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.
3,709
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
3,709 results for “urbanization.”
Biodiversity of urban floras of the Urals and Volga region
<p>The dataset, “Biodiversity of urban floras of the Urals and Volga region”, includes data on the composition of 19 urban floras located in the Sverdlovsk, Samara and Ulyanovsk regions, the Republic of Bashkortostan and the Udmurt Republic. The studied cities, according to the classification adopted in the Russian Federation, differ in population size into: small, with a population of less than 50,000 people (Kambarka, Krasnoufimsk, Mozhga, Novoulyanovsk, Sengiley, Turinsk), medium, with a population of 50,000-100,000 people (Votkinsk, Zhigulevsk, Ishimbai, Kumertau, Meleuz), large, with a population of 100,000-250,000 people (Dimitrovgrad, Kamensk-Uralsky, Salavat, Sterlitamak), very large, with a population of 250,000-1,000,000 people (Izhevsk, Tolyatti, Ulyanovsk) and a city with a population of over 1 million people – Yekaterinburg.</p> <p>In the urban flora 2050 plant species were recorded, and synonymy was aligned with The Plant List (http://www.theplantlist.org). The dataset provides information about the distribution of each species in studied urban floras as well as grouping of species into native plants, neophytes and archaeophytes.</p> <p> </p> <p>The general list of vascular plants of the analyzed urban flora is compiled on the basis of the authors' own field research. All types of habitats (natural, semi-natural and artificial) were examined. Our direct observations were supplemented with information from herbarium collections: the Museum of the Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (SVER), Ural Federal University (UFU), Kurgan State University, Udmurt State University (UDU), South Ural Botanical Garden-Institute, Institute of Ecology of the Volga River Basin of the Russian Academy of Sciences (PVB RAS). Published sources were also consulted (Ilminskikh et al., 1998; Rakov, 2003; Rakov, Saxonov, 2008; Kornilov et al., 2012; Mogutova Mountain..., 2013; Rakov et al., 2013; Golovanov, Abramova, 2014a; 2014b; Baranova, Bralgina, 2015; Golovanov et al., 2015; Golovanov et al., 2017; Golovanov, 2018).</p> <p> </p> <p>In the general list of vascular plants, native and alien species were identified. Alien species are understood as plant species either unintentionally introduced into our region as a result of human economic activity, or as ornamental or purposefully introduced species found outside their cultivation areas (Tretyakova, Shurova, 2013; Baranova et al., 2018). Alien species, depending on the time of their appearance in the flora, are traditionally divided into two groups: archaeophytes and neophytes (Pysek et al., 2004). Archaeophytes are alien species that appeared in the study area before 1800, neophytes appeared after this date. The main sources for classifying archaeophytes and neophytes into groups were complete lists of flora of the Sverdlovsk Region (Knyazev et al., 2016; 2017; 2018; 2019a; b; 2020; 2021) and the Udmurt Republic (Baranova, Puzyrev, 2012), as well as lists of alien plants of the Samara and Ulyanovsk regions (Senator, Vasyukov, 2019), the Republic of Bashkortostan (Muldashev et al., 2017). The analysis also uses data from K. F. Ledebour (von Ledebour, 1842-1853), K. K. Klaus (Klaus, 1852), p. Korzhinsky (Korzhinsky, 1898), H. F. Lessing (Lessing, 1835), A. A. Bunge (Bunge, 1851), Y. K. Schell (Schell, 1880; 1883), O. and B. Fedchenko (Fedchenko, Fedchenko, 1894), which summarized information about the flora of the Urals and the Volga region, accumulated by the beginning of the XIX century.</p> <p> </p> <p>In order to provide a single classification scheme in which each species is assigned to only one category, we used the approach described by La Sorte and co-authors (La Sorte et al., 2008). Species that were not identified exclusively as native were classified as archaeophytes if they were identified as archaeophytes in at least one urban flora. Similarly, species have been classified as neophytes if they have not been identified as archaeophytes in any urban flora and have been identified as neophytes in at least one urban flora. At the same time, preference is given to assigning an alien status to a species, because such species show the ability to settle in a secondary area. Among alien plants, preference has been given to the status of archaeophytes, due to their earlier appearance in new regions outside the primary range. Accordingly, species have been universally identified as archaeophytes if they are classified as archaeophytes in at least one urban flora (La Sorte et al., 2008).</p>
Nectar values from: Quantifying nectar production by flowering plants in urban and rural landscapes
