. and Lee, Jeannette Jen-Mai and Lehne, Benjamin and Lehtimaki, Terho and Lieb, Wolfgang and Lim, Su-Chi and Lind, Lars and Lindgren, Cecilia M. and Liu, Jun and Liu, Jianjun and Loeffler, Markus and Loos, Ruth J. F. and Lucae, Susanne and Lukas, Mary Ann and Lyytikainen, Leo-Pekka and Magi, Reedik and Magnusson, Patrik K. E. and Mahajan, Anubha and Martin, Nicholas G. and Martins, Jade and Marz, Winfried and Mascalzoni, Deborah and Matsuda, Koichi and Meisinger, Christa and Meitinger, Thomas and Melander, Olle and Metspalu, Andres and Mikaelsdottir, Evgenia K. and Milaneschi, Yuri and Miliku, Kozeta and Mishra, Pashupati P. and Program, V. A. Million Veteran and Mohlke, Karen L. and Mononen, Nina and Montgomery, Grant W. and Mook-Kanamori, Dennis O. and Mychaleckyj, Josyf C. and Nadkarni, Girish N. and Nalls, Mike A. and Nauck, Matthias and Nikus, Kjell and Ning, Boting and Nolte, Ilja M. and Noordam, Raymond and Olafsson, Isleifur and Oldehinkel, Albertine J. and Orho-Melander, Marju and Ouwehand, Willem H. and Padmanabhan, Sandosh and Palmer, Nicholette D. and Palsson, Runolfur and Penninx, Brenda W. J. H. and Perls, Thomas and Perola, Markus and Pirastu, Mario and Pirastu, Nicola and Pistis, Giorgio and Podgornaia, Anna I. and Polasek, Ozren and Ponte, Belen and Porteous, David J. and Poulain, Tanja and Pramstaller, Peter P. and Preuss, Michael H. and Prins, Bram P. and Province, Michael A. and Rabelink, Ton J. and Raffield, Laura M. and Raitakari, Olli T. and Reilly, Dermot F. and Rettig, Rainer and Rheinberger, Myriam and Rice, Kenneth M. and Ridker, Paul M. and Rivadeneira, Fernando and Rizzi, Federica and Roberts, David J. and Robino, Antonietta and Rossing, Peter and Rudan, Igor and Rueedi, Rico and Ruggiero, Daniela and Ryan, Kathleen A. and Saba, Yasaman and Sabanayagam, Charumathi and Salomaa, Veikko and Salvi, Erika and Saum, Kai-Uwe and Schmidt, Helena and Schmidt, Reinhold and Ben Schottker, and Schulz, Christina-Alexandra and Schupf, Nicole and Shaffer, Christian M. and Shi, Yuan and Smith, Albert V. and Smith, Blair H. and Soranzo, Nicole and Spracklen, Cassandra N. and Strauch, Konstantin and Stringham, Heather M. and Stumvoll, Michael and Svensson, Per O. and Szymczak, Silke and Tai, E-Shyong and Tajuddin, Salman M. and Tan, Nicholas Y. Q. and Taylor, Kent D. and Teren, Andrej and Tham, Yih-Chung and Thiery, Joachim and Thio, Chris H. L. and Thomsen, Hauke and Thorleifsson, Gudmar and Toniolo, Daniela and Tonjes, Anke and Tremblay, Johanne and Tzoulaki, Ioanna and Uitterlinden, Andre G. and Vaccargiu, Simona and Van Dam, Rob M. and Van der Harst, Pim and Van Duijn, Cornelia M. and Edward, Digna R. Velez and Verweij, Niek and Vogelezang, Suzanne and Volker, Uwe and Vollenweider, Peter and Waeber, Gerard and Waldenberger, Melanie and Wallentin, Lars and Wang, Ya Xing and Wang, Chaolong and Waterworth, Dawn M. and Bin Wei, Wen and White, Harvey and Whitfield, John B. and Wild, Sarah H. and Wilson, James F. and Wojczynski, Mary K. and Wong, Charlene and Wong, Tien-Yin and Xu, Liang and Yang, Qiong and Yasuda, Masayuki and Yerges-Armstrong, Laura M. and Zhang, Weihua and Zonderman, Alan B. and Rotter, Jerome I. and Bochud, Murielle and Psaty, Bruce M. and Vitart, Veronique and Wilson, James G. and Dehghan, Abbas and Parsa, Afshin and Chasman, Daniel I. and Ho, Kevin and Morris, Andrew P. and Devuyst, Olivier and Akilesh, Shreeram and Pendergrass, Sarah A. and Sim, Xueling and Boger, Carsten A. and Okada, Yukinori and Edwards, Todd L. and Snieder, Harold and Stefansson, Kari and Hung, Adriana M. and Heid, Iris M. and Scholz, Markus and Teumer, Alexander and Kottgen, Anna and Pattaro, Cristian}, title = {A catalog of genetic loci associated with kidney function from analyses of a million individuals}, series = {Nature genetics}, volume = {51}, journal = {Nature genetics}, number = {6}, publisher = {Nature Publ. Group}, address = {New York}, organization = {Lifelines COHort Study}, issn = {1061-4036}, doi = {10.1038/s41588-019-0407-x}, pages = {957 -- +}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is responsible for a public health