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.
59
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
59 results for “Garden plants”
Soil nitrogen: Plant Competition Under Different Nitrogen Levels:A Garden Experiment
This garden plot experiment is located next to the E026 gardens in Field E (Old Field 44). This garden contained monocultures of major grass species from across the grassland biome of North America, and also 3 legume species (E070). The design and purpose were similar to E026, except the plots were larger. The basic experimental design consisted of growing plants in monoculture and in various competitive combinations on each of 14 different soil mixtures. In 1988 a bulldozer was used to remove 30 inches of top soil at the site. To each plot a certain amount of black dirt, ranging from 0.3 inches to 10 inches, was added. Total carbon ranged from 0.1928% to 5.63134% and total nitrogen ranged from 0.0158% to 0.4591%. The exact amounts of black soil added to each plot are described in the field operations. Equal amounts of MgSO4, CaCO3, P2O5 \
Soil nitrate and ammonium: Plant Competition Under Different Nitrogen Levels:A Garden Experiment
This garden plot experiment is located next to the E026 gardens in Field E (Old Field 44). This garden contained monocultures of major grass species from across the grassland biome of North America, and also 3 legume species (E070). The design and purpose were similar to E026, except the plots were larger. The basic experimental design consisted of growing plants in monoculture and in various competitive combinations on each of 14 different soil mixtures. In 1988 a bulldozer was used to remove 30 inches of top soil at the site. To each plot a certain amount of black dirt, ranging from 0.3 inches to 10 inches, was added. Total carbon ranged from 0.1928% to 5.63134% and total nitrogen ranged from 0.0158% to 0.4591%. The exact amounts of black soil added to each plot are described in the field operations. Equal amounts of MgSO4, CaCO3, P2O5 \
Plant species percent cover data: Plant Competition Under Different Nitrogen Levels:A Garden Experiment
This garden plot experiment is located next to the E026 gardens in Field E (Old Field 44). This garden contained monocultures of major grass species from across the grassland biome of North America, and also 3 legume species (E070). The design and purpose were similar to E026, except the plots were larger. The basic experimental design consisted of growing plants in monoculture and in various competitive combinations on each of 14 different soil mixtures. In 1988 a bulldozer was used to remove 30 inches of top soil at the site. To each plot a certain amount of black dirt, ranging from 0.3 inches to 10 inches, was added. Total carbon ranged from 0.1928% to 5.63134% and total nitrogen ranged from 0.0158% to 0.4591%. The exact amounts of black soil added to each plot are described in the field operations. Equal amounts of MgSO4, CaCO3, P2O5 \
Plant aboveground biomass data: Plant Competition Under Different Nitrogen Levels:A Garden Experiment
This garden plot experiment is located next to the E026 gardens in Field E (Old Field 44). This garden contained monocultures of major grass species from across the grassland biome of North America, and also 3 legume species (E070). The design and purpose were similar to E026, except the plots were larger. The basic experimental design consisted of growing plants in monoculture and in various competitive combinations on each of 14 different soil mixtures. In 1988 a bulldozer was used to remove 30 inches of top soil at the site. To each plot a certain amount of black dirt, ranging from 0.3 inches to 10 inches, was added. Total carbon ranged from 0.1928% to 5.63134% and total nitrogen ranged from 0.0158% to 0.4591%. The exact amounts of black soil added to each plot are described in the field operations. Equal amounts of MgSO4, CaCO3, P2O5 \
Weed biomass: Plant Competition Under Different Nitrogen Levels:A Garden Experiment
This garden plot experiment is located next to the E026 gardens in Field E (Old Field 44). This garden contained monocultures of major grass species from across the grassland biome of North America, and also 3 legume species (E070). The design and purpose were similar to E026, except the plots were larger. The basic experimental design consisted of growing plants in monoculture and in various competitive combinations on each of 14 different soil mixtures. In 1988 a bulldozer was used to remove 30 inches of top soil at the site. To each plot a certain amount of black dirt, ranging from 0.3 inches to 10 inches, was added. Total carbon ranged from 0.1928% to 5.63134% and total nitrogen ranged from 0.0158% to 0.4591%. The exact amounts of black soil added to each plot are described in the field operations. Equal amounts of MgSO4, CaCO3, P2O5 \