<p>Floral resources (nectar and pollen) provide food for insect pollinators but have declined in the countryside due to land use change. Given widespread pollinator loss, it is important that we quantify their food supply to help develop conservation actions. While nectar resources have been measured in rural landscapes, equivalent data are lacking for urban areas, an important knowledge gap as towns and cities often host diverse pollinator populations.</p> <p>We quantified the nectar supply of urban areas, farmland and nature reserves in the UK by combining floral abundance and nectar sugar production data for 536 flowering plant taxa, allowing us to compare landscape types and assess the spatial distribution of nectar sugar among land uses within cities.</p> <p>The magnitude of nectar sugar production did not differ significantly among the three landscapes. In urban areas the nectar supply was more diverse in origin and predominantly delivered by non-native flowering plants. Within cities, urban land uses varied greatly in nectar sugar production. Gardens provided the most nectar sugar per unit area and 85% of all nectar at a city scale, while gardens and allotments produced the most diverse supplies of nectar sugar. Floral abundance, commonly used as a proxy for pollinators' food supply, correlated strongly with nectar resources, but left a substantial proportion of the variation in nectar supply unexplained.</p> <p>Synthesis. We show that urban areas are hotspots of floral resource diversity rather than quantity and their nectar supply is underpinned by the contribution of residential gardens. Individual gardeners have an important role to play in pollinator conservation as ornamental plants, usually non-native in origin, are a key source of nectar in towns and cities.</p>
SEN12 Global Urban Mapping Dataset
<p>The SEN12 Global Urban Mapping (SEN12_GUM) dataset consists of Sentinel-1 SAR (VV + VH band) and Sentinel-2 MSI (10 spectral bands) satellite images acquired over the same area for 96 training and validation sites and an additional 60 test sites covering unique geographies across the globe. The satellite imagery was acquired as part of the European Space Agency's Earth observation program Copernicus and was preprocessed in Google Earth Engine. Built-up area labels for the 30 training and validation sites located in the United States, Canada, and Australia were obtained from Microsoft's open-access building footprints. The other 66 training sites located outside of the United States, Canada, and Australia are unlabeled but can be used for semi-supervised learning. Labels obtained from the SpaceNet7 dataset are provided for all 60 test sites. </p>
Household Survey in Nairobi (Kibera & Eastleigh) for the "Urban Waterscapes and the Pandemic" research project
<p><strong>"Urban Waterscapes and the Pandemic" research project:</strong> The Covid-19 pandemic has brought to the fore the importance of water access as an essential service protecting human health. Yet, the prevention of human-to-human transmission of the novel virus may be impacted by uneven geographies of water access. The pandemic presented a dilemma in water-deprived urban areas as residents needed to find ways to adapt to new hygiene standards and local Covid-19 responses. Focusing on Nairobi, Kenya’s capital with historically uneven and highly contested geographies of water, we mobilized the concept of waterscapes in order to understand how Nairobi’s waterscapes have changed during the pandemic; how these waterscape changes relate to new requirements; and how far they reflect adaptive creativity or re-produce urban fragmentation. Funded by DFG, the project is a 12-month-long collaboration between IPS, the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Nairobi, and the British Institute for Eastern Africa.</p> <p><strong>Household survey in Kibera and Eastleigh:</strong> As part of the "Urban Waterscapes and the Pandemic" research project, the project team conducted a household survey in two target areas of Nairobi, namely Kibera and Eastleigh. The survey was conducted in April and May 2022 with the support of 11 enumerators. Spread purposefully over four sub-locations in each target area, the survey included more than 400 respondents per area. The final data set has been quality-checked and cleaned for further analysis; personal details about the respondents and the enumerators that may reveal their identity have been removed.</p>
"An experimental investigation of a roof-mounted horizontal-axis wind turbine in an idealized urban environment"
<p>Dar, Arslan Salim, Guillem Armengol Barcos, and Fernando Porté-Agel. "An experimental investigation of a roof-mounted horizontal-axis wind turbine in an idealized urban environment." <em>Renewable Energy</em> (2022).</p>
A gridded dataset on population densities, real estate prices, transport and land use inside 192 worldwide urban areas
<p>This dataset provides, on a systematic basis, gridded population densities, rents, real estate prices, and transport times (both in<br> public transport and private car) in 192 cities across the world.</p>
