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.
7,849
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
7,849 results for “Conservancy”
FIGURE 2. Rafflesia banaoana. A. Female flower. B in The reinstatement of Rafflesia banaoana (Rafflesiaceae), and implications for assessing species diversity and conservation requirements of the world's largest flowers
FIGURE 2. Rafflesia banaoana. A. Female flower. B. Cross section showing the processes, annulus structure and ovary. C. Annulus interior of female flower. D. Disk undersurface of male flower. E. Processes. F. Ramenta near the base of perigone tube. Drawn from Tobias 2019-1 (LBC) and Tobias 2019-2 (PNH) by C.J.Thorogood
FIGURE 3. Rafflesia banaoana. A1. Dissected male flower bud. A2. Flower bud. B in The reinstatement of Rafflesia banaoana (Rafflesiaceae), and implications for assessing species diversity and conservation requirements of the world's largest flowers
FIGURE 3. Rafflesia banaoana. A1. Dissected male flower bud. A2. Flower bud. B. Lateral view of the perigone lobes with bracts. B. Female flower. d1. Enlarged view of the surface of perigone lobes with warts. d2. Enlarged view of the diaphragm's surface. E1. Dissected perigone tube showing filiform ramenta. E2. Simple filiform with few lobed ramenta in the lower perigone tube. E3. Shallowly and deeply-bilobed and multi-lobed with few merged ramenta in the middle perigone tube. E4. Multi-lobed, merged and fence-like ramenta in the upper perigone tube and near the diaphragm's aperture. F. Dissected female flower showing the characters of the processes, disk, column, annulus structure and ovary. G1. Annulus structure of male flower.' G2. Disk under surface showing anthers embedded in sulci. G3. Annulus structure of female flower. G4. Stigmatic surface. H1. Column of male flower showing conspicuous processes pointed towards the margin of the disk. H2. Top view of the processes. H3 and H4. Processes of female flower with apical hairs. H5. Enlarged view of the column showing short hairs on disk's rim and bristles on the disk's undersurface and annulus interior. and I. Tetrastigma cf. sepulchrei, host of R. banaoana. Photo credits: A1, A2, B, C, E1, E2, E3, E4, F, G3, G4, I—A.B. Tobias. D1, D2, G1, G2, H1-H4—G.K. Penetrante
Supplementary material and data, Global strategy for the conservation and use of Vigna
<p>Supplementary material and data, Global strategy for the conservation and use of Vigna. Second version, after typos in the Read_me file were corrected. </p>
Data for: Conservation scholars' perspectives on the morality of trophy hunting for the sake of conservation
<ol> <li>Trophy hunting is one of the most contentious issues in recent biodiversity conservation discourse, eliciting opposition and support for the practice. Ethical concerns are often at the heart of the debate.</li> <li>To investigate moral views about trophy hunting, we conducted an online survey of randomly selected scholars worldwide who had published on biodiversity conservation (n = 2,315).</li> <li>Scholars expressed divergent views on the moral acceptability of trophy hunting as a conservation practice. Moral convictions were significantly related to the perspectives</li> <li>The most important factor in predicting the moral views of the respondents was the consequences of trophy hunting for local human communities.</li> <li>The results also indicated that utilitarian (versus deontological) decision-making in conservation, ecological consequences of trophy hunting, and animal welfare issues contribute to the divergent views.</li> <li>The findings emphasize the need for interdisciplinary work on ethical issues concerning animal rights and welfare in conservation, as well as providing robust and comprehensive evidence on the consequences of trophy hunting for local communities.</li> <li>We caution that polarization among conservation scholars may negatively affect conservation efforts. Based on the literature and our findings, we provide some recommendations to narrow the gap and consider different management options.</li> </ol>
Data for: The effects of leaf traits on litter rainfall interception with consequences for runoff and soil conservation
