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.
706
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
706 results for “protected area”
C and N stable isotope ratios in fishes from marine protected areas and areas open to fishing
<p><span>Here, we assess </span><span>whether fishery exploitation affects the trophic structure of carnivorous fishes</span><span>. We censused fishes and analysed the stable isotope ratios of C and N of species targeted by fishermen in areas open to fishing and marine protected areas in the Mediterranean Sea and the north-eastern Atlantic Ocean. Results demonstrated a major impact of fishing on the biomass and the size structure of nektobenthic carnivorous fishes. However, those changes did not modify the diversity of the trophic resources used by the assemblage, </span><span>the pattern of resource partitioning between species or the degree of trophic redundancy</span><span>. These results add to recent evidence suggesting that marine protected areas implemented in fished seascapes may fail to restore the original structure of the food webs that once existed in pre-fished ecosystems, because regional decimation and extinction of highly mobile predators prevents recovering the original diversity of predators at local scales, even at no-take areas. If so, more strict local fishing regulations are unlikely to restore the original diversity of high trophic level carnivores and restoration goals should be reframed </span><span>in terms of an objective that is less unrealistic than restoring the pre-fished condition while still recovering aspects of the historical trophic structure</span><span>.</span></p>
Data from: Protected areas not likely to serve as steppingstones for species undergoing climate-induced range shifts
<p class="MsoNormal">Species across the planet are shifting their ranges to track suitable climate conditions in response to climate change. Given that protected areas have higher quality habitat and often harbor higher levels of biodiversity compared to unprotected lands, it is often assumed that protected areas can serve as steppingstones for species undergoing climate-induced range shifts. However, there are several factors that may impede successful range shifts among protected areas, including the distance that must be travelled, unfavorable human land uses and climate conditions along potential movement routes, and lack of analogous climates. Through a species-agnostic lens, we evaluate these factors across the global terrestrial protected area network as measures of climate connectivity, which is defined as the ability of a landscape to facilitate or impede climate-induced movement. We found that over half of protected land areas and two-thirds of the number of protected units across the globe are at risk of <em>climate connectivity failure</em>, casting doubt on whether many species can successfully undergo climate-induced range shifts among protected areas. Consequently, protected areas are unlikely to serve as steppingstones for a large number of species under a warming climate. As species disappear from protected areas without commensurate immigration of species suited to the emerging climate (due to climate connectivity failure), many protected areas may <span>be left with a depauperate suite of species under climate change. Our findings are highly relevant given recent pledges to conserve 30% of the planet by 2030 (30x30), </span>underscore the need for innovative land management strategies that allow for species range shifts, and suggest that assisted colonization may be necessary <span>to promote species that are adapted to the emerging climate.</span></p>
Figure 7 in Amphibians and reptiles from a protected area in western Brazilian Amazonia (Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá)
Figure 7. Amphibians recorded at the Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá. (A) Osteocephalus aff. leprieurii; (B) Osteocephalus taurinus; (C) Scarthyla goinorum; (D) Scinax ruber; (E) Trachycephalus typhonius; (F) Adenomera andreae; (G) Adenomera simonstuarti; (H) Edalorhina perezi. Photographs by LJCLM (A, B, G) andVTC (C-F, H).
Figure 11 in Amphibians and reptiles from a protected area in western Brazilian Amazonia (Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá)
Figure 11. Lizards recorded at Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá. (A) Loxopholis snethlageae; (B) Iguana iguana; (C) Copeoglossum nigropunctatum (juvenile); (D) Gonatodes humeralis; (E) Crocodilurus amazonicus; (F) Kentropyx pelviceps; (G) Plica umbra ochrocollaris; (H) Uranoscodon superciliosus. Photographs by LJCLM (A, D) and VTC (B, C, E-H).
Figure 3 in Amphibians and reptiles from a protected area in western Brazilian Amazonia (Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá)
Figure 3. Extrapolated rarefaction curves showing variation in amphibian (A) and reptile (B) species richness in the Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá in relation to our sampling effort. Observed data are in full lines and extrapolated in dashed lines. Shaded areas represent 95% confidence intervals (bootstrap with 1,000 replications).
