Find research datasets worth reusing

opennotspecifiedOct 2019View details →

Distribution. SW USA (Florida), and from NE Mexico (Coahuila), S through Central America into South America to Argentina and Uruguay; also on Puerto Rico and Lesser Antilles. in Molossidae

Distribution. SW USA (Florida), and from NE Mexico (Coahuila), S through Central America into South America to Argentina and Uruguay; also on Puerto Rico and Lesser Antilles.

dryad32/100

Shark captures near west-central Florida by Coastal Marine Education and Research Academy

<p>Identifying critical habitat for highly mobile species such as sharks is difficult, but essential for effective management and conservation. In regions where baseline data are lacking, non-traditional data sources have the potential to increase observational capacity for species distribution and habitat studies. In this study, a research and education organization conducted a five year (2013-2018) survey of shark populations in the coastal waters of west-central Florida, an area where a diverse shark assemblage has been observed but no formal population analyses have been conducted. The objectives of this study were to use Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) modeling to quantify environmental factors impacting the distribution of the shark assemblage, create species distribution maps from the model outputs, and identify spatially explicit hot spots of high shark abundance. A total of 1,036 sharks were captured, encompassing eleven species. Abundance hot spots for four species and for immature sharks (collectively) were most often located in areas designated as "No Internal Combustion Engine" zones and seagrass bottom cover, suggesting these environments may be fostering more diverse and abundant populations. The BRT models were fitted for immature sharks and five species where n>100: the nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum), blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus), blacknose shark (C. acronotus), Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae), and bonnethead (Sphyrna tiburo). Capture data were paired with environmental variables: depth (m), sea surface temperature (ºC), surface, middle, and bottom salinity (psu), dissolved oxygen (mg/l), and bottom type (seagrass, artificial reef, or sand). Depth, temperature, and bottom type were most frequently identified as predictors with the greatest marginal effect on shark distribution, underscoring the importance of nearshore seagrass and barrier island habitats to the shark assemblage in this region. This approach demonstrates the potential contribution of unconventional science to effective management and conservation of coastal sharks.</p>

opencc-zeroOct 2022View details →

opencc-by-4.0Aug 2017View details →

Estimating belowground carbon stocks in isolated wetlands of the Northern Everglades Watershed, central Florida, using ground penetrating radar (GPR) and aerial imagery

<p>This data set includes raw GPR profiles for isolated wetlands in the Disney Wilderness Preserve (Kissimmee, FL) for the purpose of below ground soil C stock estimations. </p>

Figure 10 in A long-term survey of spring monarch butterflies in north-central Florida

Figure 10. The yearly decline in oviposition rate at Cross Creek from 1994 to 2017, recorded as average eggs/stem (500 plant minimum each year) for the four weeks from 22 March to 18 April. (F = 11.501, p = 0.003, R2 = 0.390). Excluding the extraordinary high value in 1995, the decline by 1,18 linear regression is about 78%. Based on a total of 3545 eggs.

Figure 2 in A long-term survey of spring monarch butterflies in north-central Florida

Figure 2. View across Hogan's pasture showing numerous flowering Asclepias humistrata plants. 28 April 2010. Photo by K. Sims Dunford.

Figure 6 in A long-term survey of spring monarch butterflies in north-central Florida

Figure 6. Appearance of adults at Cross Creek calculated as the number captured per hour, averaged for each week from 1994 through 2017 (excluding 1997, 2000–2001, 2003). The earliest arrival was 14 March (week of 8–14 March). Not all weeks were surveyed in each year. Means are shown with 95% CI. Based on observations of a total of 865 adults.

Figure 9 in A long-term survey of spring monarch butterflies in north-central Florida

Figure 9. Egg abundance through the spring, recorded as mean eggs/stem for each week from 1994 through 2017 (50 plants per sample, minimum of 500 plants examined each year; excludes 1997, 2001, and 2004). Means are shown with 95% CI calculated from 3545 eggs found during 44,753 surveys of stems.

Figure 5 in A long-term survey of spring monarch butterflies in north-central Florida

Figure 5. Variation in flowering phenology of Asclepias humistrata at Cross Creek across three years; 2002 was a typical year, 2008 was an early year, and 2010 was a late year.

