Find research datasets worth reusing

Figure 7 from: Ronquist F, Nylander JAA, Vårdal H, Nieves-Aldrey JL (2018) Life history of Parnips and the evolutionary origin of gall wasps. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 65: 91-110. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.65.24115

Figure 7 Young galls of Iraellahispanica in flowers of Papaverrhoeas and their inhabitants. a Gall b Transverse section of the gall showing gall chambers with larvae of Iraellac Mature terminal-instar larva of Iraella with an ectoparasitic intermediate-stage larva of Parnips sp. B. d Intermediate-stage larva of Parnips sp. B.

Figure 5 from: Ronquist F, Nylander JAA, Vårdal H, Nieves-Aldrey JL (2018) Life history of Parnips and the evolutionary origin of gall wasps. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 65: 91-110. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.65.24115

Figure 5 Mandibles of the terminal-instar larva of Barbotiniaoraniensis (a) and Parnipsnigripes (b). Barbotinia has a large mandible with two to three strong, blunt teeth. The mandible of Parnips is considerably smaller and has a single, elongate incisor with a weak secondary tooth along its upper margin.

Figure 3 from: Ronquist F, Nylander JAA, Vårdal H, Nieves-Aldrey JL (2018) Life history of Parnips and the evolutionary origin of gall wasps. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 65: 91-110. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.65.24115

Figure 3 Young galls of Barbotiniaoraniensis inside seed capsules of Papaverrhoeas. There may be 1–3, rarely up to 6–7 galls per seed capsule. The galls lie inside the seed capsule and are not connected to the capsule wall (a). A sectioned gall shows the thick layers of plant tissue surrounding the young larva (b).

Figure 4 from: Ronquist F, Nylander JAA, Vårdal H, Nieves-Aldrey JL (2018) Life history of Parnips and the evolutionary origin of gall wasps. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 65: 91-110. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.65.24115

Figure 4 Galls inside the seed capsules of Papaverrhoeas opened in October may contain pupae of Barbotiniaoraniensis (a) or Parnipsnigripes (b). Parnips pupae are always found together with minute remnants of the terminal-instar larva of Barbotinia (arrow). Chambers occupied by healthy Barbotinia pupae do not contain remnants of other insects. Galls parasitized by Parnips are indistinguishable externally from normal Barbotinia galls but the wall is slightly thicker.

Figure 2 from: Ronquist F, Nylander JAA, Vårdal H, Nieves-Aldrey JL (2018) Life history of Parnips and the evolutionary origin of gall wasps. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 65: 91-110. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.65.24115

Figure 2 Habitus of the adult female of Barbotiniaoraniensis (a) and its parasitoid Parnipsnigripes (b).

Figure 1 from: Ronquist F, Nylander JAA, Vårdal H, Nieves-Aldrey JL (2018) Life history of Parnips and the evolutionary origin of gall wasps. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 65: 91-110. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.65.24115

Figure 1 Phylogenetic relationships among cynipids, core figitids, figitoid inquilines and other cynipoids (simplified from Ronquist et al. 2015). Numbers are Bayesian posterior probabilities in a combined analysis of morphological and molecular data, and the width of each clade is proportional to the number of species included in the analysis. The species studied in this paper are among the figitoid inquilines and in the cynipid tribe Aylacini, and their position is shown in the tree with thick arrows. The blue boxes indicate groups that are inquilines (or parasitoids in the case of Paraulacini); all other cynipids are gall inducers as far as is known. At least two cynipid tribes appear to have originated from inquilines (Synergini and Ceroptresini), possibly also a third (Diastrophini).

Fig 2 from: Strauß J (2019) What determines the number of auditory sensilla in the tympanal hearing organs of Tettigoniidae? Perspectives from comparative neuroanatomy and evolutionary forces. Journal of Orthoptera Research 28(2): 205-219. https://doi.org/10.3897/jor.28.33586

Fig 2 Standardized effects of call patterns in Neoconocephalus on the number of CA sensilla and CA length for a. Pulse rate; b. Structure of continuous or discontinuous calls; and c. Pulse pattern. The evolutionary derived call characters are a slow pulse rate, discontinuous calls, and double pulses. Significance levels: * 0.05 > p > 0.01; ** 0.01 > p > 0.001. Adapted from Strauß et al. 2017, with permission from John Wiley and Sons.