<ol> <li><span>During rainfall, plant litter interception regulates overland flow with an impact on water runoff generation and sediment displacement. Besides the rainfall characteristics, the effects of litter mass, thickness, storage and drainage properties on rainfall interception are reasonably well understood. In contrast, less is known about the influence of leaf traits, which we hypothesized to affect interception, soil hydrology and conservation via litter structure assembly. </span></li> <li><span>We measured the runoff and soil loss generation as determined by litter layer structural and hydraulic properties of 16 coexisting tropical woody species with wide-range morphological leaf traits in a rainfall simulator experiment. </span></li> <li><span>Our results show that litter produced by coexisting species can differ in precipitation interception, thereby influencing runoff and soil loss. This is because there is important interspecific variation in litter water storage and drainage, which are negatively affected by leaf area. Leaf water repellency positively affected litter water storage. Moreover, leaf area also negatively affected litter layer density. Litter density, in turn, increased runoff, but decreased soil loss, possibly due to protection against splash erosion. </span></li> <li> <span>T</span><span>hese results can be used to predict the effects of plant traits on the soil water balance and soil integrity protection through ecohydrological interception by the litter layer. The next research steps will be to extend our model to multiple-species litter layers and to validate and calibrate our model in different field situations in different ecosystems.</span> </li> </ol>
FIGURES 70–72 in Wing pattern variation and DNA barcodes defy taxonomic splitting in the New Zealand Pimelea Looper Notoreas perornata (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Larentiinae): the importance of populations as conservation units
FIGURES 70–72. Notoreas perornata, genitalia of selected populations (population code in brackets): 70. male genital capsule; 71. phallus; 72. female genitalia. 70, 71. Wairau Bar MB (2c), NZAC slide Notoreas 65; 72. Karioitahi Beach AK (1a), NZAC slide Notoreas 60.
FIGURES 73–76 in Wing pattern variation and DNA barcodes defy taxonomic splitting in the New Zealand Pimelea Looper Notoreas perornata (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Larentiinae): the importance of populations as conservation units
FIGURES 73–76. Notoreas perornata, female genitalia of selected populations (population code in brackets). 73. Pureora Lodge TO (1b), NZAC slide Notoreas 5; 74. Castlepoint WA (1e), NZAC slide Notoreas 71; 75. Te Humenga Pt WA (2a), NZAC slide Notoreas 9; 76. Cape Farewell NN (2b), NZAC slide Notoreas 51.
FIGURES 54–57 in Wing pattern variation and DNA barcodes defy taxonomic splitting in the New Zealand Pimelea Looper Notoreas perornata (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Larentiinae): the importance of populations as conservation units
FIGURES 54–57. Notoreas perornata adults (2e). 54. Male upperside, Waiho Flats WD; 55. Female upperside, Waiho Flats WD; 56. Male underside, Waiho Flats WD; 57. Female underside (same specimen as Fig. 55).
FIGURES 66–69 in Wing pattern variation and DNA barcodes defy taxonomic splitting in the New Zealand Pimelea Looper Notoreas perornata (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Larentiinae): the importance of populations as conservation units
FIGURES 66–69. Notoreas perornata, male genitalia of selected populations (population code in brackets): 66, 68. genital capsule; 67, 69. phallus. 66, 67. Te Humenga Pt WA (2a), NZAC slide Notoreas 7; 68, 69. Dry Rd, Sth Sandhill Creek NN (2b), NZAC slide Notoreas 12.
FIGURES 62–65 in Wing pattern variation and DNA barcodes defy taxonomic splitting in the New Zealand Pimelea Looper Notoreas perornata (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Larentiinae): the importance of populations as conservation units
FIGURES 62–65. Notoreas perornata, male genitalia of selected populations (population code from text in brackets): 62, 64. genital capsule; 63, 65. phallus. Note: apparent slight differences between genitalia of moths from different populations (e.g. shape and spinosity of costal process of valva) do not seem to provide reliable taxonomic characters when larger samples are studied due to variation within populations; these images are included to give an impression of the variation and small differences should not be interpreted as constant or diagnostic. 62, 63. Waimamaku Beach ND (1a), NZAC slide Notoreas 11; 64, 65. Mt Ruapehu TO (1b), NZAC slide Notoreas 2.