burden with multi-systemic complications. Through transancestry meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and independent replication (n = 1,046,070), we identified 264 associated loci (166 new). Of these,147 were likely to be relevant for kidney function on the basis of associations with the alternative kidney function marker blood urea nitrogen (n = 416,178). Pathway and enrichment analyses, including mouse models with renal phenotypes, support the kidney as the main target organ. A genetic risk score for lower eGFR was associated with clinically diagnosed CKD in 452,264 independent individuals. Colocalization analyses of associations with eGFR among 783,978 European-ancestry individuals and gene expression across 46 human tissues, including tubulo-interstitial and glomerular kidney compartments, identified 17 genes differentially expressed in kidney. Fine-mapping highlighted missense driver variants in 11 genes and kidney-specific regulatory variants. These results provide a comprehensive priority list of molecular targets for translational research.}, language = {en} } @article{EigmuellerChaushevGillenetal.2019, author = {Eigm{\"u}ller, Philipp and Chaushev, Alexander and Gillen, Edward and Smith, Alexis and Nielsen, Louise D. and Turner, Oliver and Csizmadia, Szilard and Smalley, Barry and Bayliss, Daniel and Belardi, Claudia and Bouchy, Francois and Burleigh, Matthew R. and Cabrera, Juan and Casewell, Sarah L. and Chazelas, Bruno and Cooke, Benjamin F. and Erikson, Anders and Gansicke, Boris T. and Guenther, Maximilian N. and Goad, Michael R. and Grange, Andrew and Jackman, James A. G. and Jenkins, James S. and McCormac, James and Moyano, Maximiliano and Pollacco, Don and Poppenh{\"a}ger, Katja and Queloz, Didier and Raynard, Liam and Rauer, Heike and Udry, Stephane and Walker, Simon. R. and Watson, Christopher A. and West, Richard G. and Wheatley, Peter J.}, title = {NGTS-5b}, series = {Astronomy and astrophysics : an international weekly journal}, volume = {625}, journal = {Astronomy and astrophysics : an international weekly journal}, publisher = {EDP Sciences}, address = {Les Ulis}, issn = {1432-0746}, doi = {10.1051/0004-6361/201935206}, pages = {9}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Context. Planetary population analysis gives us insight into formation and evolution processes. For short-period planets, the sub-Jovian desert has been discussed in recent years with regard to the planet population in the mass/period and radius/period parameter space without taking stellar parameters into account. The Next Generation Transit Survey (NGTS) is optimised for detecting planets in this regime, which allows for further analysis of the sub-Jovian desert. Aims. With high-precision photometric surveys (e.g. with NGTS and TESS), which aim to detect short period planets especially around M/K-type host stars, stellar parameters need to be accounted for when empirical data are compared to model predictions. Presenting a newly discovered planet at the boundary of the sub-Jovian desert, we analyse its bulk properties and use it to show the properties of exoplanets that border the sub-Jovian desert. Methods. Using NGTS light curve and spectroscopic follow-up observations, we confirm the planetary nature of planet NGTS-5b and determine its mass. Using exoplanet archives, we set the planet in context with other discoveries. Results. NGTS-5b is a short-period planet with an orbital period of 3.3569866 +/- 0.0000026 days. With a mass of 0.229 +/- 0.037 M-Jup and a radius of 1.136 +/- 0.023 R-Jup, it is highly inflated. Its mass places it at the upper boundary of the sub-Jovian desert. Because the host is a K2 dwarf, we need to account for the stellar parameters when NGTS-5b is analysed with regard to planet populations. Conclusions. With red-sensitive surveys (e.g. with NGTS and TESS), we expect many more planets around late-type stars to be detected. An empirical analysis of the sub-Jovian desert should therefore take stellar parameters into account.