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.
422
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
422 results for “Weed”
Figure 6 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 6. Diversity indices of weed communities for all treatments. Weed by species biomass was pooled across fields.Similar letters above bars indicate no significant difference using separate Fisher's LSD tests (P> 0.05).Error bars are standard errors and treatments are abbreviated:NC,nontreated control; SR,seeding rate; IM, interrow mower;WZ,Weed Zapper™.
Figure 5 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 5. Weed biomass in each weed management treatment pooled across all site-years.Biomass was sampled in mid-August after all management tactics had been applied. Similar letters above bars indicate no significant difference using Fisher's LSD test (P> 0.05). Error bars are standard errors, and treatments are abbreviated: NC, nontreated control; SR, seeding rate; IM, interrow mower; WZ, Weed Zapper™.
Figure 4 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 4. Soybean density in August after all weed management treatments were applied. Data were pooled across all site-years. Similar letters above bars indicate no significant difference using Fisher's LSD test (P> 0.05). Error bars are standard errors, and treatments are abbreviated: NC, nontreated control; SR, seeding rate; IM, interrow mower; WZ, Weed Zapper™.
Figure 8 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 8. Soybean yield from each weed management treatment pooled across fields. Yield is dry weight corrected to 13% moisture. Similar letters above bars indicate no significant difference using Fisher's LSD test (P> 0.05). Error bars are standard errors, and treatments are abbreviated: NC, nontreated control; SR, seeding rate; IM, interrow mower; WZ, Weed Zapper™.
Figure 1 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 1. The interrow mower used in this experiment, attached to a John DeereṜ 5100R tractor with a three-point hitch. The mower is powered with a hydraulic system and was custom made by IRM X4, R-Tech Industries (Homewood, MB, Canada).
Figure 1 in Relative uptake of organic and inorganic nitrogen by common weed species
Figure 1. Estimated intact amino acid uptake (root) and translocation (shoot) plotted against the excess 15N (atom percent excess 15N [15N APE]) found in each respective tissue type (amino acid 15N treatment only) for each weed species. Whole amino acid uptake and translocation were calculated by dividing the observed 15N:13C in plant tissue with the measured 15N:13C in the dual-labeled fertilizer. Data are means ± SE (n = 5). See Table 1 for list of full species names.
Figure 2 in Relative uptake of organic and inorganic nitrogen by common weed species
Figure 2. Canonical plot displaying the results of a linear discriminant analysis evaluating patterns in 15N uptake by species (Wilks's lambda = 0.0157, F(42, 83) = 2.8227, P <0.0001). The first two canonical axes were the most explanatory, accounting for 66.9% and 19.7% of the model variation. Species multivariate means (þ symbols) are surrounded by 95% confidence ellipses. Weighted biplots of N form by tissue atom percent excess 15N (15N APE) values are emanating from the grand mean of the data set, and their length and direction indicate the relative strength of their correlation with the first two axes. See Table 1 for list of full species names.
Figure 2. The model 6R30 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 2. The model 6R30 Weed Zapper™ used in this experiment. The generator is attached to the back of a John DeereṜ 5100R tractor with a three-point hitch. The 4.6-m electric copper boom is attached to the front of the tractor with a three-point hitch. The Weed Zapper™ was purchased from Old School Manufacturing (Sedalia, MO, USA).
Figure 11 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 11. The RootWave™ handheld electric weeder, the RootWave™ Pro (Table 1). Image sourced from T. Archer (personal communication, April 2, 2022).
Figure 10 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 10. The XPower electric weed control machine with the XP300 applicator, developed by Zasso™ (Table 1). Images sourced from Zasso Group AG (2021a).
Figure 7 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 7. crop.zone and Nufarm's electrochemical weeding machine, NUCROP (Table 1). Image sourced from D. Vandenhirtz (personal communication, September 10, 2021).
Figure 8 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 8. The XPower electric weed control machine with an XPS applicator, developed by Zasso™ (Table 1). Image sourced from Zasso Group AG (2021i).
Figure 9 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 9. The XPower electric weed control machine with the XPU applicator, developed by Zasso™ (Table 1). Images sourced from Zasso Group AG (2021g).
Figure 6 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 6. The Weed Zapper™ electric weed control machine, produced by Old School Manufacturing (Table 1). The image includes the Annihilator Tractor Series (right, 12R30 model) and the Terminator Self-Propelled Series (left, T3 model), each fitted with flexible front applicator booms of 9.1 and 18.3 m (30 and 60 feet), respectively. The image is sourced from B. Kroeger and N. Kroeger (personal communication, March 25, 2022).
Figure 1 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 1. Schematic representation of electric weed control technology using the spark-discharge method; produced by Guanhao Cheng from the information presented in Diprose and Benson (1984), Savchuk and Bayev (1975), Slesarev (1972), and Wilson and Anderson (1981). The process starts when the plant comes into close proximity to or contact with the electrode (ti). Electricity is then transferred through the plant's foliage and into the roots before dissipating into the soil. The application is grounded by the groundcontact device (GCD). Each object through which the current passes is depicted as having individual resistance, such as the target vegetation (Rv), soil and machinery (Rs), or parallel objects (Rp). This continues over time until the final point of electrode–plant contact (tf). The efficacy of weed control depends on contact time (tc), which is the duration of the electrode's contact with the plant. Contact time is determined by the electrode's effective contact surface and the distance traveled while the electrode is transferring the current to or in contact with the plant (Se).
Figure 5 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 5. The electric weed control machine, the Lightning Weeder, developed by Lasco (Table 1). Image sourced from Lasco (2021).
Figure 4 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 4. Representative diagram of the theoretical distribution of maximum electrical power (Ep max) during electric weed control application in a constant application direction under different weed population density scenarios. In the scenario where only one plant (plant one; left) is initially in contact with the electrode(s) (ti), Ep max is delivered to the plant until the final point of plant–electrode contact (tf). However, when multiple plant contacts occur (plants one, two, and three; right), Ep max is divided among each plant in contact at that time. Note that this diagram is not to scale and was produced by Guanhao Cheng from the information presented in Vigneault and Benoit (2001).
Figure 4 in New directions in weed management and research using 3D imaging
Figure 4. Three-dimensional point cloud reconstructions of soybean (A, top view; B, front view) and cereal rye (Secale cereale L.) (C, top view; D, front view). Note the voids in the soybean point cloud (B) caused by dense canopy cover. Such voids are largely absent in cereal rye (D) due to a more even canopy with greater light penetration.
Figure 7 in Effect of water stress on weed germination, growth characteristics, and seed production: a global meta-analysis
Figure 7. Results from the sensitivity analysis depicting variations in the overall effect size estimates (mean ± 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of water-stress effects on (A) weed germination/emergence, (B) seedling radicle/root length, (C) plant height, and (D) leaf area when a particular study is omitted from the analysis. The vertical black solid and dashed lines represent overall effect sizes (mean ± 95% CIs) with all studies included.
Figure 3 in Effect of water stress on weed germination, growth characteristics, and seed production: a global meta-analysis
Figure 3. Overall water-stress effects on germination/emergence of grass and broadleaf weeds (top) and six weed families—Asteraceae, Fabaceae, Convolvulaceae, Amaranthaceae, Rubiaceae, and Poaceae (bottom). The vertical black dashed line represents zero effect. The black dots are overall mean effect sizes, and the black lines are 99% confidence intervals (CIs).The values in parentheses are the number of observations followed by the number of studies for each pair-wise comparison. The mean effect sizes were considered significantly different when their 99% CIs did not include zero.
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.