Ecological Interactions of the Sexually Deceptive Orchid Orchis Galilaea

Plant species dependent on highly specific interactions with pollinators are vulnerable to environmental change. Conservation strategies therefore require a detailed understanding of pollination ecology. This two-year study examined the interactions between the sexually deceptive orchid, Orchis galilaea, and its pollinator Lasioglossum marginatum. Relationships were investigated across three different habitats known to support O. galilaea (garrigue, oak woodland, and mixed oak/pine woodland) in Lebanon. Visitation rates to flowers were extremely low and restricted to male bees. The reproductive success of O. galilaea under ambient conditions was 29.3% (±2.4), compared to 89.0% (±2.1) in plants receiving cross-pollination by hand. No difference in reproductive success was found between habitat types, but values of reproductive success were positively correlated to the abundance of male bees. Pollination limitation can have negative impacts on the population growth of orchids, and this study provides clear evidence for more holistic approaches to habitat conservation to support specific interactions

Argumentation as Exogenous Coordination

Formal argumentation is one of the most popular approaches in modern logic and reasoning. The theory of abstract argumentation introduced by Dung in 1995 has shifted the focus from the internal structure of arguments to relations among arguments, and temporal dynamics for abstract argumentation was proposed by Barringer, Gabbay and Woods in 2005. In this tradition, we see arguments as reasoning processes, and the interaction among them as a coordination process.We argue that abstract argumentation can adopt ideas and techniques from formal theories of coordination, and as an example we propose a model of sequential abstract argumentation loosely inspired by Reo’s model of exogenous coordination. We show how the argumentation model can represent the temporal dynamics of the liar paradox and predator-prey like behaviour

Dynamic Path Adaptation Through Network Tomography

International audienc

UTRAN Traffic Parameters Estimation

International audienc

On the outcomes of multiparty persuasion

In recent years, several bilateral protocols regulating the exchange of arguments between agents have been proposed. When dealing with persuasion, the objective is to arbitrate among conflicting viewpoints. Often, these debates are not entirely predetermined from the initial situation, which means that agents have a chance to influence the outcome in a way that fits their individual preferences. This paper introduces a simple and intuitive protocol for multiparty argumentation, in which several (more than two) agents are equipped with argumentation systems. We further assume that they focus on a (unique) argument (or issue) —thus making the debate two-sided — but do not coordinate. We study what outcomes can (or will) be reached if agents follow this protocol. We investigate in particular under which conditions the debate is pre-determined or not, and whether the outcome coincides with the result obtained by merging the argumentation systems