FIGURES 48–53 in Wing pattern variation and DNA barcodes defy taxonomic splitting in the New Zealand Pimelea Looper Notoreas perornata (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Larentiinae): the importance of populations as conservation units
FIGURES 48–53. Notoreas perornata adults (2d). 48. Female upperside, Mt Starveall NN; 49. Male underside (same specimen as Fig. 44); 50. Male underside (same specimen as Fig. 45); 51. Female underside (same specimen as Fig. 46); 52. Female underside (same specimen as Fig. 47); 53. Female underside (same specimen as Fig. 48).
FIGURES 42–47 in Wing pattern variation and DNA barcodes defy taxonomic splitting in the New Zealand Pimelea Looper Notoreas perornata (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Larentiinae): the importance of populations as conservation units
FIGURES 42–47. Notoreas perornata adults: 42, 43. (2c); 44–47. (2d). 42. Female underside (same specimen as Fig. 39); 43. Female underside (same specimen as Fig. 40); 44. Male upperside, Mt Arthur NN; 45. Male upperside, Dun Mt NN (holotype of N. regilla Philpott); 46. Female upperside, Jacks Pass MB; 47. Female upperside, Craigieburn MC.
FIGURES 19–24 in Wing pattern variation and DNA barcodes defy taxonomic splitting in the New Zealand Pimelea Looper Notoreas perornata (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Larentiinae): the importance of populations as conservation units
FIGURES 19–24. Notoreas perornata adults: 19–21. (1d); 22–23. (1e). 19. Male upperside, Cape Turnagain HB; 20. Female upperside, Cape Turnagain HB; 21. Male underside (same specimen as Fig. 19); 22. Female underside (same specimen as Fig. 20); 23. Male upperside, Castlepoint WA; 24. Female upperside, Castlepoint WA.
FIGURES 31–35 in Wing pattern variation and DNA barcodes defy taxonomic splitting in the New Zealand Pimelea Looper Notoreas perornata (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Larentiinae): the importance of populations as conservation units
FIGURES 31–35. Notoreas perornata adults (2a). 31. Female upperside, L. Kohangapiripiri WN; 32. Female upperside, White Rock Rd WA; 33. Male underside (same specimen as Fig. 29); 34. Male underside (same specimen as Fig. 30); 35. Female underside, Owhiro Bay WN (BPNZ).
FIGURES 8–13 in Wing pattern variation and DNA barcodes defy taxonomic splitting in the New Zealand Pimelea Looper Notoreas perornata (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Larentiinae): the importance of populations as conservation units
FIGURES 8–13. Notoreas perornata adults (1b). 8. Male upperside, Waipakihi River TO; 9. Female upperside, Blowhard Bush HB; 10. Female upperside, Mt Ruapehu TO; 11. Female upperside, Mt Ruapehu TO; 12. Male underside, Waipakihi River TO; 13. Female underside (same specimen as Fig. 11).
FIGURES 36–41 in Wing pattern variation and DNA barcodes defy taxonomic splitting in the New Zealand Pimelea Looper Notoreas perornata (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Larentiinae): the importance of populations as conservation units
FIGURES 36–41. Notoreas perornata adults: 36, 37. (2b); 38–41. (2c). (1e). 36. Male upperside, Dry Rd–Anatori R. NN; 37. Male underside (same specimen as Fig. 36); 38. Male upperside, Wairau Bar MB; 39. Female upperside, Rarangi, Cloudy Bay SD; 40. Female upperside, Rarangi, Cloudy Bay SD; 41. Male underside (same specimen as Fig. 38).