Deep Learning based Urban Morphology for City-scale Environmental Modeling
<p>The WRF simulations were performed using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model, version 4.2.1. The three nested domains are centered over Chicago, USA, with a spatial resolution of 9, 3, and 1 km for the outermost, middle, and innermost domains. The model was implemented with 42 pressure levels, with the first model level located at 21.2 m and the first 1 km vertical height containing 11 model levels. The initial and boundary conditions are taken from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) Final Reanalysis dataset at 1 degree spatial and 6-hourly temporal resolution.</p><p>The physics components include the WRF single moment 6 class for microphysics, Dudhia for shortwave, the Rapid Radiative Transfer Model for longwave radiation parameterizations, Bougeault for the planetary boundary layer, Noah for the land surface model, Building Environment Parametrization (BEP) for the urban model, and Grell for the cumulus scheme (only for the outermost domain of 9 km spatial resolution). The LCZs of Chicago, USA, are generated using the crowd-sourcing method. The training dataset, created manually, is obtained from the WUDAPT portal, and random forest classification is applied to Landsat 8 imagery to derive the LCZs for the desired region. The simulations are performed from 1/Jul/2018 00:00 to 7/Jul/2018 06:00, where the first 6 hours are discarded as spin-up time.</p><p>The Digital Synthetic City (DSC) of Chicago, USA, uses satellite imagery and global-scale population and elevation data as input to the automatic method for producing a statistically similar and synthetic city-scale 3D urban model as output.</p><p>The Control simulations use National Land Cover Database land use/land cover with NUDAPT parameters, the three default WRF urban classes, and corresponding UCPs; the WUDAPT uses the MODIS classes with additional urban LCZs and UCPs from Brousse et al. (2016), and the DSC uses the WUDAPT classes with UCPs generated from DSC method.</p><p>The dataset contains:</p><p>1. Output from DSC in Shapefile.</p><p>2. WRF model output for the third domain (1 km) spatial resolution domain for (a) NUDAPT or Control (b) WUDAPT or LCZs (c) DSC</p>
Figs 2–4 in Occurrence And Abundance Of Invasive And Native Arion Slugs In Three Types Of Habitats In Urban Area Of Wrocław (Sw Poland)
Figs 2–4. Sampled habitat types: 2 = natural habitat in forest Las Pilczycki (locality no 2); 3 = semi-natural habitat with watercourse, the Dolna Oława in Park Wschodni (locality no
Fig. 1 in Occurrence And Abundance Of Invasive And Native Arion Slugs In Three Types Of Habitats In Urban Area Of Wrocław (Sw Poland)
Fig. 1. Location of sampling sites in Wrocław (see Table 1) and map of administrative division of Poland. Symbols indicate the type of habitat. Colours indicate species and hybrids
Figure 3 in Species identification and seasonal prevalence of house dust mites in Assiut City, Egypt: A descriptive study in an urban area
Figure 3. Dermatophagoides farinae adult female (SEM photo) – a. Dorsal view shows sce (external scapular seta) is much longer than sci (internal scapular seta); b. Ventral view shows the genital system of the female; c. Lateral views shows the finely striated body and prodorsal shield; d. Hysterostoma region and anal opening; e. Epigynium and genital opening; f. Ventral view of the gnathostoma.
Figure 2 in Species identification and seasonal prevalence of house dust mites in Assiut City, Egypt: A descriptive study in an urban area
Figure 2. Dermatophagoides farinae (adult male) – a. Habitus (100×) before being cleared in Hoyer's medium and the enlarged 1st and 3rd pairs of legs are noted; b. Fused apodemes I (arrow) while apodemes II (arrow head) and apodemes III (curved arrow) are not fused (200×); c. Anal plate (arrow), post anal seta 2 (ps2) (curved arrow) (400×).
Figure 1 in Species identification and seasonal prevalence of house dust mites in Assiut City, Egypt: A descriptive study in an urban area
Figure 1. Dermatophagoides farinae (adult female) – a. Habitus (before being cleared) (10×); b. Habitus (after being cleared in Hoyer's medium) (x100); c. Distal solenidion on tarsus I (arrow head), terminal spinous process (curved arrow) and tarsus II with the two distal solenidia (arrow) (200×); d. Magnified tarsus II with distal solenidia (arrow head) and two small spinous tubercles (long arrow) (400×); e. The low-arched epigynium (arrow) and the faint transverse striations above it (arrow head); f. Bursa copulatrix (arrow), its external opening and sclerotized part (arrow head).
Figure 4 in Species identification and seasonal prevalence of house dust mites in Assiut City, Egypt: A descriptive study in an urban area
Figure 4. Dermatophagoides farinae adult male (SEM photo) – a. Ventral view showing the enlarged first pair of legs. B. The aedeagus; c. The anal plate containing the anal suckers.