Figure 11 in A long-term survey of spring monarch butterflies in north-central Florida

Figure 11. Phenology of immatures at Cross Creek, totalled for 1994–2017. Larvae are divided into 1st through 3rd and 4th and 5th instar. Based on totals of 3444 eggs and 1295 larvae.

Figure 1 in A long-term survey of spring monarch butterflies in north-central Florida

Figure 1. Satellite view of Hogan's pasture (X) and the roadsides in Cross Ck, Alachua Co., FL, where the density, health, stage and number of Asclepias humistrata plants and stems and the spring breeding populations of monarch butterflies were assessed.

Figure 7 in A long-term survey of spring monarch butterflies in north-central Florida

Figure 7. Wing wear of monarchs for each week through the spring flight period, from a total of 302 adults combined for 2005–2017 using a scale from 1 (very fresh with no scale loss) to 5 (worn, many scales missing). Two measures are shown for each week: the median determined from all butterflies and the proportion of adults with wing wear 1s and 2s. Individuals in early April were mostly fresh.

Figure 4 in A long-term survey of spring monarch butterflies in north-central Florida

Figure 4. Development of Asclepias humistrata at Cross Creek (data for 1997–2017; no counts for 2000 and 2003). Plants without any flower development are excluded. Maximum flowering occurred the week of 12–18 April. Based on 11,707 observations.

Figure 8. Adults captured per hour averaged for the four central weeks, 22 March–18 April, from 1994–2017. Data were not available for 1997, 1999–2001 in A long-term survey of spring monarch butterflies in north-central Florida

Figure 8. Adults captured per hour averaged for the four central weeks, 22 March–18 April, from 1994–2017. Data were not available for 1997, 1999–2001, and 2003–2004.

Figure 3 in A long-term survey of spring monarch butterflies in north-central Florida

Figure 3. Stages of development of Asclepius humistrata. (a) Indeterminate (without reproductive organs, 24 April 2010); (b) early bud (immature flower buds visible outside terminal leaves, 3 April 2012); (c) bud (mature flower buds, 26 March 2009); (d) flowering (8 May 2010); (e) pod (fully mature seed pods, 19 May 2010); (f) post-pod (senesced pods that have released their seeds, 26 May 2010); (g) frost damaged plant (9 April 2009); (h) fifth instar Danaus plexippus on a flowering plant (24 April 1996). Photos by L.P. Brower, K. Sims Dunford, and M. Standridge.

opennotspecifiedMay 2008View details →

Figure 7. Central stylets. The 100 in Revision of the smiling worms, genus Prosorhochmus Keferstein, 1862, and description of a new species, Prosorhochmus belizeanus sp. nov. (Prosorhochmidae, Hoplonemertea, Nemertea) from Florida and Belize

Figure 7. Central stylets. The 100 Mm scale bar applicable to all, except (I). (A, B) Prosorhochmus chafarinensis (specimens from Croatia); (C, D) Arhochmus korotneffi comb. nov. (specimens from Croatia); (E) Prosorhochmus claparedii (specimen from Roscoff, France); (F) P. chafarinensis (after Frutos et al., p. 294, fig. 1b); (G) Prosorhochmus americanus (after Gibson et al. 1986, p. 330, plate I, fig. e); (H) Prosorhochmus nelsoni (specimen from Coquimbo, Chile); (I) Prosorhochmus belizeanus sp. nov (200 Mm scale bar).

FIGURE 14. a in Some shallow-water hydroids (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa) from the central east coast of Florida, USA