FIGURES 2–7. N in Wing pattern variation and DNA barcodes defy taxonomic splitting in the New Zealand Pimelea Looper Notoreas perornata (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Larentiinae): the importance of populations as conservation units
FIGURES 2–7. N. perornata adults (1a). 2. Male upperside, Karioitahi Beach AK (1a); 3. Male upperside, [ND?] (BPNZ); 4. Female upperside, [ND?] (BPNZ); 5. Female upperside, Karioitahi Beach AK; 6. Male underside (same specimen as Fig. 2); 7. Female underside (same specimens as Fig. 5).
FIGURE 1 in Wing pattern variation and DNA barcodes defy taxonomic splitting in the New Zealand Pimelea Looper Notoreas perornata (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Larentiinae): the importance of populations as conservation units
FIGURE 1. Mitochondrial DNA (COI) gene tree for Notoreas perornata complex and selected outgroups. Branch lengths are drawn proportional to the estimated number of substitutions per site following the scale bar. Numbers above branches are maximum likelihood bootstrap percentages. Species names are followed by specimen numbers in parentheses.
Benefits and beneficiaries of Protected and Conserved Areas - PANORAMA Solutions - 2021
<p>This dataset quantitively characterizes a set of protected and conserved areas described in the database of "PANORAMA Solutions" (IUCN) concerning benefits and beneficiaries, i.e. conservation outcomes. A quantitative content analysis was performed to develop a set of benefit and beneficiaries' dimensions reported in the whole set of solutions. Deductive and inductive reasoning were applied to identify beneficiaries' categories and benefits. After removing duplicate categories, we arrived at 68 categories of benefits and 25 for beneficiaries for 92 conservation outcomes. We included solutions published before 05.February.2021. We excluded 'snapshot solutions', which capture only a short description. A quality check was performed to exclude solutions with missing data, resulting in 263 solutions analysed. This dataset includes solutions relating to protected and conserved areas defined by IUCN (IUCN-WCPA 2019). PANORAMA is a learning and knowledge initiative based on case studies of replicable success stories – solutions - in conservation and sustainable development. It is managed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other partners and built on theories of resilience and peer learning. This dataset has been employed for the following manuscript: Cebrián-Piqueras, M. A., I. Palomo, V. B. Lo, M. D. López-Rodríguez, A. Filyushkina, M. Fischborn, C. M. Raymond, and T. Plieninger. 2023. Leverage points and levers of inclusive conservation in protected areas. Ecology and Society XX(YY):ZZ. [online] URL: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/volXX/issYY/artZZ</p>
Additional information for "Global shortfalls in documented actions to conserve biodiversity"
<p>Data, code and workflow to support findings of the paper "Global shortfalls in documented actions to conserve biodiversity". This ZIP folder contains an R project with a workflow to reproduce the results, figures, manuscript and associated supplementary material.</p> <h2>Code</h2> <p>The R code for all processing and analysis is all contained within the 'code' subdirectory. Scripts are numbered to indicate the running order. R markdown code and associated files (e.g. BIB and CSL files) for producing the documents are contained within the 'manuscript' subdirectory. All of the code is also available on <a href="https://github.com/rasenior/ConservationActions">GitHub</a>. </p> <h2>Data</h2> <p>The 'data' subdirectory contains everything needed to run the code as a demo. The original source data is not included because it is not ours to share. The processed data <em>are</em> available, at the path 'data/analysis'. These data are the same as used in the published manscript, thus enabling the results, figures and manuscript to be reproduced.</p> <h2>Figures</h2> <p>Most of the figures are generated by running the code with the data provided. Two figures are provided in the 'figs' subdirectory because they were created semi-manually:</p> <ul> <li> Figure 4 - the R code produces a CSV file ('figs/Fig4.csv') that was used to manually create Figure 4, first in PowerPoint ('figs/Fig4.pptx') and then exported to PNG ('figs/Fig4.png')</li> <li>Figure S1 - the code produces the individual schematic diagrams of Figure S1, which were combined together in Inkscape ('figs/FigS1.svg') and then exported to PNG ('figs/FigS1.png')</li> </ul>
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.