Asiantuntijakysely kaupunkibiotooppien monimuotoisuudesta ja kaupunkibiotooppikartta Suomen pääkaupunkiseudulla / Expert Questionnaire Results Regarding Biodiversity of Urban Biotopes and an Urban Biotope Map in Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Finland
<p>(in English below)</p> <p><strong>ASIANTUNTIJAKYSELY KAUPUNKIBIOTOOPPIEN MONIMUOTOISUUDESTA JA KAUPUNKIBIOTOOPPIKARTTA SUOMEN PÄÄKAUPUNKISEUDULLA</strong></p> <p><strong>Tausta ja tavoitteet</strong></p> <p>Luonnonsuojelu on keskittynyt perinteisesti Suomessa tiettyihin lajeihin ja luontotyyppeihin, mikä ei välttämättä kuvaa erilaisten kaupunkiympäristöjen ekologisia arvoja kattavasti. Lisäksi tulisi huomioida eliöyhteisöjä, jotka turvaavat kestävän ja monimuotoisen ekosysteemien toiminnallisuuden.</p> <p>Tämän asiantuntijakyselyn tavoitteena oli selvittää, miten erilaiset kaupunkibiotoopit tukevat erilaisia ekologisten yhteisöjen monimuotoisuutta kuvaavia tekijöitä eri eliöryhmillä. Nämä <em>monimuotoisuuden laatutekijät</em> kuvaavat yhdessä biotooppien roolia kaupunkiluonnon monimuotoisuudessa, toiminnallisuudessa ja täten epäsuorasti myös mm. ekosysteemipalvelujen tarjoamisessa. Kyselyn tuloksia voidaan hyödyntää ekologisten arvojen turvaamiseksi paremmin osana kaupunkisuunnittelua tai kaupunkiluonnon monimuotoisuuden kattavan turvaamisen perustana. Kysely keskittyi pääkaupunkiseudun (Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, Kauniainen) biotooppeihin. Lisäksi asiantuntijat antoivat arvionsa biotooppipisteytyksen sovellettavuudesta muualla Suomessa.</p> <p>Kysely on kuvattu Terra-lehdessä (Jalkanen & Vierikko 2022) sekä Jalkanen ym. (2020).</p> <p><strong>Menetelmät</strong></p> <p><em>Kaupunkibiotooppien pisteytys</em></p> <p>Aineisto kerättiin internetkyselyllä 5.10.-21.11.2016 välisenä aikana. Kysely lähetettiin 38 paikalliselle lajiasiantuntijalle (Luonnontieteellisessä keskusmuseossa, Helsingin yliopistossa, Suomen ympäristökeskuksessa, ympäristökonsulttiyrityksissä ja luontojärjestöissä), joista 24 osallistui kyselyyn.</p> <p>Mukana olleet asiantuntijat (suluissa heidän lajiryhmänsä):</p> <ul> <li>Heidi Björklund (Linnut)</li> <li>Tea von Bonsdorff (Sienet, muut kuin käävät)</li> <li>Eero Haapanen (Nisäkkäät, muut kuin lepakot)</li> <li>Nina Hagner-Wahlsten (Lepakot)</li> <li>Jari Kaitila (Perhoset)</li> <li>Jarkko Korhonen (Sienet, muut kuin käävät)</li> <li>Jaakko Kullberg (Perhoset)</li> <li>Eeva-Maria Kyheröinen (Lepakot)</li> <li>Esa Lammi (Putkilokasvit)</li> <li>Riku Lumiaro (Nisäkkäät, muut kuin lepakot)</li> <li>Sampsa Malmberg (Kovakuoriaiset)</li> <li>Ilpo Mannerkoski (Kovakuoriaiset)</li> <li>Olli Manninen (Käävät)</li> <li>Heikka Marttila-Tornio (Matelijat & sammakkoeläimet)</li> <li>Juho Paukkunen (Pistiäiset)</li> <li>Terhi Ryttäri (Putkilokasvit)</li> <li>Jarmo Saarikivi (Matelijat & sammakkoeläimet)</li> <li>Hannu Sarvanne (Linnut)</li> <li>Keijo Savola (Käävät)</li> <li>Ilkka Teräs (Pistiäiset)</li> <li>Stephen Venn (Kovakuoriaiset)</li> <li>Tarmo Virtanen (Perhoset)</li> <li>Terhi Wermundsen (Lepakot)</li> <li>Rauno Yrjölä (Linnut)</li> </ul> <p>Asiantuntijat pisteyttivät kyselyssä 68 biotooppia sen mukaan, kuinka ne tukevat heidän lajiryhmiensä eri ominaisuustekijöitä. Jokainen biotooppi arvioitiin erikseen kunkin tekijän näkökulmasta. Pisteet annettiin 5-portaisella asteikolla (0–4; 0 alin). Asiantuntijoita ohjeistettiin miettimäään koko vuodenaikaiskiertoa (arvioimaan biotooppien merkitystä siis myös esim. talvehtimisen kannalta). Kysely perustui Vierikon ym. (2014) biotooppiluokitteluun seuraavin muutoksin:</p> <ul> <li>Metsäbiotoopit jaettiin kahteen ikäluokkaan (30–100-vuotiaat ja yli 100-vuotiaat metsät)</li> <li>Piha-alueet jaettiin päällystettyihin ja maavaraisiin</li> <li>Tiiviiden pientaloalueiden ja townhouse-alueiden pihat lisättiin omana biotooppinaan</li> <li>Kalliolaet, -rinteet ja -seinämät sekä kivikot yhdistettiin samaksi biotoopiksi (paljaat kalliopinnat)</li> <li>Uimarannat, kanaalit ja rantaterassit yhdistettiin samaksi biotoopiksi (rakennetut rannat)</li> <li>Kiviseinät ja lintuluodot poistettiin</li> <li>Viherseinät lisättiin omana biotooppinaan</li> </ul> <p>Biotooppien merkitystä kysyttiin seuraavissa eliöyhteisöjen monimuotoisuuden laatua kuvaavissa kategorioissa:</p> <ol> <li>Lajirikkaus</li> <li>Vaatelias lajisto</li> <li>Biomassa</li> <li>Runsaus</li> <li>Tasaisuus</li> <li>Uniikkius</li> <li>Seudullinen edustavuus</li> <li>Herkkyys ihmissyntyisiä häiriöitä kohtaan</li> <li>Kytkeytyvyys</li> </ol> <p>Asiantuntijat arvioivat lisäksi omien vastaustensa luotettavuutta, erikseen jokaisen tekijän kohdalla. Tässä aineistossa biotooppien pisteet on painotettu nousevan painokertoimen mukaan, jotta luotettavat vastaukset korostuvat epäluotettavia voimakkaammin. Luotettavuuskertoimet ovat 0, 1, 2, 4 ja 8, mitkä tarkoittavat “erittäin epäluotettavia”, “epäluotettavia”, “jonkin verran epäluotettavia”, ”melko luotettavia” ja ”erittäin luotettavia” vastauksia.