4.7 Article

Inferring long-distance connectivity shaped by air-mass movement for improved experimental design in aerobiology

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-90733-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. French National Research Agency [ANR17-CE32-0004-01, IB-2019-SPE]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a new method was introduced to reveal the main patterns of air-mass connectivity over a large geographical area, with the coastline of the Mediterranean basin used as an example. A temporal pattern of connectivity was revealed in the study area, with regions acting as strong sources or strong receptors depending on the season. The comparison of the two seasonal networks led to the proposal of a new methodology for comparing spatial weighted networks.
The collection and analysis of air samples for the study of microbial airborne communities or the detection of airborne pathogens is one of the few insights that we can grasp of a continuously moving flux of microorganisms from their sources to their sinks through the atmosphere. For large-scale studies, a comprehensive sampling of the atmosphere is beyond the scopes of any reasonable experimental setting, making the choice of the sampling locations and dates a key factor for the representativeness of the collected data. In this work we present a new method for revealing the main patterns of air-mass connectivity over a large geographical area using the formalism of spatio-temporal networks, that are particularly suitable for representing complex patterns of connection. We use the coastline of the Mediterranean basin as an example. We reveal a temporal pattern of connectivity over the study area with regions that act as strong sources or strong receptors according to the season of the year. The comparison of the two seasonal networks has also allowed us to propose a new methodology for comparing spatial weighted networks that is inspired from the small-world property of non-spatial networks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据