Find research datasets worth reusing

Figure 5 in Herbicide response and germination behavior of two goosegrass (Eleusine indica) populations in the Australian environment

Figure 5. Effect of osmotic potential on the germination of the two Australian populations (Gatton and Ingham) of Eleusine indica incubated under alternating light/ dark for 28 d at 30/20 C.The lines represent a three-parameter sigmoid model fit to the germination data in response to concentrations of osmotic potentials.

Figure 3 in Herbicide response and germination behavior of two goosegrass (Eleusine indica) populations in the Australian environment

Figure 3. Effect of light/dark regimes on the germination of the two Australian populations (Gatton and Ingham) populations of Eleusine indica. Seeds were incubated for 28 d at alternating day/night temperatures of 30/20 C. Error bars represent the LSD at the 5% level of significance.

Figure 4 in Herbicide response and germination behavior of two goosegrass (Eleusine indica) populations in the Australian environment

Figure 4. Effect of sodium chloride concentration on the germination of the two Australian populations (Gatton and Ingham) of Eleusine indica incubated under alternating light/dark for 28 d at 30/20 C.The lines represent a three-parameter logistic model fit to the germination data in response to sodium chloride concentrations.

Figure 2 in Herbicide response and germination behavior of two goosegrass (Eleusine indica) populations in the Australian environment

Figure 2. Effect of alternating day/night temperatures (15/5 to 35/25 C) on the germination of the two Australian populations (Gatton and Ingham) of Eleusine indica. Error bars represent the LSD at the 5% level of significance.

opencc-zeroJun 2024View details →

dryad40/100

Collective behavior evolves independently of benthic-limnetic divergence in stickleback

Comparing populations across replicate environments or habitat types can help us understand the role of ecology in evolutionary processes. If similar phenotypes are favored in similar environments, parallel evolution may occur. Collective behavior, including collective movement (e.g., schooling, flocking) and social networks, can play a key role in the adaptation by animals to different environments. However, studies exploring the parallelism of collective behavior are limited, with research traditionally focusing on morphological traits. Here, we asked if collective behavior has evolved in parallel across replicate populations of benthic and limnetic three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). There were repeatable, population-level differences in collective behavior in a common garden, with some populations forming groups that were more cohesive and with higher strength and clustering coefficients. This suggests that collective behavior can evolve. However, these differences were not predicted by ecotype (benthic vs. limnetic). We found no evidence that boldness or morphological traits – both of which are known to be associated with benthic-limnetic divergence – were correlated with collective behavior. Together, these results suggest that while collective behavior evolves in this system, it does not co-evolve with divergence along the benthic-limnetic axis.

dryad40/100

Data from: Differential neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and behavioral impacts of early-age isolation in a Eusocial insect

Social experience early in life appears to be necessary for the development of species-typical behavior. Although isolation during critical periods of maturation has been shown to impact behavior through gene expression and brain development in invertebrates and vertebrates, workers of some ant species appear resilient to social deprivation and other neurobiological challenges that occur during senescence or due to loss of sensory input. It is unclear if and to what degree neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, and behavior will show deficiencies if social experience in the early adult life of worker ants is compromised. We reared workers of Camponotus floridanus from adult eclosion under conditions of social isolation for two to 53 days, quantified brain compartment volumes, recorded biogenic amine levels in individual brains, and evaluated movement and behavioral performance to compare the neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, brood-care behavior, and foraging (predatory behavior) of isolated workers with that of workers experiencing natural social contact after adult eclosion. We found that the volume of the antennal lobe, which processes olfactory inputs, was significantly reduced in workers isolated for an average 40 days, whereas the size of the mushroom bodies, centers of higher-order sensory processing, increased after eclosion and was not significantly different from controls. Titers of the neuromodulators serotonin, dopamine, and octopamine remained stable and were not significantly different in isolation treatments and controls. Brood care, predation, and overall movement were reduced in workers lacking social contact early in life. These results suggest that the behavioral development of isolated workers of C. floridanus is specifically impacted by a reduction in the size of the antennal lobe. Task performance and locomotor ability therefore appear to be sensitive to a loss of social contact through a reduction of olfactory processing ability rather than change in the size of the mushroom bodies, which serve important functions in learning and memory, or the central complex, which controls movement.

opencc-zeroJul 2024View details →

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2016View details →

Fig. 3 in Behavioral Responses Of Salmonid Fingerlings To New Invasive Fish Predator Perccottus Glenii

Fig. 3. Video recording of the experiment. The biggest fish is the predator Perccottus glenii, smaller - tiger trout fingerlings.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2016View details →

Fig. 1 in Behavioral Responses Of Salmonid Fingerlings To New Invasive Fish Predator Perccottus Glenii

Fig. 1. Scheme of the experimental basin and video recordering. Black fish – predator, white fishes – fingerlings, gray – pipe for releasing of predator.