Fig 1 from: Strauß J (2019) What determines the number of auditory sensilla in the tympanal hearing organs of Tettigoniidae? Perspectives from comparative neuroanatomy and evolutionary forces. Journal of Orthoptera Research 28(2): 205-219. https://doi.org/10.3897/jor.28.33586

Fig 1 The auditory system of bushcrickets. a. Schematic of the acoustic trachea (at) from the acoustic spiracle (as) in the thorax into the foreleg with tympanal membranes (ty) in the proximal tibia; b. Transverse section of the tibia at the level of the tympana and crista acustica in Gampsocleis gratiosa; in Gampsocleis gratiosa; c. The sensory organs in the proximal tibia of the male Tettigonia viridissima. The dorsal cuticle has been removed after axonal tracing of the tympanal nerve with cobalt solution to stain sensory neurons of the subgenual organ (SGO), intermediate organ (IO) and crista acustica. The crista acustica is placed between the anterior tympanum (aty) and posterior tympanum (pty). The tympanal flaps (tf) cover the tympanal membranes. Arrows indicate the tectorial membrane; d. Morphological differences of sensory neurons along the crista acustica from G. gratiosa, showing the (di) third-most proximal, (dii) middle, and (diii) third-most distal sensillum. Abbreviations: at, anterior trachea; aty, anterior tympanum; cc, cap cell; de, dendrite; dow, dorsal tracheal wall; hc, haemolymph channel; IO, intermediate organ; nmc, nerve muscle channel; nsc, nucleus of scolopale cell; pn, perikarya of sensory neurons; pt, posterior trachea; pty, posterior tympanum; s, septum; sb, supporting band; scol, scolopale cap and rods; SGO, subgenual organ; sli, slit; sn, sensory neuron; tf, tympanal flap; tm, tectorial membrane. Scales: 500 µm (B), 100 µm (C), 50 µm (D). Figure a. reprinted from Strauß et al. 2014, with permission from John Wiley and Sons. b., d. redrawn from Lin et al. 1994, with permission from John Wiley and Sons.

Supplementary material 1 from: Eisenhauer N, Bonkowski M, Brose U, Buscot F, Durka W, Ebeling A, Fischer M, Gleixner G, Heintz-Buschart A, Hines J, Jesch A, Lange M, Meyer S, Roscher C, Scheu S, Schielzeth H, Schloter M, Schulz S, Unsicker S, van Dam NM, Weigelt A, Weisser WW, Wirth C, Wolf J, Schmid B (2019) Biotic interactions, community assembly, and eco-evolutionary dynamics as drivers of long-term biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships. Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e47042. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e47042

Detailed design of the Field Experiment

Supplementary material 2 from: Eisenhauer N, Bonkowski M, Brose U, Buscot F, Durka W, Ebeling A, Fischer M, Gleixner G, Heintz-Buschart A, Hines J, Jesch A, Lange M, Meyer S, Roscher C, Scheu S, Schielzeth H, Schloter M, Schulz S, Unsicker S, van Dam NM, Weigelt A, Weisser WW, Wirth C, Wolf J, Schmid B (2019) Biotic interactions, community assembly, and eco-evolutionary dynamics as drivers of long-term biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships. Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e47042. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e47042

Brief description of the Field Experiment

Figure 1 from: Eisenhauer N, Bonkowski M, Brose U, Buscot F, Durka W, Ebeling A, Fischer M, Gleixner G, Heintz-Buschart A, Hines J, Jesch A, Lange M, Meyer S, Roscher C, Scheu S, Schielzeth H, Schloter M, Schulz S, Unsicker S, van Dam NM, Weigelt A, Weisser WW, Wirth C, Wolf J, Schmid B (2019) Biotic interactions, community assembly, and eco-evolutionary dynamics as drivers of long-term biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships. Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e47042. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e47042