</p> <p> <em>Biotooppipisteiden sovellettavuus muualla Suomessa</em></p> <p>Kyselyn jälkeen asiantuntijat arvioivat työpajassa, kuinka hyvin heidän vastauksiaan voi soveltaa muissa suomalaisissa kaupungeissa. Työpaja pidettiin 29.11.2016. Tarkka kysymyksenasettelu oli:</p> <p><em>Tämä kysely on laadittu Etelä-Suomen ja erityisesti pääkaupunkiseudun (Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, Kauniainen) näkökulmasta. Kuinka hyvin kyselyn tulokset kuvaavat eliöryhmäsi lajistoa muiden Suomen maakuntien kaupungeissa? Vastaa asteikolla 0–10 (0: tämän kyselyn tuloksia ei voi soveltaa lainkaan ko. maakunnan kaupunkeihin, 10: kyselyn tulokset soveltuvat erittäin hyvin ko. maakunnan kaupunkiluontoon). Vastaa myös, kuinka luotettavina vastauksiasi voidaan pitää asteikolla 0-3 (0: hyvin epäluotettavina, 3: hyvin luotettavina). <strong>Vastaa oman eliöryhmäsi näkökulmasta.</strong></em></p> <p>Tässä aineistossa vastaukset näytetään alkuperäisinä, eli luotettavia vastauksia ei korosteta erikseen kuten biotooppipisteytyksessä.</p> <p><strong>Aineistot:</strong></p> <p>Aineistot ovat suomeksi (etuliite ”FIN”) ja englanniksi (”ENG”). Aineisto sisältää:</p> <ul> <li>Monimuotoisuuden laatutekijöiden luonnehdinnat ja pisteytysohjeet (.pdf)</li> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppien luonnehdinnat (.pdf)</li> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppien pisteytys taulukkona (.xlsx)</li> <li>Taulukko vastausten sovellettavuudesta muualla Suomessa (.xlsx)</li> </ul> <p>Taulukkotiedostoissa monimuotoisuuden laatutekijän tai eliöryhmän perässä oleva numero viittaa asiantuntijaan (esim. lintuja koskevissa sarakkeissa ”Lajirikkaus 1” ja ”Vaateliaat lajit 1” viittaavat saman lintuasiantuntijan vastauksiin). Asiantuntijoiden vastaukset on listattu satunnaisjärjestyksessä. Kaikki asiantuntijat ovat suostuneet heidän vastaustensa ja nimiensä julkaisemiseen kirjallisesti.</p> <p><strong>KAUPUNKIBIOTOOPPIKARTTA</strong></p> <p>Kansiossa "FIN_Kaupunkibiotooppikartta" on rasterimuotoinen kartta pääkaupunkiseudun kaupunkibiotoopeista paikkatietomuodossa. Kartta on luotu 2021 eri paikkatietolähteistä (ks. Jalkanen ym. 2020). Kaupunkibiotooppikartta mahdollistaa esimerkiksi monimuotoisuusarvojen tarkastelun pääkaupunkiseudulla yhdessä asiantuntijakyselyn tulosten kanssa. HUOM! Karttaa ei ole tarkoitettu sellaisenaan suunnittelukäyttöön. Minkäänlaisia takuita tulosten oikeellisuudesta, virheettömyydestä tai käytettävyydestä ei myönnetä.</p> <p>Kansiossa on seuraavat tiedostot:</p> <ul> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppikartta (.tif) (CRS: EPSG 3902)</li> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppikartan soluarvojen selitykset (.xlsx). Kaupunkibiotooppikartta käsittää 53 biotooppia/maanpeiteluokkaa, eli kaikkia asiantuntijakyselyn biotooppeja ei ole pystytty koostamaan kartalle.</li> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppikartan koostamisen ja lähtöaineistojen kuvaus (.pdf)</li> </ul> <p><strong>Kiitokset: </strong>Kiitämme Silviya Korpiloa, Susanna Lehvävirtaa ja Stephen Venniä avusta englanninnosten kanssa. </p> <p><strong>Viittausohje:</strong> Jalkanen, J. & Vierikko, K. (2022) Asiantuntijakysely kaupunkibiotooppien monimuotoisuudesta sekä kaupunkibiotooppikartta Suomen pääkaupunkiseudulla [Aineisto] https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6563190</p> <p>Aineistoon tulee viitata käytettäessä.</p> <p><strong>Viitteet: </strong></p> <ul> <li>Jalkanen, J. & Vierikko, K. (2022) Viheralueiden elonkirjo – Asiantuntijakysely ja luonnon monimuotoisuuden laatumittaristo kaupunkisuunnittelun tueksi. <em>Terra</em> 134: 207–223. https://doi.org/10.30677/terra.120163</li> <li>Jalkanen, J., Vierikko, K. & Moilanen, A. (2020) Spatial prioritization for urban Biodiversity Quality using biotope maps and expert opinion. <em>Urban Forestry & Urban Greening</em> 49: 126586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126586.