Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
257
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
257 results for “forest landscapes”
Data from: Which landscape size best predicts the influence of forest cover on restoration success? – A global meta-analysis on the scale of effect
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Landscape genetic analyses reveal fine-scale effects of forest fragmentation in an insular tropical bird
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Unexpectedly diverse forest dung beetle communities in degraded rainforest landscapes in Madagascar
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Ecosystem functions in natural and anthropogenic ecosystems across the East African coastal forest landscape
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Impacts of habitat on butterfly dispersal in tropical forests, parks and grassland patches embedded in an urban landscape
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Local tropical forest restoration strategies affect tree recruitment more strongly than does landscape forest cover
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Soil VOC emission rates and associated parameters from forest and oil palm in the SAFE landscape
<p><strong>Description: </strong></p> <p>Monoterpene fluxes measured by the static chamber method including associated environmental parameters</p> <p><strong>Project: </strong>This dataset was collected as part of the following SAFE research project: <a href="https://www.safeproject.net/projects/project_view/126"><strong>Characterising soil microbial communities and measuring associated biogeochemical fluxes</strong></a></p> <p><strong>Funding: </strong>These data were collected as part of research funded by:</p> <ul> <li>NERC HMTF (Research Programme, (NE/K016091/1), <a href=" http://lombok.nerc-hmtf.info/"> http://lombok.nerc-hmtf.info/</a>)</li> </ul> <p>This dataset is released under the CC-BY 4.0 licence, requiring that you cite the dataset in any outputs, but has the additional condition that you acknowledge the contribution of these funders in any outputs.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Permits: </strong>These data were collected under permit from the following authorities:</p> <ul> <li>Sabah Biodiversity Centre (Research licence JKM/MBS.1000-2/2 JLD.5 (79))</li> </ul> <p> </p> <p><strong>XML metadata: </strong>GEMINI compliant metadata for this dataset is available <a href="https://www.safeproject.net/datasets/xml_metadata?id=3698115">here</a></p> <p><strong>Files: </strong>This consists of 1 file: 4_VOC_jdrewer.xlsx</p> <p><strong>4_VOC_jdrewer.xlsx</strong></p> <p>This file contains dataset metadata and 2 data tables:</p> <ol> <li> <p><strong>data one off field</strong> (described in worksheet Data_one_off)</p> <p>Description: Soil and litter parameters</p> <p>Number of fields: 14</p> <p>Number of data rows: 28</p> <p>Fields:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Location</strong>: Location measurement was taken (Field type: location)</li> <li><strong>site</strong>: Location measurement was taken (Field type: id)</li> <li><strong>chamber_id</strong>: Chamber ID (Field type: id)</li> <li><strong>landuse</strong>: Land use of location (Field type: categorical)</li> <li><strong>pH</strong>: Soil pH (Field type: numeric)</li> <li><strong>bulk_density</strong>: dry weight of soil (Field type: numeric)</li> <li><strong>soil_N%</strong>: Percentage of soil N (Field type: numeric)</li> <li><strong>soil_C%</strong>: Percentage of soil C (Field type: numeric)</li> <li><strong>litter_N%</strong>: Percentage of leaf Nitrogen (Field type: numeric)</li> <li><strong>litter_C%</strong>: Percentage of leaf Carbon (Field type: numeric)</li> <li><strong>C/N_soil</strong>: Ratio of soil Carbon: Nitrogen (Field type: numeric)</li> <li><strong>Latitude</strong>: Latitude of sampling point (Field type: latitude)</li> <li><strong>Longitude</strong>: Longitude of sampling point (Field type: longitude)</li> <li><strong>Elevation</strong>: Elevation of sampling point (Field type: numeric)</li> </ul> </li> <li> <p><strong>data of repeated measures</strong> (described in worksheet Data_repeated_measures)</p> <p>Description: Soil VOCs and associated variables</p> <p>Number of fields: 15</p> <p>Number of data rows: 336</p> <p>Fields:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Location</strong>: Location measurement was taken (Field type: location)</li> <li><strong>site</strong>: Location measurement was taken (Field type: id)</li> <li><strong>chamber_id</strong>: Chamber ID (Field type: id)</li> <li><strong>landuse</strong>: Land use of location (Field type: categorical)</li> <li><strong>date</strong>: Date the measurement was taken (Field type: date)</li> <li><strong>time</strong>: Time the measurement was taken (Field type: time)</li> <li><strong>alpha pinene-C flux</strong>: alpha pinene flux (Field type: numeric)</li> <li><strong>beta pinene-C flux</strong>: beta pinene flux (Field type: numeric)</li> <li><strong>limonene-C flux</strong>: limonene flux (Field type: numeric)</li> <li><strong>3-carene-C flux</strong>: 3-carene flux (Field type: numeric)</li> <li><strong>camphene-C flux</strong>: camphene flux (Field type: numeric)</li> <li><strong>eucalyptol-C flux</strong>: eucalyptol flux (Field type: numeric)</li> <li><strong>air_temp</strong>: Air temperature around the flux chamber (Field type: numeric)</li> <li><strong>soil_temp</strong>: Soil temperature around the flux chamber (Field type: numeric)</li> <li><strong>soil_moisture</strong>: Soil moisture around the flux chamber (Field type: numeric)</li> </ul> </li> </ol> <p><strong>Date range: </strong>2015-01-01 to 2016-12-31</p> <p><strong>Latitudinal extent: </strong>4.5000 to 5.0700</p> <p><strong>Longitudinal extent: </strong>116.7500 to 117.8200</p>