Figure 1 in Amphibians and reptiles from a protected area in western Brazilian Amazonia (Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá)
Figure 1. Geographic location of the Reserva Extrativista (RESEX) do Baixo Juruá in relation to South America (A) and the Juruá River basin, in Brazilian Western Amazonia (B); upon an elevation background). In (B), protected areas and indigenous territories that cover this river basin are delimited in white and pink, respectively. The focal area is zoomed at (C), showing the eleven localities sampled for amphibians and reptiles (numbered white symbols; see Table 1), and the Juruá municipality. Background in (C) is from Google Earth (Map data ©2015 Google/Landsat/Copernicus).
Figure 4 in Amphibians and reptiles from a protected area in western Brazilian Amazonia (Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá)
Figure 4. Amphibians recorded at the Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá. (A) Allobates femoralis; (B) Rhinella castaneotica; (C) Rhinella aff. margaritifera; (D) Rhinella exostosica; (E) Rhinella marina; (F) Ceratophrys cornuta; (G) Oreobates quixensis; (H) Pristimantis reichlei. Photographs by VTC (A, C, E, F, H) and LJCLM (B, D, G).
Figure 13 in Amphibians and reptiles from a protected area in western Brazilian Amazonia (Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá)
Figure 13. Snakes recorded at Reserva Extrativistado Baixo Juruá.(A) Drepanoidesanomalus; (B) Erythrolampruspygmaeus; (C)Erythrolamprusreginae; (D) Erythrolamprus typhlus; (E) Helicops angulatus; (F) Helicops polylepis; (G) Oxyrhopus melanogenys; (H) Oxyrhopus occipitalis. Photographs byVTC (A-E, G, H) and LJCLM (F).
Figure 2 in Amphibians and reptiles from a protected area in western Brazilian Amazonia (Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá)
Figure 2. Panoramic view of the white-water Juruá River at its lower course (A); some habitats recently sampled for amphibians and reptiles at the Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá, state of Amazonas, Brazil: (B) seasonally flooded habitats at the confluence of the tributary Andirá River, and (C) non-flooded forest (paleovárzea); as well as different trap methods and setups used during sampling: (D, E) linear pitfall trap stations, with drift fences, (F) funnel traps, installed between the buckets of pitfall traps, (G) bucket part of a pitfall trap station in "Y″ without drift fences. Photographs by LJCLM (A-C) and VTC (D-G).
Figure 5 in Amphibians and reptiles from a protected area in western Brazilian Amazonia (Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá)
Figure 5. Amphibians recorded at the Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá. (A) Strabomantis sulcatus; (B) Ameerega trivittata; (C) Phyzelaphryne nimio; (D) Boana boans; (E) Boana calcarata; (F) Boana cinerascens; (G) Boana geographica; (H) Boana lanciformis. Photographs by VTC (A, B, D, E, H) and LJCLM (C, F, G).
Figure 12 in Amphibians and reptiles from a protected area in western Brazilian Amazonia (Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá)
Figure 12. Snakes recorded at Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá. (A) Anilius scytale; (B) Epicrates cenchria; (C) Chironius fuscus; (D) Drymoluber dichrous; (E) Atractus major; (F) Atractus poeppigi; (G) Atractus torquatus; (H) Dipsas catesbyi. Photographs by VTC.
Figure 10 in Amphibians and reptiles from a protected area in western Brazilian Amazonia (Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá)
Figure 10. Lizards recorded at Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá. (A) Alopoglossus atriventris; (B) Alopoglossus brevifrontalis; (C) Alopoglossus indigenorum; (D) Anolis punctatus; (E) Anolis transversalis; (F) Anolis tandai (male); (G) Anolis tandai (female); (H) Cercosaura argulus. Photographs by LJCLM (A, B, D) and VTC (C, E-H).
Figure 14 in Amphibians and reptiles from a protected area in western Brazilian Amazonia (Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá)
Figure 14. Snakes and chelonians recorded at Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá. (A) Thamnodynastes pallidus; (B) Xenodon rabdocephalus; (C) Micrurus hemprichii ortoni; (D) Micrurus lemniscatus; (E) Bothrops atrox; (F) Bothrocophias hyoprora; (G) Platemys platycephala; (H) Chelonoidis denticulata. Photographs by VTC.
Figure 9 in Amphibians and reptiles from a protected area in western Brazilian Amazonia (Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá)
Figure 9. Amphibians recorded at the Reserva Extrativista do Baixo Juruá. (A) Chiasmocleis bassleri; (B) Chiasmocleis hudsoni; (C) Chiasmocleis ventrimaculata; (D) Ctenophryne geayi; (E) Phyllomedusa vaillantii; (F) Pipa pipa; (G) Lithobates palmipes (metamorph);(H) Caecilia tentaculata. Photographs by LJCLM (A-E) andVTC (F-H).