</li> <li>Vierikko, K., Niemelä, J., Salminen, J., Jalkanen, J. & Tamminen, N. 2014: Helsingin kestävä viherrakenne –Miten turvata kestävä viherrakenne ja kaupunkiluonnon monimuotoisuus tiivistyvässä kaupunkirakenteessa. Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston yleissuunnitteluosaston selvityksiä 2014:27. Helsinki. 132 s.</li> </ul> <p> </p> <p><strong>EXPERT QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS REGARDING BIODIVERSITY OF URBAN BIOTOPES AND AN URBAN BIOTOPE MAP IN HELSINKI METROPOLITAN AREA, FINLAND</strong></p> <p><strong>Background and aim:</strong></p> <p>Finnish biodiversity conservation has traditionally focused on certain species and biotopes, which does not necessarily describe urban areas’ ecological values in a comprehensive manner. In addition, focus should be put on ecological communities that enable resilient and diverse ecosystem functioning.</p> <p>The aim of this questionnaire was to determine how different urban biotopes support different biodiversity quality attributes of ecological communities of different higher taxonomic groups. Together these attributes describe biotopes’ support for sustainable urban ecosystem functioning and, thus, indirectly for ecosystem services provisioning. The results can be used to better preserve ecological values in urban planning and as a basis for comprehensive urban biodiversity conservation. The questionnaire focused on biotopes found in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area (HMA; municipal cities of Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, and Kauniainen), Southern Finland. In addition, the applicability of the scoring elsewhere in Finnish cities was evaluated.</p> <p>The questionnaire is described in Terra (Jalkanen & Vierikko 2022; in Finnish with English abstract) and in Jalkanen et al. (2020).</p> <p><strong>Methods:</strong></p> <p><em>Scoring of urban biotopes</em></p> <p>The data was collected using an online questionnaire during 5.10.-21.11.2016. It was sent to 38 local taxonomic experts (from Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki, Finnish Environment Institute, environmental consultant firms, and local environmental NGOs), out of which 24 replied.</p> <p>Experts who participated were (their taxon):</p> <ul> <li>Heidi Björklund (Birds)</li> <li>Tea von Bonsdorff (Fungi, other than polypores)</li> <li>Eero Haapanen (Mammals, other than bats)</li> <li>Nina Hagner-Wahlsten (Bats)</li> <li>Jari Kaitila (Butterflies)</li> <li>Jarkko Korhonen (Fungi, other than polypores)</li> <li>Jaakko Kullberg (Butterflies)</li> <li>Eeva-Maria Kyheröinen (Bats)</li> <li>Esa Lammi (Vascular plants)</li> <li>Riku Lumiaro (Mammals, other than bats)</li> <li>Sampsa Malmberg (Beetles)</li> <li>Ilpo Mannerkoski (Beetles)</li> <li>Olli Manninen (Polypores)</li> <li>Heikka Marttila-Tornio (Herpetofauna)</li> <li>Juho Paukkunen (Hymenoptera)</li> <li>Terhi Ryttäri (Vascular Plants)</li> <li>Jarmo Saarikivi (Herpetofauna)</li> <li>Hannu Sarvanne (Birds)</li> <li>Keijo Savola (Polypores)</li> <li>Ilkka Teräs (Hymenoptera)</li> <li>Stephen Venn (Beetles)</li> <li>Tarmo Virtanen (Butterflies)</li> <li>Terhi Wermundsen (Bats)</li> <li>Rauno Yrjölä (Birds)</li> </ul> <p>In the questionnaire, the experts scored 68 local urban biotopes in terms of how well they support different biodiversity attributes of their taxonomic group. Each biotope was scored separately for every attribute. Scores were given on a 5-rank scale (0–4; 0 being the lowest). Experts were advised to consider all seasons (e.g., to consider the importance of the biotope also for wintering). We used the biotope classification from the expert questionnaire by Vierikko et al. (2014) with the following modifications:</p> <ul> <li>Forest biotopes were further divided into two age classes (30-100 y. and over 100 y.)</li> <li>Yards were further divided into sealed and bare yards</li> <li>Densely-built residential gardens & townhouse gardens were added as a new biotope</li> <li>Outcrops, ledges, and rocky grounds were combined to one biotope (bare rocks)</li> <li>Beaches, canals, and terraced embankments were combined to one biotope (artificial shores)</li> <li>Stone walls and bird-colonized islets were excluded</li> <li>Green walls were added as a new biotope</li> </ul> <p>The relevance of biotopes was evaluated for the following Biodiversity Quality attributes that describe or relate to the diversity of urban ecological communities:</p> <ol> <li>Species richness</li> <li>Habitat specialist species</li> <li>Biomass</li> <li>Abundance</li> <li>Evenness</li> <li>Uniqueness</li> <li>Regional representativeness</li> <li>Sensitivity towards anthropogenic disturbance</li> <li>Connectivity</li> </ol> <p>In addition, experts gave overall self-evaluated confidence rates for their answers concerning each attribute. In the data, biotopes’ scores are weighted by an increasing confidence coefficient in order to emphasize confident answers over non-confident ones. Confidence coefficients are 0, 1, 2, 4, and 8 that refer to ‘very unconfident’, ‘unconfident’, ‘somewhat unconfident’, ‘somewhat confident’, and ‘very confident’ answers, respectively.