Importance of riparian reserves and other forest fragments for small mammal diversity in disturbed and converted forest landscapes
<b>Description: </b><p>The primary objective of this study was to document the species richness, community composition of the small mammals in riparian remnants within oil palm plantation and in degraded forests. The purpose is to assess the value of retaining riparian remnants within oil palm plantation and logged forest habitats for small mammals conservation. <br>Main questions <br>1. Is there a difference in species richness and community composition of small mammals in riparian remnants within oil palm and logged forests? <br>2. What effects do maintaining riparian remnants in oil palm and logged forests have on small mammal diversity? <br>3. Does the structure and width of riparian remnants in oil palm and logged forests affect small mammal species diversity? <br>4. How does the structure of riparian reserves could be managed to improve the extent to which they retain small mammals communities in oil palm and logged forests?<br>Methods<br>Sampling will be conducted at several sites representing four habitat treatments: (1) riparian reserves in old growth forests as control treatment (at Maliau Basin Conservation Area); (2) riparian reserves of different widths in logged forests (SAFE project area); (3) riparian remnants of different widths in oil palm (south of SAFE project area); and (4) oil palm without any riparian remnants (south of SAFE project area). In addition, sampling was conducted in other forest remnants within oil palm habitats. Each habitat treatment will be represented by three sites serving as replicates. <br>Used a grid trapping of 4 x 12 grid points (23m spacing) for sampling the small mammals. We shall establish one grid at each site with 48 trap stations. Two wire-mesh cage traps (28 x 15 x 12.5 cm), baited with oil palm fruits, will be placed at each station. Trapping of small mammals and searchers for amphibians will be conducted in four sampling sessions. In each session we will visit randomly four sites representing the four habitat treatments. Each sampling session at each site will last for four months. Overall, each habitat treatment will be sampled three times over a 12 months period. The following variables will be collected for each sampling site to characterize the habitat structure: canopy cover, number of large and small logs, number of large and small trees, percentage leaf litter cover and other variables that may influence the distribution and abundance of small mammals.</p><p><b>Project: </b>This dataset was collected as part of the following SAFE research project: <a href="https://www.safeproject.net/projects/project_view/3"><b>Importance of riparian reserves and other forest fragments for mammal and amphibian diversity in disturbed and converted forest landscapes</b></a></p><p><b>Funding: </b>These data were collected as part of research funded by: </p><ul><li>Universiti Malaysia Sabah (Grant)</li></ul><p>This dataset is released under the CC-BY 4.0 licence, requiring that you cite the dataset in any outputs, but has the additional condition that you acknowledge the contribution of these funders in any outputs.</p><p></p><p><b>Permits: </b>These data were collected under permit from the following authorities:</p><ul><li>Sabah biodiversity council (Research licence Local)</li></ul><p></p><p><b>XML metadata: </b>GEMINI compliant metadata for this dataset is available <a href="https://www.safeproject.net/datasets/xml_metadata?id=3908128">here</a></p><p><b>Files: </b>This consists of 1 file: UMS_Small_mammal_data.xlsx</p><p><b>UMS_Small_mammal_data.xlsx</b></p><p>This file contains dataset metadata and 1 data tables:</p><ol><li><p><b>Data</b> (described in worksheet Data)</p><p>Description: small mammal presence and absense</p><p>Number of fields: 29</p><p>Number of data rows: 140</p><p>Fields: </p><ul><li><b>landuse</b>: Habitat type (Field type: categorical)</li><li><b>site</b>: Location of sampling (Field type: location)</li><li><b>plot</b>: Plot name (Field type: categorical)</li><li><b>day</b>: Day of sampling (Field type: categorical)</li><li><b>Callosciurus notatus</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Echinosorex gymnurus</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Haeromys margarettae</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Lariscus hosei</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Leopoldamys sabanus</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Maxomys alticola</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Maxomys baeodon</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Maxomys ochraceiventer</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Maxomys rajah</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Maxomys surifer</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Maxomys whiteheadi</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Niniventer cremoriventer</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Rattus exulans</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Rattus rattus</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Rattus tiomanicus</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Sundamys muelleri</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Sundasciurus hippurus</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Sundasciurus lowii</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Sundasciurus tenuis</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Trichys fasciculata</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Tupaia glis</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Tupaia gracilis</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Tupaia minor</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Tupaia tana</b>: Number of species caught (Field type: abundance)</li><li><b>Grand Total</b>: Total (Field type: numeric)</li></ul></li></ol><p><b>Date range: </b>2015-03-01 to 2019-04-30</p><p><b>Latitudinal extent: </b>4.5000 to 5.0700</p><p><b>Longitudinal extent: </b>116.7500 to 117.8200</p><p><b>Taxonomic coverage: </b><br> All taxon names are validated against the GBIF backbone taxonomy. If a dataset uses a synonym, the accepted usage is shown followed by the dataset usage in brackets. Taxa that cannot be validated, including new species and other unknown taxa, morphospecies, functional groups and taxonomic levels not used in the GBIF backbone are shown in square brackets.