}, language = {en} } @article{SeroussiNowickiPayneetal.2020, author = {Seroussi, Helene and Nowicki, Sophie and Payne, Antony J. and Goelzer, Heiko and Lipscomb, William H. and Abe-Ouchi, Ayako and Agosta, Cecile and Albrecht, Torsten and Asay-Davis, Xylar and Barthel, Alice and Calov, Reinhard and Cullather, Richard and Dumas, Christophe and Galton-Fenzi, Benjamin K. and Gladstone, Rupert and Golledge, Nicholas R. and Gregory, Jonathan M. and Greve, Ralf and Hattermann, Tore and Hoffman, Matthew J. and Humbert, Angelika and Huybrechts, Philippe and Jourdain, Nicolas C. and Kleiner, Thomas and Larour, Eric and Leguy, Gunter R. and Lowry, Daniel P. and Little, Chistopher M. and Morlighem, Mathieu and Pattyn, Frank and Pelle, Tyler and Price, Stephen F. and Quiquet, Aurelien and Reese, Ronja and Schlegel, Nicole-Jeanne and Shepherd, Andrew and Simon, Erika and Smith, Robin S. and Straneo, Fiammetta and Sun, Sainan and Trusel, Luke D. and Van Breedam, Jonas and van de Wal, Roderik S. W. and Winkelmann, Ricarda and Zhao, Chen and Zhang, Tong and Zwinger, Thomas}, title = {ISMIP6 Antarctica}, series = {The Cryosphere : TC ; an interactive open access journal of the European Geosciences Union}, volume = {14}, journal = {The Cryosphere : TC ; an interactive open access journal of the European Geosciences Union}, number = {9}, publisher = {Copernicus}, address = {G{\"o}ttingen}, issn = {1994-0416}, doi = {10.5194/tc-14-3033-2020}, pages = {3033 -- 3070}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Ice flow models of the Antarctic ice sheet are commonly used to simulate its future evolution in response to different climate scenarios and assess the mass loss that would contribute to future sea level rise. However, there is currently no consensus on estimates of the future mass balance of the ice sheet, primarily because of differences in the representation of physical processes, forcings employed and initial states of ice sheet models. This study presents results from ice flow model simulations from 13 international groups focusing on the evolution of the Antarctic ice sheet during the period 2015-2100 as part of the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison for CMIP6 (ISMIP6). They are forced with outputs from a subset of models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), representative of the spread in climate model results. Simulations of the Antarctic ice sheet contribution to sea level rise in response to increased warming during this period varies between 7:8 and 30.0 cm of sea level equivalent (SLE) under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario forcing. These numbers are relative to a control experiment with constant climate conditions and should therefore be added to the mass loss contribution under climate conditions similar to present-day conditions over the same period. The simulated evolution of the West Antarctic ice sheet varies widely among models, with an overall mass loss, up to 18.0 cm SLE, in response to changes in oceanic conditions. East Antarctica mass change varies between 6 :1 and 8.3 cm SLE in the simulations, with a significant increase in surface mass balance outweighing the increased ice discharge under most RCP 8.5 scenario forcings. The inclusion of ice shelf collapse, here assumed to be caused by large amounts of liquid water ponding at the surface of ice shelves, yields an additional simulated mass loss of 28mm compared to simulations without ice shelf collapse. The largest sources of uncertainty come from the climate forcing, the ocean-induced melt rates, the calibration of these melt rates based on oceanic conditions taken outside of ice shelf cavities and the ice sheet dynamic response to these oceanic changes. Results under RCP 2.6 scenario based on two CMIP5 climate models show an additional mass loss of 0 and 3 cm of SLE on average compared to simulations done under present-day conditions for the two CMIP5 forcings used and display limited mass gain in East Antarctica.