</p> <p><em>Applicability of the urban biotope scores elsewhere in Finland</em></p> <p>After the questionnaire, experts assessed how applicable their answers are elsewhere in Finland. This task was done in an expert workshop on 29.11.2016. The exact question, given to the experts, was:</p> <p><em>This questionnaire is designed from Southern Finnish, and especially from the Helsinki Metropolitan area (cities of Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, Kauniainen) perspective. How well do the questionnaire results describe the species assemblages of your taxon found in cities in other Finnish provinces? Answer on a scale of 0-10 (0: the results of this questionnaire are completely inapplicable to the cities in the given province, 10: the results of the questionnaire apply very well to the urban nature of the given province). Also evaluate the confidence of your answers at the scale of 0-3 (0: very unconfident, 3: very confident). <strong>Answer from the point of view of your own taxon.</strong></em></p> <p>In the data, the expert answers are reported as they were given, i.e., confident answers are not emphasized over non-confident ones like with biotope scores.</p> <p><strong>Data:</strong></p> <p>Data is provided in Finnish (files starting with ‘FIN’) and in English (‘ENG’). This data set includes:</p> <ul> <li>Biodiversity Quality attribute descriptions and scoring instructions (.pdf)</li> <li>Urban biotope descriptions (.pdf)</li> <li>Table of urban biotope scores (.xlsx)</li> <li>Table of the applicability of biotope scores elsewhere in Finland (.xlsx)</li> </ul> <p>In the tables, the Arabic number after the attribute or taxon name refers to the corresponding expert (i.e., under birds (‘Richness 1’ and ‘Specialist species 1’ refer to the answers of the same bird expert). Experts’ answers are listed in random order. All experts have agreed on publication of their answers and names using written informed consent.</p> <p><strong>URBAN BIOTOPE MAP</strong></p> <p>The folder ’ENG_UrbanBiotopeMap’ includes a raster-type GIS layer of urban biotopes in the Helsinki Metropolitan area. The map has been compiled from several GIS sources (see Jalkanen et al. 2020). The urban biotope map allows for example spatial analyses of biodiversity values together with the expert questionnaire results. OBS! The map is not meant for planning purposes. No warrant about the correctness, flawlessness, or feasibility of the results is given.</p> <p>The folder includes the following files:</p> <ul> <li>The urban biotope map (.tif) (CRS: EPSG 3902)</li> <li>The explanation of the cell values of the urban biotope map (.xlsx). The urban biotope map comprises of 53 different biotopes/land cover types, i.e., every biotope asked in the questionnaire are not found in the map.</li> </ul> <p><strong>Acknowledgements:</strong> We thank Silviya Korpilo, Susanna Lehvävirta, and Stephen Venn for help with the English translations.</p> <p><strong>How to cite: </strong>Jalkanen, J. & Vierikko, K. (2022) Expert questionnaire results regarding biodiversity of urban biotopes and an urban biotope map in Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Finland [Data set] https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6563190</p> <p>Data should be properly cited when used.</p> <p><strong>References:</strong></p> <ul> <li>Jalkanen, J. & Vierikko, K. (2022) Viheralueiden elonkirjo – Asiantuntijakysely ja luonnon monimuotoisuuden laatumittaristo kaupunkisuunnittelun tueksi (Biodiversity in urban green spaces: Expert questionnaire about urban Biodiversity Quality to support urban planning) . <em>Terra</em> 134: 207–223. https://doi.org/10.30677/terra.120163 [In Finnish with English abstract.]</li> <li>Jalkanen, J., Vierikko, K. & Moilanen, A. (2020) Spatial prioritization for urban Biodiversity Quality using biotope maps and expert opinion. <em>Urban Forestry & Urban Greening</em> 49: 126586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126586.</li> <li>Vierikko, K., Salminen, J., Niemelä J., Jalkanen, J. & Tamminen, N. 2014: Sustainable green infrastructure of Helsinki – urban ecological research report and recommendations for the Helsinki master plan 2050. Strategic Planning Office of the City Planning Department of the City of Helsinki. Research report. [In Finnish with English abstract.] Available in: <a href="https://www.hel.fi/hel2/ksv/julkaisut/yos_2014-27.pdf">https://www.hel.fi/hel2/ksv/julkaisut/yos_2014-27.pdf</a> (Cited 16.1.2018). 132 pp.</li> </ul> <p> </p>