Root biomass data: Plant Competition Under Different Nitrogen Levels:A Garden Experiment
This garden plot experiment is located next to the E026 gardens in Field E (Old Field 44). This garden contained monocultures of major grass species from across the grassland biome of North America, and also 3 legume species (E070). The design and purpose were similar to E026, except the plots were larger. The basic experimental design consisted of growing plants in monoculture and in various competitive combinations on each of 14 different soil mixtures. In 1988 a bulldozer was used to remove 30 inches of top soil at the site. To each plot a certain amount of black dirt, ranging from 0.3 inches to 10 inches, was added. Total carbon ranged from 0.1928% to 5.63134% and total nitrogen ranged from 0.0158% to 0.4591%. The exact amounts of black soil added to each plot are described in the field operations. Equal amounts of MgSO4, CaCO3, P2O5 \
Plant aboveground biomass carbon and nitrogen: Tree Competition Garden
This experiment was set up adjacent to E055 in the high disturbance, garden area. 1.75 inches of black soil was added to the CCNHA sandy soil to make four 10 feet x 54 feet plots. The soil was rototilled and aluminum flashing was installed to edge the plots and divide them into 48, 5 feet x 9 feet plots. Equal amounts of MgSO4, CaCO3, P2O5 and K2O are added to the plots each year in early May and late June. For a describtion of fertilizer added, see fertilization details. Seeds were planted with 6 replicates of each of the following treatments: 1. Agropyron repens monoculture 2. Schizachyrium scoparium monoculture 3. Pinus strobus monoculture 4. Quercus ellipsoidalis monoculture 5. Agropyron repens + Quercus ellipsoidalis on half 6. Agropyron repens + Pinus strobus on half 7. Schizachyrium scoparium + Quercus ellipsoidalis on half 8. Schizachyrium scoparium + Pinus strobus on half The competition plots were split, with half invaded by seed and half to be invaded by seedling. For treatments 5-8, the right or left sides were chosen at random, to plant the tree seeds. The plots were watered throughout the growing season to keep water from becoming a limiting resource.
Plant aboveground biomass data: Tree Competition Garden
This experiment was set up adjacent to E055 in the high disturbance, garden area. 1.75 inches of black soil was added to the CCNHA sandy soil to make four 10 feet x 54 feet plots. The soil was rototilled and aluminum flashing was installed to edge the plots and divide them into 48, 5 feet x 9 feet plots. Equal amounts of MgSO4, CaCO3, P2O5 and K2O are added to the plots each year in early May and late June. For a describtion of fertilizer added, see fertilization details. Seeds were planted with 6 replicates of each of the following treatments: 1. Agropyron repens monoculture 2. Schizachyrium scoparium monoculture 3. Pinus strobus monoculture 4. Quercus ellipsoidalis monoculture 5. Agropyron repens + Quercus ellipsoidalis on half 6. Agropyron repens + Pinus strobus on half 7. Schizachyrium scoparium + Quercus ellipsoidalis on half 8. Schizachyrium scoparium + Pinus strobus on half The competition plots were split, with half invaded by seed and half to be invaded by seedling. For treatments 5-8, the right or left sides were chosen at random, to plant the tree seeds. The plots were watered throughout the growing season to keep water from becoming a limiting resource.
Plant aboveground biomass data: Legume Competition Garden
This experiment was established on top of subplots 24, 25 and 26 of E055 (1.2m X 1.2m plots). Sheet metal was installed to divide the subplots into 4 equal parts (subplots are 1.2m x 1.2m, sub-subplots are .6m x .6m). The resulting 12 sub-subplots (4/subplot = 12/plot) were planted according to the following treatments: 1. LC seed on top of established SS 2. AC seed on top of established SS 3. no seed added to established SS 4. PP seed on top of established SS 5. AC seed vs SS seed 6. LC seed vs SS seed 7. PP seed vs SS seed 8. LC seed vs AC seed vs PP seed vs SS seed 9. AC seed 10. LC seed 11. Bare ground (no seeds added) 12. PP seed Where LC=Lespedeza capitata, AC=Amorpha canescens, PP=Petalostemum purpureum, and SS=Schizachyrium scoparium. Equal amounts of MgSO4, CaCO3, P2O5 and K2O are added to the plots each year in early May and Late June. For further information, see fertilization details.