}, language = {en} } @article{KrupnikWagnerVincentetal.2022, author = {Krupnik, Seweryn and Wagner, Aleksandra and Vincent, Olga and Rudek, Tadeusz J. and Wade, Robert and Misik, Mat{\´u}š and Akerboom, Sanne and Foulds, Chris and Smith Stegen, Karen and Adem, {\c{C}}iğdem and Batel, Susana and Rabitz, Florian and Certom{\`a}, Chiara and Chodkowska-Miszczuk, Justyna and Dokupilov{\´a}, Dušana and Leiren, Merethe D. and Ignatieva, Frolova M. and Gabald{\´o}n-Estevan, Daniel. and Horta, Ana and Karn{\o}e, Peter and Lilliestam, Johan and Loorbach, Derk A. and M{\"u}hlemeier, Susan and N{\´e}moz, Sophie and Nilsson, M{\aa}ns and Osička, Jan and Papamikrouli, Louiza and Pellizioni, Luigi and Sareen, Siddharth and Sarrica, Mauro and Seyfang, Gill and Sovacool, Benjamin K. and Telesiene, Audrone and Zapletalova, Veronika and von Wirth, Timo}, title = {Beyond technology}, series = {Energy research \& social science}, volume = {89}, journal = {Energy research \& social science}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {22146296}, doi = {10.1016/j.erss.2022.102536}, pages = {11}, year = {2022}, abstract = {This article enriches the existing literature on the importance and role of the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in renewable energy sources research by providing a novel approach to instigating the future research agenda in this field. Employing a series of in-depth interviews, deliberative focus group workshops and a systematic horizon scanning process, which utilised the expert knowledge of 85 researchers from the field with diverse disciplinary backgrounds and expertise, the paper develops a set of 100 priority questions for future research within SSH scholarship on renewable energy sources. These questions were aggregated into four main directions: (i) deep transformations and connections to the broader economic system (i.e. radical ways of (re)arranging socio-technical, political and economic relations), (ii) cultural and geographical diversity (i.e. contextual cultural, historical, political and socio-economic factors influencing citizen support for energy transitions), (iii) complexifying energy governance (i.e. understanding energy systems from a systems dynamics perspective) and (iv) shifting from instrumental acceptance to value-based objectives (i.e. public support for energy transitions as a normative notion linked to trust-building and citizen engagement). While this agenda is not intended to be—and cannot be—exhaustive or exclusive, we argue that it advances the understanding of SSH research on renewable energy sources and may have important value in the prioritisation of SSH themes needed to enrich dialogues between policymakers, funding institutions and researchers. SSH scholarship should not be treated as instrumental to other research on renewable energy but as intrinsic and of the same hierarchical importance.}, language = {en} } @article{HerreroThorntonMasonD'Crozetal.2020, author = {Herrero, Mario and Thornton, Philip K. and Mason-D'Croz, Daniel and Palmer, Jeda and Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon and Pradhan, Prajal and Barrett, Christopher B. and Benton, Tim G. and Hall, Andrew and Pikaar, Ilje and Bogard, Jessica R. and Bonnett, Graham D. and Bryan, Brett A. and Campbell, Bruce M. and Christensen, Svend and Clark, Michael and Fanzo, Jessica and Godde, Cecile M. and Jarvis, Andy and Loboguerrero, Ana Maria and Mathys, Alexander and McIntyre, C. Lynne and Naylor, Rosamond L. and Nelson, Rebecca and Obersteiner, Michael and Parodi, Alejandro and Popp, Alexander and Ricketts, Katie and Smith, Pete and Valin, Hugo and Vermeulen, Sonja J. and Vervoort, Joost and van Wijk, Mark and van Zanten, Hannah H. E. and West, Paul C. and Wood, Stephen A. and Rockstr{\"o}m, Johan}, title = {Articulating the effect of food systems innovation on the Sustainable Development Goals}, series = {The lancet Planetary health}, volume = {5}, journal = {The lancet Planetary health}, number = {1}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {2542-5196}, doi = {10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30277-1}, pages = {E50 -- E62}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Food system innovations will be instrumental to achieving multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, major