Object neophilia in wild herring gulls in urban and rural locations
<p>Living with increasing urbanisation and human populations requires resourcefulness and flexibility in wild animals' behaviour. Animals have to adapt to anthropogenic novelty in habitat structure and resources that may not resemble, or be as beneficial as, natural resources. Herring gulls (Larus argentatus) increasingly reside in towns and cities to breed and forage, yet how gulls are adjusting their behaviour to life in urban areas is not yet fully understood. This study investigated wild herring gulls' responses to novel and common anthropogenic objects in urban and rural locations. We also examined whether gulls' age influenced their object response behaviour. We found that, out of the 126 individual gulls presented with objects, 34% approached them. This suggests that the majority of targeted gulls were wary or lacked interest in the experimental set-up. Of the 43 gulls that approached the objects, we found that those tested in urban locations approached more slowly than their rural counterparts. Overall, gulls showed no preference for either novel or common anthropogenic objects, and age did not influence likelihood of approach, approach speed or object choice. Individuals paid most attention to the object they approached first, potentially indicative of individual preferences. Our findings indicate that most herring gulls are not as attracted to anthropogenic objects as anecdotal reports have suggested. Covering up obvious food rewards may thus help mitigate human-gull conflict over anthropogenic food sources.</p>
Correlation between noise and vegetation in urban areas
<p>Analysis of correlation between vegetation and noise in urban areas.</p> <p>DOI article: 10.22541/au.150651402.23622693</p> <p> </p>
Survey questionnaire data on Perceptions, interactions, and responses to urban natural environments through ecological momentary assessment
<p>Data consist of a R file format and contain the cleaned survey quistionaire data where people were asked about their perceptions, interactions, and responses to urban natural environments. For more information please read the following report Published as part of the Regreen Horizon project. </p> <p>Panduro, T.E., Zandersen, M., Guell, C., Lovell, R., Garrett, J., Taylor, T., Fullam, J., Amegbor, P. (2024) Perceptions, interactions, and responses to urban natural environments through ecological momentary assessment (EMA). Deliverable D4.6. REGREEN - Fostering nature-based solutions for smart, green and healthy urban transitions in Europe and China. Horizon2020 Grant No. 821016. https://www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10594764</p>
Figs 1-4 in Report of the nest of Megachile (Moureapis) benigna (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) from an urban environment, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Figs 1-4. Megachile (Moureapis) benigna Mitchell, 1930: 1, female spawned from the nest (habitus, lateral view); 2, nest collected in the trap-nest; 3, brood cell and round-shaped fragments of leaf forming the cell opercula; 4, different shapes of leaf fragments employed by the female foundress for nest building.
Figs 5, 6 in Report of the nest of Megachile (Moureapis) benigna (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) from an urban environment, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Figs 5, 6. Pollen grains found in the pollen slides analysed from the nest: 5, Cyrtocymura sp. (Asteraceae); 6, Type Fabaceae pollen grain. Pollen grains magnified 40X. Scale bars = 10 µm.
Urban Agriculture and Health: Insights from Anonymized Expert Interviews on Spatial Planning in Greater Lomé, Togo
<p>Transcripts of anonymized interviews with 11 urban planning experts in Greater Lomé on the subject of urban agriculture, health and spatial planning.</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.