Plant aboveground biomass carbon and nitrogen: Legume Competition Garden
This experiment was established on top of subplots 24, 25 and 26 of E055 (1.2m X 1.2m plots). Sheet metal was installed to divide the subplots into 4 equal parts (subplots are 1.2m x 1.2m, sub-subplots are .6m x .6m). The resulting 12 sub-subplots (4/subplot = 12/plot) were planted according to the following treatments: 1. LC seed on top of established SS 2. AC seed on top of established SS 3. no seed added to established SS 4. PP seed on top of established SS 5. AC seed vs SS seed 6. LC seed vs SS seed 7. PP seed vs SS seed 8. LC seed vs AC seed vs PP seed vs SS seed 9. AC seed 10. LC seed 11. Bare ground (no seeds added) 12. PP seed Where LC=Lespedeza capitata, AC=Amorpha canescens, PP=Petalostemum purpureum, and SS=Schizachyrium scoparium. Equal amounts of MgSO4, CaCO3, P2O5 and K2O are added to the plots each year in early May and Late June. For further information, see fertilization details.
Soil nitrate and ammonium: Multiple Traits of Multiple Plant Species Measured in Monoculture Gardens
These gardens were started in order to establish monocultures of several species of native prairie plants common to Cedar Creek.
Root carbon/nitrogen data: Multiple Traits of Multiple Plant Species Measured in Monoculture Gardens
These gardens were started in order to establish monocultures of several species of native prairie plants common to Cedar Creek.
Plant aboveground biomass carbon and nitrogen: Multiple Traits of Multiple Plant Species Measured in Monoculture Gardens
These gardens were started in order to establish monocultures of several species of native prairie plants common to Cedar Creek.
Plant aboveground biomass data: Multiple Traits of Multiple Plant Species Measured in Monoculture Gardens
These gardens were started in order to establish monocultures of several species of native prairie plants common to Cedar Creek.
FIGURE. Euphorbia paulianii, photographs taken at the Parc Botanique et Zoologique de Tsimbazaza, of the original plant used to prepare the type by J. Leandri. A. cyathia. B. habit, as growing in the garden. Credits: J. Bosser (A and B). in Novelties in Malagasy Euphorbia (Euphorbiaceae)
FIGURE. Euphorbia paulianii, photographs taken at the Parc Botanique et Zoologique de Tsimbazaza, of the original plant used to prepare the type by J. Leandri. A. cyathia. B. habit, as growing in the garden. Credits: J. Bosser (A and B).
Data from: Plant species richness and sunlight exposure increase pollinator attraction to pollinator gardens
<p>Evidence documenting the decline of insect populations is accumulating. Efforts have increased to mitigate pollinator losses by establishing gardens to support pollinator diversity. However, knowledge of the specific garden characteristics, landscape features and environmental factors that affect pollinator diversity and abundance is limited, particularly in biodiverse regions in North America. In order to better understand how garden characteristics affect pollinator attraction, we compared pollinator composition across 16 pollinator gardens in the Appalachian ecoregion in North America. We evaluated the effects of garden characteristics (e.g., plant richness, flower abundance, garden size, proportion of native species), landscape features (land-use type, distance to forest) and environmental factors (sunlight exposure) on pollinator richness, overall visitation rate and visitation rate by defined pollinator groups (i.e., solitary native bees, bumblebees, honeybees, lepidopterans and other insects). Solitary bees (i.e., native bees besides Bombus) were the most frequent visitors (61%). We found differences in pollinator species composition between urban and rural gardens. Moreover, plant richness had a positive effect on pollinator richness and an increase in flower abundance increased pollinator visitation rate. Flower abundance, plant richness and high sunlight exposure increased visitation rate of solitary bees. Visitation rate of solitary bees however, decreased with increasing proportion of native plants. Overall, our results indicate that garden characteristics, landscape and environmental factors all are important mediators of pollinator diversity and abundance. Solitary bees were most affected by garden (i.e., plant richness, number of flowers, proportion of native plants) and environmental factors (i.e., sunlight exposure). However, we also identified differential effects of garden and environmental factors across pollinator groups. We suggest that an integrated management approach that considers multiple garden and environmental characteristics could help improve the effectiveness of pollinator garden as a conservation tool and help preserve this key ecosystem service.</p>
Supplementary material 1 from: Zúñiga JD, Gostel MR, Mulcahy DG, Barker K, Hill A, Sedaghatpour M, Vo SQ, Funk VA, Coddington JA (2017) Data Release: DNA barcodes of plant species collected for the Global Genome Initiative for Gardens Program, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. PhytoKeys 88: 119-122. https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.88.14607
List of samples collected for the Global Genome Initiative for Gardens project selected for DNA barcoding, with GenBank accession numbers and genetic sample identification numbers. All the sequences are included in the GGI-Gardens BioProject. : Explanation note: List of samples collected for the Global Genome Initiative for Gardens project selected for DNA barcoding, with GenBank accession numbers and genetic sample identification numbers.