</p><div> -  Animalia <br> -  -  Chordata <br> -  -  -  Mammalia <br> -  -  -  -  Rodentia <br> -  -  -  -  -  Sciuridae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Callosciurus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Callosciurus notatus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Lariscus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Lariscus hosei</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Sundasciurus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Sundasciurus hippurus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Sundasciurus lowii</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Sundasciurus tenuis</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  Hystricidae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Trichys</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Trichys fasciculata</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  Muridae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Maxomys</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Maxomys alticola</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Maxomys baeodon</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Maxomys ochraceiventer</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Maxomys rajah</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Maxomys surifer</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Rattus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Rattus exulans</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Rattus rattus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Rattus tiomanicus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Sundamys</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Sundamys muelleri</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Haeromys</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Haeromys margarettae</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Niviventer</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Niviventer cremoriventer</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Chrotomys</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Chrotomys whiteheadi</i> (as homotypic_synonym: <i>Maxomys whiteheadi</i>)<br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Leopoldamys</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Leopoldamys sabanus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  Erinaceomorpha <br> -  -  -  -  -  Erinaceidae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Echinosorex</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Echinosorex gymnura</i> <br> -  -  -  -  Scandentia <br> -  -  -  -  -  Tupaiidae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Tupaia</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Tupaia glis</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Tupaia gracilis</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Tupaia minor</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Tupaia tana</i> <br></div><p></p>
Associations between socio-environmental factors and landscape-scale biodiversity recovery in naturally regenerating tropical and subtropical forests
<p class="western"><span><span>Natural regeneration is key for large-scale forest restoration, yet it may lead to different biodiversity outcomes depending on socio-environmental context. We combined the results of a global meta-analysis to quantify how biodiversity recovery in naturally regenerating forests deviates from biodiversity values in reference old-growth forests, with structural equation modeling, to identify direct and indirect associations between socioeconomic, biophysical and ecological factors and deviation in biodiversity recovery at a landscape scale. Low deviation within a landscape means higher chances of multiple sites in naturally regenerating forests successfully recovering biodiversity compared to reference forests. Deviation in biodiversity recovery was directly negatively associated with the percentage of cropland, forest cover, and positively associated with the percentage of urban areas in the surrounding landscape. These three factors mediated the indirect associations with rural population size, recent gross deforestation, time since natural regeneration started, mean annual temperature, mean annual water deficit, road density, land opportunity cost, percentage cover of strictly protected forest areas, and human population variation in the surrounding landscape. We suggest that natural forest restoration should be prioritized in landscapes with both low socioeconomic pressures on land use conversion to pasturelands and urban areas, and high percentage of forest cover.</span></span></p>
Landscape mosaic map archive for "Forest cover dynamics in the shifting landscape mosaic of the continental United States from 2001 to 2016"
<p>This data archive contains two zipfiles, each containing a raster map of the continental United States showing the landscape mosaic classification at 30-meter resolution as described in the citing publication.</p>
Data set for "Overstory dynamics regulate the spatial variability in forest-floor CO2 fluxes across a managed boreal forest landscape"