innovation breakthroughs can trigger profound and disruptive changes, leading to simultaneous and interlinked reconfigurations of multiple parts of the global food system. The emergence of new technologies or social solutions, therefore, have very different impact profiles, with favourable consequences for some SDGs and unintended adverse side-effects for others. Stand-alone innovations seldom achieve positive outcomes over multiple sustainability dimensions. Instead, they should be embedded as part of systemic changes that facilitate the implementation of the SDGs. Emerging trade-offs need to be intentionally addressed to achieve true sustainability, particularly those involving social aspects like inequality in its many forms, social justice, and strong institutions, which remain challenging. Trade-offs with undesirable consequences are manageable through the development of well planned transition pathways, careful monitoring of key indicators, and through the implementation of transparent science targets at the local level.}, language = {en} } @article{CramerBondeauSchaphoffetal.2004, author = {Cramer, Wolfgang and Bondeau, Alberte and Schaphoff, Sibyll and Lucht, Wolfgang and Smith, Benjamin and Sitch, Stephan}, title = {Tropical forests and the global carbon cycle : impacts of atmospheric carbon dioxide, climate change and rate of deforestation}, issn = {0962-8436}, year = {2004}, abstract = {The remaining carbon stocks in wet tropical forests are currently at risk because of anthropogenic deforestation, but also because of the possibility of release driven by climate change. To identify the relative roles of CO2 increase, changing temperature and rainfall, and deforestation in the future, and the magnitude of their impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, we have applied a dynamic global vegetation model, using multiple scenarios of tropical deforestation (extrapolated from two estimates of current rates) and multiple scenarios of changing climate (derived from four independent offline general circulation model simulations). Results show that deforestation will probably produce large losses of carbon, despite the uncertainty about the deforestation rates. Some climate models produce additional large fluxes due to increased drought stress caused by rising temperature and decreasing rainfall. One climate model, however, produces an additional carbon sink. Taken together, our estimates of additional carbon emissions during the twenty-first century, for all climate and deforestation scenarios, range from 101 to 367 Gt C, resulting in CO2 concentration increases above background values between 29 and 129 p.p.m. An evaluation of the method indicates that better estimates of tropical carbon sources and sinks require improved assessments of current and future deforestation, and more consistent precipitation scenarios from climate models. Notwithstanding the uncertainties, continued tropical deforestation will most certainly play a very large role in the build-up of future greenhouse gas concentrations}, language = {en} } @article{SmithBarlowRosenthaletal.2022, author = {Smith, Bryce A. and Barlow, Brad N. and Rosenthal, Benjamin and Hermes, J. J. and Schaffenroth, Veronika}, title = {Pulse Timing Discovery of a Three-day Companion to the Hot Subdwarf BPM 36430}, series = {The astrophysical journal : an international review of spectroscopy and astronomical physics}, volume = {939}, journal = {The astrophysical journal : an international review of spectroscopy and astronomical physics}, number = {1}, publisher = {IOP Publ. Ltd.