In 2017, Plantix, a free smartphone app that helps identify plant damage, was introduced to the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, with an extension partner. Plantix was created by Progressive Environmental and Agricultural Technologies (PEAT), a German startup. Two PEAT cofounders, Charlotte Schuman (second from the right) and Alex Kennepohl (center, with eyeglasses), confer about the smartphone app with students from Angrau University. Farmers and gardeners can transmit their plant images to Plantix, which uses deep learning and computer vision to help identify diseases and pests. The smartphone app offers symptom descriptions, treatment recommendations, and potential preventive actions. Photographs: Courtesy of PEAT GmbH. in Deep learning brings speed, accuracy to the life sciences.
In 2017, Plantix, a free smartphone app that helps identify plant damage, was introduced to the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, with an extension partner. Plantix was created by Progressive Environmental and Agricultural Technologies (PEAT), a German startup. Two PEAT cofounders, Charlotte Schuman (second from the right) and Alex Kennepohl (center, with eyeglasses), confer about the smartphone app with students from Angrau University. Farmers and gardeners can transmit their plant images to Plantix, which uses deep learning and computer vision to help identify diseases and pests. The smartphone app offers symptom descriptions, treatment recommendations, and potential preventive actions. Photographs: Courtesy of PEAT GmbH.
Data from: The extent of amphibian, fish and water plant translocations by garden pond owners
<p>To determine how frequently garden pond owners translocate plants, amphibians or fish between their ponds and natural areas, and over what distances, we set out a survey. The 2023 survey was designed in LimeSurvey and consisted of three components: (A) information about ownership of garden ponds, terrariums, and aquariums, (B) information about plants and animals and (C) sociodemographic information. Component A was used to determine whether respondents owned a garden pond, terrarium or aquarium. If so, the respondents were asked at what postal code their pond, terrarium or aquarium was located. This was necessary because the postal codes were used to determine the approximate location of the respondents’ home and calculate translocation distances. Respondents were able to enter a different postal code for each confinement type. In case respondents moved and had, for example, a garden pond on both addresses, they were asked to pick the postal code of the address where they had lived the longest or the one they could tell the most about. The introductory text of the questionnaire was phrased neutrally and did not mention exotic species, diseases or other issues. We did so to reduce the risk of social-desirability bias.</p> <p>The respondents who indicated that they had a garden pond, a terrarium or an aquarium were led through a series of questions about fish, amphibians and water plants in compartment B of the survey. If a respondent indicated that a species group was present in their pond, terrarium, or aquarium, they were asked how they acquired that species and additionally, if they had ever removed any species from its confinement. Multiple answers were possible for both obtainment and removal. If no appropriate answer was on the list, respondents could describe an additional answer. In case the options “collected/caught in nature” and/or “released/dumped in nature” were picked, the respondents were asked if they could pinpoint the location(s) on a map (that worked with OpenStreetMap). They could enter up to ten locations. For each location, they were asked what species they collected or released. Participants who translocated species but could not pinpoint any locations were asked to list all species at once. Species were only taken into account if it was clear what type of animal or plant was described. Full species names were not a necessity, but vague descriptions such as “oxygen plant” were counted as “unknown”.</p> <p>Participants who translocated animals or plants were asked how many times they had done so. Sufficient instructions were supplied to explain that, for this question, it did not matter where and how many individuals were caught or released each time. The respondents were also asked to formulate the most important reason for collecting or releasing plants and animals. In case respondents indicated that they transferred species from inside (terrarium or aquarium) to outside (pond) or vice versa when asked about the acquirement and removal of species, they were asked to list the species they had moved. These questions could be answered twice, once for the pond and once for the aquarium or terrarium regarding fish and amphibians. In such cases, information about what species were moved was combined. Terrarium or aquarium owners were not specifically asked about translocating plants to, and especially from, aquariums or terrariums because our main focus was on garden ponds and to prevent the survey from becoming too long, yet participants were able to note down which plants they moved from their pond to their aquarium or terrarium and vice versa as part of the questions concerning garden ponds. No questions were asked about hypothetical scenarios as we were only interested in what translocations had already happened and why, and not in uncertain future behavior of garden pond owners.