<p>This data set is a compilation of forest stand characteristics, forest-floor environmental conditions, soil properties, ecosystem carbon stocks, and annual forest-floor CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes. The data set is composed by 3-year mean annual values obtained from biometric- and chamber-based flux measurements conducted during the period 2016–2018. Negative values of forest-floor CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes indicate carbon uptake and positive values indicate carbon release. Data were collected in 50 forest stands within the Krycklan Catchment Study (<a href="https://www.slu.se/Krycklan">https://www.slu.se/Krycklan</a>), a multi-scale long-term monitored boreal catchment spanning 68 km<sup>2</sup> in northern Sweden. Selected forest stands encompassed different soil types (sediment vs. till), dominant tree species (pine vs. spruce), and age classes (from initiation to old-growth stands).</p> <p>Variables, units, and definitions are found in the 1_metadata_Martínez-García_et_al._forest-floor_CO2_fluxes.xlsx file</p> <p>More details can be found in Martínez-García et al. (2022) Overstory dynamics regulate the spatial variability in forest-floor CO<sub>2</sub> fluxes across a managed boreal forest landscape. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 318: 108916. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.108916">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.108916</a></p> <p>Contact information:</p> <p>Ph.D. Eduardo Martínez García (<a href="mailto:eduardo.martinez@slu.se">eduardo.martinez@slu.se</a>, <a href="mailto:edu.martinez.garcia@gmail.com">edu.martinez.garcia@gmail.com</a>)</p> <p>Professor Matthias Peichl (<a href="mailto:matthias.peichl@slu.se">matthias.peichl@slu.se</a>)</p> <p>Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Skogsmarksgränd 17, SE-901 83, Umeå, Sweden</p>
Supplementary material 1 from: Ferreira EM, Valerio F, Medinas D, Fernandes N, Craveiro J, Costa P, Silva JP, Carrapato C, Mira A, Santos SM (2022) Assessing behaviour states of a forest carnivore in a road-dominated landscape using Hidden Markov Models. In: Santos S, Grilo C, Shilling F, Bhardwaj M, Papp CR (Eds) Linear Infrastructure Networks with Ecological Solutions. Nature Conservation 47: 155-175. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.47.72781
Figures S1–S3
Figure 9 from: Bergeron C, Spence J, Volney J (2011) Landscape patterns of species-level association between ground-beetles and overstory trees in boreal forests of western Canada (Coleoptera, Carabidae). ZooKeys 147: 577-600. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.147.2098
Figure 9 - Figure 9. Drainage values for the 193 sites plotted on the beetle ordination of figure 2. High drainage values represent poorly drained sites.
Figure 6 from: Bergeron C, Spence J, Volney J (2011) Landscape patterns of species-level association between ground-beetles and overstory trees in boreal forests of western Canada (Coleoptera, Carabidae). ZooKeys 147: 577-600. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.147.2098
Figure 6 - Figure 6. Relative basal area of Populus tremuloides for the 193 sites plotted on the beetle ordination of figure 2.
Figure 4 from: Bergeron C, Spence J, Volney J (2011) Landscape patterns of species-level association between ground-beetles and overstory trees in boreal forests of western Canada (Coleoptera, Carabidae). ZooKeys 147: 577-600. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.147.2098
Figure 4 - Figure 4. Relative basal area of Abies balsamea for the 193 sites plotted on the beetle ordination of figure 2.
Figure 5 from: Bergeron C, Spence J, Volney J (2011) Landscape patterns of species-level association between ground-beetles and overstory trees in boreal forests of western Canada (Coleoptera, Carabidae). ZooKeys 147: 577-600. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.147.2098
Figure 5 - Figure 5. Relative basal area of Populus balsamifera for the 193 sites plotted on the beetle ordination of figure 2.
Figure 8 from: Bergeron C, Spence J, Volney J (2011) Landscape patterns of species-level association between ground-beetles and overstory trees in boreal forests of western Canada (Coleoptera, Carabidae). ZooKeys 147: 577-600. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.147.2098
Figure 8 - Figure 8. Relative basal area of Larix laricina for the 193 sites plotted on the beetle ordination of figure 2.
Figure 7 from: Bergeron C, Spence J, Volney J (2011) Landscape patterns of species-level association between ground-beetles and overstory trees in boreal forests of western Canada (Coleoptera, Carabidae). ZooKeys 147: 577-600. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.147.2098
Figure 7 - Figure 7. Relative basal area of Picea mariana for the 193 sites plotted on the beetle ordination of figure 2.
Fig. 1 in Dung beetle (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) assemblage of a highly fragmented landscape of Atlantic forest: from small to the largest fragments of northeastern Brazilian region
Fig. 1. Map showing forest fragments evaluated of the Trapiche property (Oliveira, unpublished data); 1: Mata das Cobas; 2: Canto Escuro; 3: Tauá; 4: Ubaca; 5: Xanguá; 6: Xanguazinho. Sirinhaém, Pernambuco, Brazil, 2010.
Figure 3 from: Tajovsky K, Hosek J, Hofmeister J, Wytwer J (2012) Assemblages of terrestrial isopods (Isopoda, Oniscidea) in a fragmented forest landscape in Central Europe. ZooKeys 176: 189-198. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.176.2296
Figure 3 - A triplot of the RDA block analyses of terrestrial isopod assemblages at the sites studied. For the abbreviations of the species see Table 1, FA – fragment area, C/N – carbon-nitrogen ratio, Ca2+ – calcium content of the soil, pHH2O – soil acidity. TO, MOH, TOH, AO, BO, BOH, MDF, DP and CP – vegetation at the different sites, see text.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.