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.
3,105
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
3,105 results for “Vegetation =”
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1985
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1985</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1999
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1999</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2001
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2001</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2008
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2008</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2002
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2002</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2012
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2012</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2013
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2013</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2018
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2018</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2017
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2017</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2006
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2006</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2019
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2019</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2003
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2003</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2010
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2010</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2011
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2011</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2009
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2009</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2016
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2016</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Experimental dataset on seed retention rates in a vegetated cover
<p>This repository presents a dataset collected during two experiments aiming at assessing seed retention rates in a vegetated cover located in an experimental channel. The seeds that were used are <em>Rumex crispus</em> seeds. Artificial plants used in the two experiments are <em>Isolepis</em> sp., <em>Buxus</em> sp., and <em>Thuya</em> sp. </p> <p>Experiment 1 provides the data for 2 panels filled with vegetation.</p> <p>Experiment 2 provides the data for X panels filled with vegetation (X comprised between 1 and 8).</p> <p>More information on the collected data are given in the files.</p>
Resilience of patterned vegetation in the Sahel - network centrality data
Input data for a time-series analysis of the connectedness of vegetation from several locations within the Sahel. The analysis uses NDVI images from the Sentinel 2 satellite, from ESA's Copernicus program, downloaded from Google Earth Engine.
Data from: Vegetation type controls root turnover in global grasslands
Abstract: Aim: Root turnover is an important process determining carbon and nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems. It is an established fact that root turnover is jointly regulated by climatic, edaphic, and biotic factors. However, the relative importance of these forces in determining the global patterns of root turnover time is far from clear. Location: Global. Time period: 1946–2017. Major taxa studied: Grasslands. Methods: We compiled a database of 141 sites with 433 observations on root turnover time and applied structural equation modelling (SEM) to investigate the relative contribution of climate, soil properties, and vegetation type to the observed variations in root turnover time. Results: Root turnover time was 3.1 years on average across the global grasslands and differed significantly among grassland types (tropical grassland & savanna, temperate grassland & meadow, alpine grassland & meadow, tundra, and desert). It decreased with mean annual temperature, mean annual precipitation, and Palmer Drought Severity Index but increased with soil organic carbon content, total nitrogen content, and carbon: nitrogen ratio. Soil bulk density and soil texture also significantly affected root turnover time, with clay content negatively correlating to root turnover time and explaining more variations than bulk density and sand content. The SEM showed that climatic factors had dominant effects on root turnover time when vegetation type was not considered. Vegetation type became the primary driver when it was included in the SEM. Main conclusions: Our results highlight that the influences of climatic and edaphic factors on root turnover time are predominantly manifested through vegetation type. The critical role of precipitation as revealed for the first time in this study challenges our current understanding of climate impacts on root turnover time. The findings necessitate accurate representation of vegetation type in Earth system models to predict root function dynamics under global change.
Data from: Exploring the perceptions of physicians, caregivers and families towards artificial nutrition and hydration for people in permanent vegetative state: how can a photo-elicitation method help?
The question of withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from people in a permanent vegetative state sparks considerable ethical and legal debate. Therefore, understanding the elements that influence such a decision is crucial. However, exploring perceptions of artificial nutrition and hydration is methodologically challenging for several reasons. First, because of the emotional state of the professionals and family members, who are facing an extremely distressing situation; second, because this question mirrors representations linked to a deep-rooted fear of dying of hunger and thirst; and third, because of taboos surrounding death. We sought to determine the best method to explore such complex situations in depth. This article aims to assess the relevance of the photo-elicitation interview method to analyze the perceptions and attitudes of health professionals and families of people in a permanent vegetative state regarding artificial nutrition and hydration. The photo-elicitation interview method consists in inserting one or more photographs into a research interview. An original set of 60 photos was built using Google Images and participants were asked to choose photos (10 maximum) and talk about them. The situations of 32 patients were explored in 23 dedicated centers for people in permanent vegetative state across France. In total, 138 interviews were conducted with health professionals and family members. We found that the photo-elicitation interview method 1) was well accepted by the participants and allowed them to express their emotions constructively, 2) fostered narration, reflexivity and introspection, 3) offered a sufficient "unusual angle" to allow participants to go beyond stereotypes and habits of thinking, and 4) can be replicated in other research areas. The use of visual methods currently constitutes an expanding area of research and this study stressed that this is of special interest to enhance research among populations facing end-of-life and ethical issues.
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.