</p> <p>Here we archive an anonymized version of the resulting datasets. Postal codes, longitudinal and latitudinal data, and additional comments provided by the respondents at the end of the survey were removed to anonymize the dataset. Those questions remain, but the cells are empty.</p> <p>We have provided a csv file with a side-by-side translation of the survey questions and the answers to multiple choice questions in the dataset. Please see ESM_2 for the original survey and ESM_3 of Prins et al. (provisionally accepted) for a translated version including conditional rules.</p> <p>Respondents could formulate their own answer when they picked <em>other</em> as an answer to the multiple choice questions about how they acquired plants or animals and the questions about what they did with plants and animals when removed from their enclosures. We categorized these additional answer by adding an extra column named Andere categorieën (Other categories). In here, we wrote down to what category the additional answers belonged. That could be the extra category Spontaan (Spontaneous) that we added for the questions about how plants and animals were acquired, Overig (Other) or one of the three overarching categories: Gekocht (Bought), Gehad (Received as gift), and weggegeven (Given away). Additional answers that only added explanation to one of the picked answer options, were not sorted into new or overarching categories.</p> <p>The answers to the motivation questions were categorized as well. We did this by adding an extra column named Categorie (Category) and noting down to what category (or categories) the answers belonged. We created seven motivation categories for the collection of plants and animals and three for their removal. See the table below for a translation of each category. </p> <p> </p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Motivations for collecting water plants and animals form nature</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Categorie</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>Category</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Leven</p> </td> <td> <p>Ecosystem functioning</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Esthetiek</p> </td> <td> <p>Aesthetic preferences</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Kosten</p> </td> <td> <p>Expenses and availability</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Dierenleed</p> </td> <td> <p>Animal suffering</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Soortbescherming</p> </td> <td> <p>Species preservation</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Educatie</p> </td> <td> <p>Education</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Overig</p> </td> <td> <p>Other</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Motivations for releasing water plants and animals in nature after removing them from a garden pond</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Categorie</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>Category</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Overlast</p> </td> <td> <p>Overcrowding and hinder</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Verblijf</p> </td> <td> <p>Enclosure</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Overig</p> </td> <td> <p>Other</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p> </p> <p>This archive contains 3 files:</p> <p><strong>Side_by_side_translation.csv</strong> provides English translations of all questions in our Dutch questionnaire in 2023.</p> <p><strong>results-survey-anonymized.csv </strong>contains the anonymized answers by the respondents in 2023. Response IDs have been shuffled and no longer indicate the chronological order of the responses.</p> <p><strong>2023_translocations_with_distance_anonymized.csv </strong>contains the calculated distances between the postal code of the garden pond and natural area where species were collected or released. The responseIDs match with those in the previous file.</p>
Data on germination of seeds obtained from Frangula alnus mother plants in a common garden that were treated with water limitation
<p>Data on germination of seeds derived from Frangula alnus mother plants in a common garden that were treated with water limitation in 2020: countings of emerged seedlings on a regular basis in the spring of 2021.</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.