Fig. 5 in Ethological Aspects Of Biodiversity Within And Between Phylloscopus Species: Behavioral Variation Among Birds From The Centre And Periphery Of Breeding Ranges

Fig. 5. Ratio of males of different statuses from the number of all the males tried to occupy territories in the study area in 2007 – 2014.

Fig. 6 in Ethological Aspects Of Biodiversity Within And Between Phylloscopus Species: Behavioral Variation Among Birds From The Centre And Periphery Of Breeding Ranges

Fig. 6. Change of places of singing (1, 2, etc.) during a season in Wood Warblers. Examples for some different controlled males are indicated by the lines of different types (2007 – 2014).

Fig. 1 in Ethological Aspects Of Biodiversity Within And Between Phylloscopus Species: Behavioral Variation Among Birds From The Centre And Periphery Of Breeding Ranges

Fig. 1. Population densities of the Leaf Warblers in the study area at different stages of reproductive seasons of 2007 – 2014.

Fig. 2 in Ethological Aspects Of Biodiversity Within And Between Phylloscopus Species: Behavioral Variation Among Birds From The Centre And Periphery Of Breeding Ranges

Fig. 2. The overlapping of projections of Chiffchaff territories ('maximum-territories' according to the point mapping method) and the real segregating of the territorial rooms in space: a scheme.

FIGURE 3. Quantitative burrow properties. A in Linking burrow morphology to the behaviors of predatory soil arthropods: Applications to continental ichnofossils

FIGURE 3. Quantitative burrow properties. A) Measurements were taken for number of surface openings (SO), burrow slope (S), maximum depth (D), total length (L), tunnel, shaft, and chamber width (w), height (h), and circumference (c), and branching angles (BA). B) Complexity includes the number of segments (s), chambers (h), and surface openings (e) within a single burrow system. C) Tortuosity of a single burrow segment is found by dividing the total length (u) by the straight-line distance (v) from end to end. Modified from Hembree (2019).

FIGURE 7 in Linking burrow morphology to the behaviors of predatory soil arthropods: Applications to continental ichnofossils

FIGURE 7. Burrow morphology: architecture and bioglyphs. A) Simple subhorizontal burrow of Hadrurus arizonensis with a single entrance. B) Helical subhorizontal burrow of H. arizonensis with a single entrance. C) Simple subhorizontal burrow of Pandinus imperator with a single entrance. D) Branching subhorizontal burrow of P. imperator with a single entrance. E) Branching, helical burrow of P. imperator with a large terminal chamber (at arrow). F) Mazework of H. arizonensis with multiple branches and two entrances (at arrows). G) Multiple, fine striations (at arrows) along, and parallel to, the shaft of a Gorgyrella inermis burrow. H) Pair of protrusions (at arrows) on the roof of a terminal chamber of Mastigoproctus giganteus. I) Large striations (at arrows) along the side of a subhorizontal burrow of Aphonopelma chalcodes. J) Burrow opening of Hogna lenta showing silk and sediment lining (at arrow). K) Compression lining (at arrow) visible in a cross section of a tunnel of Scolopendra polymorpha.

FIGURE 6 in Linking burrow morphology to the behaviors of predatory soil arthropods: Applications to continental ichnofossils

FIGURE 6. Burrow morphology: openings and architecture. A) Elliptical burrow opening of Scolopendra polymorpha. B) Circular burrow opening of Hysterocrates gigas surrounded by a mound of excavated sediment. C) Paired triangular burrow openings of Pandinus imperator. D) Simple vertical burrow of Gorgyrella inermis with a single entrance. E) Vertical branching burrow of Pelinobus muticus with a single entrance. F) Vertical burrow Hysterocrates gigas with large terminal chamber and a single entrance. G) Subvertical helical burrow of Aphopelma chalcodes with a single entrance. H) J-shaped burrow of Mastigoproctus giganteus with a single entrance. I) U-shaped burrow of M. giganteus with two entrances. J) Y-shaped burrow of M. giganteus with two entrances. K) Mazework of M. giganteus with five entrances (at numbers). L) U-shaped burrow of S. polymorpha with two entrances. M) Mazework of S. polymorpha with four entrances (at numbers).