}, address = {Bristol}, issn = {0004-637X}, doi = {10.3847/1538-4357/ac9384}, pages = {6}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Hot subdwarf B stars are core-helium-burning objects that have undergone envelope stripping, likely by a binary companion. Using high-speed photometry from the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite, we have discovered the hot subdwarf BPM 36430 is a hybrid sdBV(rs) pulsator exhibiting several low-amplitude g-modes and a strong p-mode pulsation. The latter shows a clear, periodic variation in its pulse arrival times. Fits to this phase oscillation imply BPM 36430 orbits a barycenter approximately 10 light-seconds away once every 3.1 days. Using the CHIRON echelle spectrograph on the CTIO 1.5 m telescope, we confirm the reflex motion by detecting a radial-velocity variation with semiamplitude, period, and phase in agreement with the pulse timings. We conclude that a white dwarf companion with minimum mass of approximate to 0.42 M (circle dot) orbits BPM 36430. Our study represents only the second time a companion orbiting a pulsating hot subdwarf or white dwarf has been detected from pulse timings and confirmed with radial velocities.}, language = {en} } @article{MarquerGaillardSugitaetal.2017, author = {Marquer, Laurent and Gaillard, Marie-Jose and Sugita, Shinya and Poska, Anneli and Trondman, Anna-Kari and Mazier, Florence and Nielsen, Anne Birgitte and Fyfe, Ralph M. and Jonsson, Anna Maria and Smith, Benjamin and Kaplan, Jed O. and Alenius, Teija and Birks, H. John B. and Bjune, Anne E. and Christiansen, Jorg and Dodson, John and Edwards, Kevin J. and Giesecke, Thomas and Herzschuh, Ulrike and Kangur, Mihkel and Koff, Tiiu and Latalowa, Maligorzata and Lechterbeck, Jutta and Olofsson, Jorgen and Seppa, Heikki}, title = {Quantifying the effects of land use and climate on Holocene vegetation in Europe}, series = {Quaternary science reviews : the international multidisciplinary research and review journal}, volume = {171}, journal = {Quaternary science reviews : the international multidisciplinary research and review journal}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0277-3791}, doi = {10.1016/j.quascirev.2017.07.001}, pages = {20 -- 37}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Early agriculture can be detected in palaeovegetation records, but quantification of the relative importance of climate and land use in influencing regional vegetation composition since the onset of agriculture is a topic that is rarely addressed. We present a novel approach that combines pollen-based REVEALS estimates of plant cover with climate, anthropogenic land-cover and dynamic vegetation modelling results. This is used to quantify the relative impacts of land use and climate on Holocene vegetation at a sub-continental scale, i.e. northern and western Europe north of the Alps. We use redundancy analysis and variation partitioning to quantify the percentage of variation in vegetation composition explained by the climate and land-use variables, and Monte Carlo permutation tests to assess the statistical significance of each variable. We further use a similarity index to combine pollen based REVEALS estimates with climate-driven dynamic vegetation modelling results. The overall results indicate that climate is the major driver of vegetation when the Holocene is considered as a whole and at the sub-continental scale, although land use is important regionally. Four critical phases of land-use effects on vegetation are identified. The first phase (from 7000 to 6500 BP) corresponds to the early impacts on vegetation of farming and Neolithic forest clearance and to the dominance of climate as a driver of vegetation change. During the second phase (from 4500 to 4000 BP), land use becomes a major control of vegetation. Climate is still the principal driver, although its influence decreases gradually. The third phase (from 2000 to 1500 BP) is characterised by the continued role of climate on vegetation as a consequence of late-Holocene climate shifts and specific climate events that influence vegetation as well as land use. The last phase (from 500 to 350 BP) shows an acceleration of vegetation changes, in particular during the last century, caused by new farming practices and forestry in response to population growth and industrialization. This is a unique signature of anthropogenic impact within the Holocene but European vegetation remains climatically sensitive and thus may continue to respond to ongoing climate change. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.}, language = {en} }