Find research datasets worth reusing

Figure 3 from: Drazen JC, Smith CR, Gjerde K, Au W, Black J, Carter G, Clark M, Durden JM, Dutrieux P, Goetze E, Haddock S, Hatta M, Hauton C, Hill P, Koslow J, Leitner AB, Measures C, Pacini A, Parrish F, Peacock T, Perelman J, Sutton T, Taymans C, Tunnicliffe V, Watling L, Yamamoto H, Young E, Ziegler AF (2019) Report of the workshop Evaluating the nature of midwater mining plumes and their potential effects on midwater ecosystems. Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e33527. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e33527

Figure 3 Clockwise from top left: Benthocodon jelly credit MBARI, Viperfish credit Jeff Drazen, Lanternfish credit Jeff Drazen, Appendicularian and mucus house credit MBARI, Cranchiid squid credit MBARI, Sapphirina copepod credit Erica Goetze/Katja Peijnenburg.

Figure 1 from: Drazen JC, Smith CR, Gjerde K, Au W, Black J, Carter G, Clark M, Durden JM, Dutrieux P, Goetze E, Haddock S, Hatta M, Hauton C, Hill P, Koslow J, Leitner AB, Measures C, Pacini A, Parrish F, Peacock T, Perelman J, Sutton T, Taymans C, Tunnicliffe V, Watling L, Yamamoto H, Young E, Ziegler AF (2019) Report of the workshop Evaluating the nature of midwater mining plumes and their potential effects on midwater ecosystems. Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e33527. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e33527

Figure 1 Front row left to right: Jeff Drazen, Pierre Dutrieux, Les Watling, Astrid Leitner, Emily Young, Verena Tunnicliffe. Second row: Chris Measures, Mariko Hatta, Jessica Perelman, Erica Goetze, Jen Durden, Celine Taymans. Third row: Hiroyuki Yamamoto, Kristina Gjerde, Paul Hill, Amanda Ziegler, Chris Hauton, Tracey Sutton. Back row: Steve Haddock, Malcolm Clark, Tom Peacock, Tony Koslow, Craig Smith. Not Pictured: Whit Au, Jesse Black, Frank Parrish, Aude Pacini.

Figure 8 from: Fanelli E, Vovlas A, Santoro S, Troccoli A, Lucarelli G, Trisciuzzi N, De Luca F (2019) Integrative diagnosis, biological observations, and histopathology of the fig cyst nematode Heterodera fici Kirjanova (1954) associated with Ficus carica L. in southern Italy. ZooKeys 824: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.824.26820

Figure 8 Phylogenetic trees of the 18S rRNA gene of Heteroderafici and the closest species. Sequences were analysed using the Maximum Likelihood method. Numbers at nodes indicate bootstrap values.

Figure 7 from: Fanelli E, Vovlas A, Santoro S, Troccoli A, Lucarelli G, Trisciuzzi N, De Luca F (2019) Integrative diagnosis, biological observations, and histopathology of the fig cyst nematode Heterodera fici Kirjanova (1954) associated with Ficus carica L. in southern Italy. ZooKeys 824: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.824.26820

Figure 7 Phylogenetic trees of the D2–D3 expansion domains of the 28S rRNA gene of Heteroderafici and the closest species. Sequences were analysed using the Maximum Likelihood method. Numbers at nodes indicate bootstrap values.

Figure 2 from: Fanelli E, Vovlas A, Santoro S, Troccoli A, Lucarelli G, Trisciuzzi N, De Luca F (2019) Integrative diagnosis, biological observations, and histopathology of the fig cyst nematode Heterodera fici Kirjanova (1954) associated with Ficus carica L. in southern Italy. ZooKeys 824: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.824.26820

Figure 2 LM micrographs of Heteroderafici from Italy. A Embryonated egg with evident second stage juvenile stylet B Second stage juvenile anterior end C Second stage juvenile tail D Male tail with the characteristic tail tip E Females on Ficuscarica roots F whole body of newly formed cyst G Females and cysts H-J Vulval cone structures, with clear illustration of vulval slit (in H), fenestral area (in I) and bullae (in J). Scale bars: 20 µm (A-D, H-J); 200 µm (F); 500 µm (E, G).

Figure 5 from: Fanelli E, Vovlas A, Santoro S, Troccoli A, Lucarelli G, Trisciuzzi N, De Luca F (2019) Integrative diagnosis, biological observations, and histopathology of the fig cyst nematode Heterodera fici Kirjanova (1954) associated with Ficus carica L. in southern Italy. ZooKeys 824: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.824.26820

Figure 5 RFLP profiles of the ITS of Heteroderafici digested with four restriction enzymes. M 100 bp DNA ladder (Promega); 1 Alu I 2 Hae III 3 Rsa I 4 Pst I.