FIGURE 4. Burrowing techniques observed among the studied arthropod predators. A in Linking burrow morphology to the behaviors of predatory soil arthropods: Applications to continental ichnofossils

FIGURE 4. Burrowing techniques observed among the studied arthropod predators. A) Initial burrowing by intrusion by Scolopendra polymorpha (burrow opening at arrow). B) Burrowing by intrusion by Hogna lenta. C) Continued construction of a vertical shaft by compression by Gorgyrella inermis, compressing sediment along burrow boundary (at arrow) to increase the width. D) Subsurface tunnel construction by intrusion by Hemiscolopendra marginata. No sediment is removed as the tunnel is extended but is pressed against the tunnel boundary (at arrow). E) Burrowing by excavation by Mastigoproctus giganteus. Sediment is removed and carried with the pedipalps (at arrow). F) Burrowing by excavation by Pelinobus muticus. Sediment is removed and carried with the pedipalps (at arrow). G) Burrowing by excavation by Hadrurus arizonensis. Sediment is scraped and kicked back out (at arrow) of the developing burrow with the first two pairs of legs. H) Backfilling of a tunnel by S. polymorpha. The centipede removes sediment from the developing tunnel and uses it to fill the old tunnel (at arrow). I) Light silk lining around the opening, shaft, and chamber (at arrows) of Hysterocrates gigas. J) Thick silk lining around the shaft (at arrow) of G. inermis producing a smooth interior surface. K) Six silk runners (example at arrow) connected to the burrow entrance of G. inermis with a closed trap door.

FIGURE 2 in Linking burrow morphology to the behaviors of predatory soil arthropods: Applications to continental ichnofossils

FIGURE 2. Examples of experimental enclosures used in this study. A) Surface view of a 212 L enclosure before the introduction of the study animal. Objects were placed on the surface to encourage burrowing. B) Side view of a 246 L enclosure filled with 60 cm of an organic rich clay loam. C) A 212 L enclosure filled with 55 cm of an organic-rich clay loam. Five specimens of Pandinus imperator produced a branching burrow complex in the subsurface (at arrow). D) Plaster-filled, connected U-shaped burrows produced by Mastigoproctus giganteus in a 38 L enclosure filled with an organic-rick clay loam.

FIGURE 1 in Linking burrow morphology to the behaviors of predatory soil arthropods: Applications to continental ichnofossils

FIGURE 1. Burrowing arthropod predators investigated in this study. A) Scolopendra viridis, B) Scolopendra polymorpha, C) Hemiscolopendra marginata, D) Hadrurus arizonensis, E) Smeringurus mesaensis, F) Uroctonus mordax, G) Heterometrus spinifer, H) Pandinus imperator, I) Mastigoproctus giganteus, J) Hogna lenta, K) Gorgyrella inermis, L) Myrmekiaphilia sp., M) Aphonopelma chalcodes, N) Hysterocrates gigas, and O) Pelinobus muticus.

FIGURE 3 in Forelimb motion and orientation in the ornithischian dinosaurs Styracosaurus and Thescelosaurus, and its implications for locomotion and other behavior

FIGURE 3. Stratigraphic distribution of ornithopod and basal ornithischian ichnogenera (after Lockley et al., 2003, 2009; Stanford et al., 2004; Díaz-Martínez et al., 2015; Salisbury et al., 2016), with time-calibrated phylogeny of Ornithopoda (after McDonald, 2012; Dieudonné et al., 2020; Kobayashi et al., 2021). Blue parts of the cladogram and blue manus and pes prints indicate taxa and ichnotaxa with manus enclosed in a mitten-like sheath of soft tissue. Striped blue and black on the cladogram indicates uncertainty: known fossils don't include enough of the manus to determine whether the fingers were enclosed in a mitten-like sheath of soft tissue. The unnamed tracks from Spain are those described by Pérez-Lorente et al. (1997).

FIGURE 1 in Forelimb motion and orientation in the ornithischian dinosaurs Styracosaurus and Thescelosaurus, and its implications for locomotion and other behavior

FIGURE 1. Right pectoral girdle and forelimb bones of the holotype of Styracosaurus albertensis (CMN 344) and motion at the shoulder. A. Right scapula and coracoid in lateral view. B–D. Humerus in lateral (B), posterior (C), and anterior (D) views, with broken white line indicating edge of humeral head. E–F. Radius and ulna in proximal (E) and distal (F) views. G. Range of parasagittal motion at the shoulder in lateral view. H. Range of motion at the shoulder in dorsal view. I. Range of transverse motion at the shoulder in anterior view, with radius and ulna included; the broken line indicates the humerus in the approximate position of full elevation through the transverse plane, and the unbroken line indicates the humerus in the position that was used for photographing it in position 3. J. Range of parasagittal and transverse motion at the shoulder in lateral view, with radius and ulna included. K–M. Fleshed out reconstructions of S. albertensis in anterior view in habitual posture for standing and locomotion (K), in anterior view with forelimbs in sprawling posture (L), and in lateral view with forelimbs in habitual posture for standing and locomotion (M). 1 – 3, positions 1 – 3 (see Materials and Methods for description), c, coracoid; g, glenoid cavity; h, humerus; hh, humeral head; r, radius; s, scapula; u, ulna.