Figure 1 in Odonata (Insecta) community in the Environmental Protection Area of the Machado River hydrographic basin, southern Minas Gerais State, Brazil
Figure 1. Location maps of the Environmental Protection Area of the Machado River hydrographic basin and sampling points. Source: Jean Victor Nery da Silva.
Figure 3 in Odonata (Insecta) community in the Environmental Protection Area of the Machado River hydrographic basin, southern Minas Gerais State, Brazil
Figure 3. Odonata species sampled in the Environmental Protection Area of the Machado River hydrographic basin: (A) Erythrodiplax media Borror, 1942; (B) Erythrodiplax paraguayensis (Förster, 1905); (C) Tholymis citrina Hagen, 1867; (D) Miathyria marcella (Selys in Sagra, 1857); (E) Hetaerina longipes Hagen in Selys, 1853; (F) Homeoura lindneri (Ris, 1928); (G) Telebasis willinki Fraser, 1948; and (H) Argia mollis Hagen in Selys, 1865.
Figure 2 in Odonata (Insecta) community in the Environmental Protection Area of the Machado River hydrographic basin, southern Minas Gerais State, Brazil
Figure 2. (A) Semideciduous and (B) riparian forests associated with (C) lotic and (D) lentic environments in the Environmental Protection Area of the Machado River hydrographic basin, southern Minas Gerais State.
Data for: Mammalian predators and vegetated nesting habitat drive reduced protected area nesting success of Kentish plovers, Yellow Sea region, China
<p><span>Protected areas provide essential habitats for wildlife by conserving natural and semi-natural habitats and reducing human disturbance. However, whether breeding birds vulnerable to nest predation can benefit from strict land management in the protected area is unclear. Here, we compare the nesting performance of two groups of a ground-nesting shorebird, the Kentish plover (<em>Charadrius alexandrinus</em>), in the protected area (Liaohekou Natural Reserve, hereinafter PA) and the control non-protected area (Non-PA) around the Liaohekou Natural Reserve, in the north of the Yellow Sea, China, and identify which environmental factors, such as nesting habitat and nest materials, influence the daily nest survival rate (DSR). We found similar nesting habitats in both study areas, dominated by bare land or <em>Suaeda salsa</em> grassland. However, DSR was lower in PA (0.91 ± 0.01) than in Non-PA (0.97 ± 0.01). Kentish plovers nesting in areas with vegetation cover experienced lower DSR than in bare lands in both areas, and nests built with materials of <em>S. salsa</em> sticks had the lowest DSR in the bare land. Data from infrared cameras confirmed relatively higher predator abundances and nest predation rates by nocturnal mammals, such as Eurasian badgers (<em>Meles meles</em>), in PA than in Non-PA, and this pattern was especially evident for plover nests located in <em>S. sals</em>a grassland. Our results suggest that Liaohekou Natural Reserve protected area may not necessarily provide safe nesting sites for Kentish plovers due to the abundance of generalist mammal nest predators. </span><span>However, the PA includes about 80% of the nests from both locations. This means the contribution of the total number of successful nests continues to be much higher within PA, with the benefit for the species that this brings in terms of conservation. </span><span>The variation and mechanisms underlying differences in the nest predator communities of PA and non-PA deserve further study.</span></p>
Species distribution data and distribution of private and public protected areas in Cerrado, Brazil
<p>Here we present the models of 103 threatened vertebrates (Anphibia, Reptile, Birds and Mammals) from the Cerrado in Brazil and all information about spatial distribution of private and public conservation protected areas that is a part of an article about the value of private areas to conservation.</p>
A dark side of conservation biology: protected areas fail in representing subterranean biodiversity. Databases.
<p>We obtained distribution data for leiodids by digitizing the information provided by Fresneda and Salgado (2017). This information was updated and expanded with additional data from several sampling campaigns (unpublished data). For subterranean spiders, we included the entirety of the Alps range extending from France in the east westward through Switzerland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Austria, Germany, and Slovenia, by integrating available data in Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), Spider of Europe), Araneae.it and other literature sources.</p>
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.