Figure 1 from: Fanelli E, Vovlas A, Santoro S, Troccoli A, Lucarelli G, Trisciuzzi N, De Luca F (2019) Integrative diagnosis, biological observations, and histopathology of the fig cyst nematode Heterodera fici Kirjanova (1954) associated with Ficus carica L. in southern Italy. ZooKeys 824: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.824.26820

Figure 1 Line drawings of Heteroderafici from Italy. A, B Anterior body portions of second stage juvenile C, D Second stage juvenile tail E Female anterior region F, G Cyst shape H Fenestral structures J, K Male tail, showing spicules and cloacal tube I Male pharyngeal region.

Figure 4 from: Fanelli E, Vovlas A, Santoro S, Troccoli A, Lucarelli G, Trisciuzzi N, De Luca F (2019) Integrative diagnosis, biological observations, and histopathology of the fig cyst nematode Heterodera fici Kirjanova (1954) associated with Ficus carica L. in southern Italy. ZooKeys 824: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.824.26820

Figure 4 Post invasion development of Heteroderafici on Ficuscarica roots. A Second stage juvenile within cortical layer, oriented in parallel position to the root axis B Newly formed cyst with gelatinous egg sac C Male inside 4th stage cuticle D Different sized syncytia (S) induced by female (the larger one), and by male. Abbreviations: j = juvenile; m = male; c = cyst; hn = hypertrophied nuclei. Scale bars: 50 µm (A, C); 200 µm (B); 100 µm (D).

Figure 6 from: Fanelli E, Vovlas A, Santoro S, Troccoli A, Lucarelli G, Trisciuzzi N, De Luca F (2019) Integrative diagnosis, biological observations, and histopathology of the fig cyst nematode Heterodera fici Kirjanova (1954) associated with Ficus carica L. in southern Italy. ZooKeys 824: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.824.26820

Figure 6 Phylogenetic trees of ITS containing region of Heteroderafici and the closest species. Sequences were analysed using the Maximum Likelihood method. Numbers at nodes indicate bootstrap values.

Figure 3 from: Fanelli E, Vovlas A, Santoro S, Troccoli A, Lucarelli G, Trisciuzzi N, De Luca F (2019) Integrative diagnosis, biological observations, and histopathology of the fig cyst nematode Heterodera fici Kirjanova (1954) associated with Ficus carica L. in southern Italy. ZooKeys 824: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.824.26820

Figure 3 SEM photographs of the main cyst diagnostic characters of Heteroderafici from Italy. A Female anterior end B Lateral view of terminal cone C, D Fenestral area and anus E Maze-like cyst cuticular ornamentation F Cyst anal area G Male lateral fields. Scale bars: 10 µm (A, G); 20 µm (B–F).

Figure 5 from: Polemis E, Konstantinidis G, Fryssouli V, Slavova M, Tsampazis T, Nakkas V, Assyov B, Kaounas V, Zervakis GI (2019) Tuber pulchrosporum sp. nov., a black truffle of the Aestivum clade (Tuberaceae, Pezizales) from the Balkan peninsula. MycoKeys 47: 35-51. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.47.32085

Figure 5 Phylogenetic tree inferred from Bayesian analysis including 62 ITS sequences assigned to 31 Tuber taxa, including members of major clades of the genus. Sequences are labelled with Latin binomials, GenBank accession numbers and geographic origin. T.pulchrosporum sp. nov. is indicated in boldface. Reference sequences deriving from type material are underlined. Choiromycesalveolatus (Tuberaceae) was used as the outgroup. Bootstrap (BS) values from Maximum Likelihood (ML) analysis (≥ 70%) and Posterior Probabilities (PPs) from Bayesian Inference (≥ 0.95) are shown at the nodes of branches.

Figure 1 from: Polemis E, Konstantinidis G, Fryssouli V, Slavova M, Tsampazis T, Nakkas V, Assyov B, Kaounas V, Zervakis GI (2019) Tuber pulchrosporum sp. nov., a black truffle of the Aestivum clade (Tuberaceae, Pezizales) from the Balkan peninsula. MycoKeys 47: 35-51. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.47.32085

Figure 1 T.pulchrosporum sp. nov.: a ascomata in situ (holotype) b ascomata in situ (paratype) c detail of peridium surface (paratype) d section of peridium (paratype).

Figure 2 from: Polemis E, Konstantinidis G, Fryssouli V, Slavova M, Tsampazis T, Nakkas V, Assyov B, Kaounas V, Zervakis GI (2019) Tuber pulchrosporum sp. nov., a black truffle of the Aestivum clade (Tuberaceae, Pezizales) from the Balkan peninsula. MycoKeys 47: 35-51. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.47.32085

Figure 2 T.pulchrosporum sp. nov.: a, b peridium structure c, d hair-like hyphae on peridium surface.