Figure 1 A. Conceptual diagram of the mechanistic approach of the planned Research Unit. B. Conceptual scheme of the proposed evolutionary niche shifts in plant monocultures and mixtures. This idea feeds into our understanding of how evolutionary history influences the ecological interactions of species that compete for growth factors, ultimately defining biotope space (gray rectangle; Hutchinson 1978). Graphically depicted, species (ellipses) in mixture will show increasing niche differentiation over time due to competition (niche overlap). Thus, history of selection in diverse communities is expected to result in greater interspecific differences (less overlap of ellipses) and more specialization (smaller ellipses) than a history of isolation (monocultures). In monocultures, species will experience strong selection pressure by accumulating soil-borne pathogens, and species may invest energy in chemical and morphological defense traits (depicted by ellipses shifting towards the same corner of the habitat space). Plants in mixtures together may exploit more available biotope space than single monocultures, causing increasing diversity effects on ecosystem functions over time. However, there is limited support for this assumption for traits related to light (e.g., Lipowsky et al. 2015, Roscher et al. 2015) and resource use (Jesch et al. 2018) so far.

Figure 4 from: Eisenhauer N, Bonkowski M, Brose U, Buscot F, Durka W, Ebeling A, Fischer M, Gleixner G, Heintz-Buschart A, Hines J, Jesch A, Lange M, Meyer S, Roscher C, Scheu S, Schielzeth H, Schloter M, Schulz S, Unsicker S, van Dam NM, Weigelt A, Weisser WW, Wirth C, Wolf J, Schmid B (2019) Biotic interactions, community assembly, and eco-evolutionary dynamics as drivers of long-term biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships. Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e47042. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e47042

Figure 4 Experimental design and hypotheses of the Ecotron Experiment. Briefly, four treatments will be established based on monoliths from a selection of the 9-year old Trait-Based Experiment (TBE; Ebeling et al. 2014) and from bare ground plots of the Jena Experiment as well as two seed sources: the respective plots and the original seed material that was used for the set-up of the TBE. (1) With plot-specific plant history and with plot-specific soil history; (2) without plot-specific plant history and with plot-specific soil history; (3) with plot-specific plant history and without plot-specific soil history; and (4) without plot-specific plant history and without plot-specific soil history. We expect the biodiversity–ecosystem function relationships to differ among the four treatments (see main text for details).

Figure 3 from: Eisenhauer N, Bonkowski M, Brose U, Buscot F, Durka W, Ebeling A, Fischer M, Gleixner G, Heintz-Buschart A, Hines J, Jesch A, Lange M, Meyer S, Roscher C, Scheu S, Schielzeth H, Schloter M, Schulz S, Unsicker S, van Dam NM, Weigelt A, Weisser WW, Wirth C, Wolf J, Schmid B (2019) Biotic interactions, community assembly, and eco-evolutionary dynamics as drivers of long-term biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships. Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e47042. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e47042

Figure 3 Hypothesized slope of BEF relationships in the different treatments of the Field Experiment (see main text for details). Note that the 'with plant history, with soil history' only serves as a control in the Field Experiment, and effects of plant history can only be tested in the planned Ecotron Experiment. Redrawn after Vogel et al. (2019). '+', with; '-', without.

Supplementary material 4 from: Eisenhauer N, Bonkowski M, Brose U, Buscot F, Durka W, Ebeling A, Fischer M, Gleixner G, Heintz-Buschart A, Hines J, Jesch A, Lange M, Meyer S, Roscher C, Scheu S, Schielzeth H, Schloter M, Schulz S, Unsicker S, van Dam NM, Weigelt A, Weisser WW, Wirth C, Wolf J, Schmid B (2019) Biotic interactions, community assembly, and eco-evolutionary dynamics as drivers of long-term biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships. Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e47042. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e47042