FIGURE 14. a, Aglaophenia dubia: part of a hydrocladium with two hydrothecae, ROMIZ B1125, scale equals 0.10 mm. b, Aglaophenia latecarinata: part of a hydrocladium with two hydrothecae, ROMIZ B1086, scale equals 0.10 mm. c, Aglaophenia rhynchocarpa: part of a hydrocladium with two hydrothecae, ROMIZ B1083, scale equals 0.10 mm. d, Aglaophenia trifida: part of a hydrocladium with three hydrothecae, ROMIZ B1086, scale equals 0.10 mm. e, Gymnangium speciosum: part of a hydrocladium with three hydrothecae, ROMIZ B1131, scale equals 0.20 mm. f, Macrorhynchia allmani: part of a hydrocladium with two hydrothecae, ROMIZ B3982, scale equals 0.10 mm. g, Macrorhynchia clarkei: part of a hydrocladium with two hydrothecae, ROMIZ B1129, scale equals 0.10 mm. h, Macrorhynchia clarkei: a single phylactogonium from a pseudocorbula, ROMIZ B1129, scale equals 0.25 mm. i, Macrorhynchia philippina: part of a hydrocladium with three hydrothecae, ROMIZ B1092. Scale equals 0.10 mm.

FIGURE 10. a in Some shallow-water hydroids (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa) from the central east coast of Florida, USA

FIGURE 10. a, Dentitheca dendritica: part of hydrocladium with two hydrothecae, ROMIZ B1130, scale equals 0.10 mm. b, Nemertesia simplex: apophysis and basal part of hydrocladium, ROMIZ B1121, scale equals 0.20 mm. c, Nemertesia simplex: part of hydrocladium with hydrotheca, ROMIZ B1121, scale equals 0.10 mm. d, Plumularia floridana: part of hydrocaulus with basal parts of two hydrocladia, and three hydrothecae, ROMIZ B1080, scale equals 0.25 mm. e, Plumularia setacea: part of hydrocaulus with basal parts of two hydrocladia, a female gonotheca, and a hydrotheca, ROMIZ B1111, scale equals 0.20 mm. f, Plumularia strictocarpa: part of hydrocaulus with basal parts of two hydrocladia, and three hydrothecae, ROMIZ B3971, scale equals 0.20 mm.

FIGURE 7. a in Some shallow-water hydroids (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa) from the central east coast of Florida, USA

FIGURE 7. a, Symmetroscyphus intermedius: part of erect colony, ROMIZ B1117, scale equals 0.5 mm. b, Symmetroscyphus intermedius: part of colony with two hydrothecae, ROMIZ B1117, scale equals 0.25 mm. c, Thyroscyphus marginatus: part of hydrocaulus with three hydrothecae, ROMIZ B3963, scale equals 0.5 mm. d, Thyroscyphus marginatus: pedicel and hydrotheca, ROMIZ B3963, scale equals 0.25 mm. e, Thyroscyphus ramosus: part of hydrocaulus with four hydrothecae, ROMIZ B1133, scale equals 0.5 mm. f, Thyroscyphus ramosus: pedicel and hydrotheca, ROMIZ B1133, scale equals 0.25 mm.

FIGURE 1. a in Some shallow-water hydroids (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa) from the central east coast of Florida, USA

FIGURE 1. a, Pennaria disticha: part of hydrocaulus with annulated pedicel and juvenile hydranth, ROMIZ B1118; scale equals 0.5 mm. b, Cladocoryne floccosa: stem and hydranth, ROMIZ B1114, scale equals 0.5 mm. c, Velella velella: juvenile, left-sailing form, ROMIZ B1113, scale equals 1 mm. d, Zanclea alba: pedicel and hydranth, ROMIZ B3961, scale equals 0.25 mm. e, Solanderia gracilis: tip of branch with three hydranths, ROMIZ B3962, scale equals 0.25 mm. f, Turritopsis fascicularis: pedicel and hydranth with medusa bud, ROMIZ B1106, scale equals 0.25 mm. g, Parawrightia robusta: part of pedicel and hydranth, ROMIZ B1110, scale equals 0.25 mm. h, Bimeria vestita: pedicel and hydranth, ROMIZ B1116, scale equals 0.25 mm. i, Eudendrium carneum: part of hydrocaulus with pedicel and hydranth, ROMIZ B3960, scale equals 0.25 mm.

FIGURE 4 in Some shallow-water hydroids (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa) from the central east coast of Florida, USA

FIGURE 4. Lafoea intorta, sp. nov., nematocysts, ROMIZ B1098: a, microbasic mastigophores, from tentacle; b, holotrichous isorhiza, from hydranth; c, holotrichous isorhiza, partially discharged.