Figure 7 from: Lazarova SS, Elshishka M, Radoslavov G, Lozanova L, Hristov P, Mladenov A, Zheng J, Fanelli E, De Luca F, Peneva VK (2019) Molecular and morphological characterisation of Longidorus polyae sp. n. and L. pisi Edward, Misra & Singh, 1964 (Dorylaimida, Longidoridae) from Bulgaria. ZooKeys 830: 75-98. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.830.32188

Figure 7 Scatter plot of functional odontostyle (blue square) and replacement odontostyle (white square) against body length of Lonigidoruspolyae sp. n. juveniles (J1-J4) and females (blue), and male odontostyle (red).

Figure 6 from: Lazarova SS, Elshishka M, Radoslavov G, Lozanova L, Hristov P, Mladenov A, Zheng J, Fanelli E, De Luca F, Peneva VK (2019) Molecular and morphological characterisation of Longidorus polyae sp. n. and L. pisi Edward, Misra & Singh, 1964 (Dorylaimida, Longidoridae) from Bulgaria. ZooKeys 830: 75-98. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.830.32188

Figure 6 Longidoruspolyae sp. n. A–E anterior end of first- to fourth-stage juveniles and female F–J tail of first- to fourth- stage juvenile and female. Scale bar: 20 μm.

Figure 9 from: Lazarova SS, Elshishka M, Radoslavov G, Lozanova L, Hristov P, Mladenov A, Zheng J, Fanelli E, De Luca F, Peneva VK (2019) Molecular and morphological characterisation of Longidorus polyae sp. n. and L. pisi Edward, Misra & Singh, 1964 (Dorylaimida, Longidoridae) from Bulgaria. ZooKeys 830: 75-98. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.830.32188

Figure 9 Phylogenetic tree using D2-D3 expansion segments of the 28S rRNA gene inferred from a Bayesian analysis with GTR+I+G model. Numbers represent the Bayesian posterior probabilities.

Figure 4 from: Lazarova SS, Elshishka M, Radoslavov G, Lozanova L, Hristov P, Mladenov A, Zheng J, Fanelli E, De Luca F, Peneva VK (2019) Molecular and morphological characterisation of Longidorus polyae sp. n. and L. pisi Edward, Misra & Singh, 1964 (Dorylaimida, Longidoridae) from Bulgaria. ZooKeys 830: 75-98. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.830.32188

Figure 4 Longidoruspolyae sp. n., male A anterior region B amphidial fovea C labial region D junction of two testes E distal part of testis F sperm cells G nerve ring H, I posterior end, different magnifications J tail and spicules K supplements. Scale bars: 20 μm (A–C, F, G, J, K); 40 μm (D, E, H); 100 μm (I).

Figure 3 from: Lazarova SS, Elshishka M, Radoslavov G, Lozanova L, Hristov P, Mladenov A, Zheng J, Fanelli E, De Luca F, Peneva VK (2019) Molecular and morphological characterisation of Longidorus polyae sp. n. and L. pisi Edward, Misra & Singh, 1964 (Dorylaimida, Longidoridae) from Bulgaria. ZooKeys 830: 75-98. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.830.32188

Figure 3 Longidoruspolyae sp. n., holotype A anterior end B pharyngeal region, arrows point to at nerve ring, pharyngeal bulb and cardia C intestine, posterior part with inclusions D anterior genital branch E vagina and part of the posterior genital branch F sphincter G intestine inclusion at higher magnification H tail I vagina J posterior ovary. Scale bars: 20 μm (A, F–I); 40 μm (E, J); 100 μm (B–D).

Figure 5 from: Lazarova SS, Elshishka M, Radoslavov G, Lozanova L, Hristov P, Mladenov A, Zheng J, Fanelli E, De Luca F, Peneva VK (2019) Molecular and morphological characterisation of Longidorus polyae sp. n. and L. pisi Edward, Misra & Singh, 1964 (Dorylaimida, Longidoridae) from Bulgaria. ZooKeys 830: 75-98. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.830.32188

Figure 5 Longidoruspolyae sp. n. A–D anterior end of first- (J1) to fourth- (J4) stage juveniles E–H tail of first to fourth juvenile stages I variations in J1-J4 habitus shapes. Scale bars: 25 μm (A–H); 1 mm (I).

Figure 8 from: Lazarova SS, Elshishka M, Radoslavov G, Lozanova L, Hristov P, Mladenov A, Zheng J, Fanelli E, De Luca F, Peneva VK (2019) Molecular and morphological characterisation of Longidorus polyae sp. n. and L. pisi Edward, Misra & Singh, 1964 (Dorylaimida, Longidoridae) from Bulgaria. ZooKeys 830: 75-98. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.830.32188

Figure 8 Bulgarian populations of Longidoruspisi Edward, Misra & Singh, 1964, anterior end of female (A) and male (B) female C, D vagina and part of reproductive system (different populations) E–G pre-rectum inclusions H labial region I vagina J–M variations in tail shape, female (J, L, M) and male (K). Populations: A, L Petrich C, E–G, M Sandanski D, H, I, J Kromidovo B, K male specimens from a tobacco field, Petrich region. Scale bars: 20 μm (A–G, J–M); 12 μm (H, I).