Detailed design of the Ecotron Experiment

Supplementary material 5 from: Eisenhauer N, Bonkowski M, Brose U, Buscot F, Durka W, Ebeling A, Fischer M, Gleixner G, Heintz-Buschart A, Hines J, Jesch A, Lange M, Meyer S, Roscher C, Scheu S, Schielzeth H, Schloter M, Schulz S, Unsicker S, van Dam NM, Weigelt A, Weisser WW, Wirth C, Wolf J, Schmid B (2019) Biotic interactions, community assembly, and eco-evolutionary dynamics as drivers of long-term biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships. Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e47042. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e47042

Brief description of the Ecotron Experiment

Figure 2 from: Eisenhauer N, Bonkowski M, Brose U, Buscot F, Durka W, Ebeling A, Fischer M, Gleixner G, Heintz-Buschart A, Hines J, Jesch A, Lange M, Meyer S, Roscher C, Scheu S, Schielzeth H, Schloter M, Schulz S, Unsicker S, van Dam NM, Weigelt A, Weisser WW, Wirth C, Wolf J, Schmid B (2019) Biotic interactions, community assembly, and eco-evolutionary dynamics as drivers of long-term biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships. Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e47042. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e47042

Figure 2 Structure of the proposed Research Unit. Three complementary experimental approaches are envisaged to study long-term biodiversity-ecosystem function (BEF) relationships, and how these are influenced by plant history and soil history. BEF patterns are studied in the Field Experiment with long-term plant diversity plots and manipulations of soil-history effects. BEF mechanisms are studied in the Ecotron Experiment and in Microcosm Experiments. In the Ecotron Experiment, plant history and soil history are independently crossed and detailed process measurements are possible. The Microcosm Experiments zoom in on focal interactions. In the Field Experiment and in the Ecotron Experiment, studies are conducted at the community level as well as at the plant individual level (magnifier; see detailed design of studies in the Appendices). Subprojects' (SPs') participation in experiments are illustrated with lines. The SPs of the proposed Research Unit fall into two tightly linked main categories (in gray) with two research areas each that aim at exploring variation in community assembly processes, micro-evolutionary changes, and resulting differences in biotic interactions as determinants of the long-term BEF relationship. Subprojects under "Microbial community assembly" (blue) and "Assembly and functions of animal communities" (red) mostly focus on plant diversity effects on the assembly of communities and their feedback effects on biotic interactions and ecosystem functions, while subprojects under "Mediators of plant-biotic interactions" (orange) and "Intraspecific diversity and micro-evolutionary changes" (green) mostly focus on plant diversity effects on plant trait expression and micro-evolution. PIs with requested personnel are underlined.

Supplementary material 3 from: Eisenhauer N, Bonkowski M, Brose U, Buscot F, Durka W, Ebeling A, Fischer M, Gleixner G, Heintz-Buschart A, Hines J, Jesch A, Lange M, Meyer S, Roscher C, Scheu S, Schielzeth H, Schloter M, Schulz S, Unsicker S, van Dam NM, Weigelt A, Weisser WW, Wirth C, Wolf J, Schmid B (2019) Biotic interactions, community assembly, and eco-evolutionary dynamics as drivers of long-term biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships. Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e47042. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e47042

Plant species lists of the Field Experiment and the Ecotron Experiment

opencc-by-4.0Nov 2019View details →

Figure 2 from: Sluys R (2019) The evolutionary terrestrialization of planarian flatworms (Platyhelminthes, Tricladida, Geoplanidae): a review and research programme. Zoosystematics and Evolution 95(2): 543-556. https://doi.org/10.3897/zse.95.38727

Figure 2 Map of species richness in land planarians on an equal area grid map; maximum in red, minimum in dark blue (from Sluys 1998). Over the past 20 years new discoveries have added to the number of native and introduced species. Nevertheless, the current pattern of biodiversity remains very similar to the one shown in this map, although now, for example, about 20 new species are recognized in Europe, 40 in southeastern and southern Brazil and northeastern Argentina, nine in the Australian territories, and six in New Zealand (Sluys 2016).