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.
131
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
131 results for “ecosystem impact”
Figure 2 in Study of ecosystem of the Sukhum Bay with emphasis anthropogenic impact, Abkhazian Black Sea coast
Figure 2. Dynamics of phytoplankton (а): numerical abundance (N, 106∙ cell/m3), biomass (B, mg/m3), temperature of seawater (°C) and planktonic ciliates (b): numerical abundance (N, 106∙ ind./m3), biomass (B, mg/m3)
Q-MARE database on pre-industrial climate and human impacts on marine ecosystems
<p>A systematic literature review was carried out using two bibliographic databases the Web of Science (WoS; www.webofknowledge.com; Clarivate) and Scopus (www.scopus.com; Elsevier). In the former searches were completed by searching the “core collection” using the “topic” field (which searches the paper titles, abstracts, author keywords and keywords plus; the latter determined by a Clarivate algorithm using synonymy), and in Scopus the abstract, title and keyword fields were searched. Searches were completed between July and November 2023.</p> <p> </p>
Fig. 2 in Impacts of crustacean invasions on parasite dynamics in aquatic ecosystems: A plea for parasite-focused studies
Fig. 2. Introduced hosts ‾ native parasites: hypothetical examples of the potential effects of invasive crustaceans on native parasites. Note that only a subsample of nonexclusive scenarios from a number of potential outcomes of biological invasion on native parasite dynamics is represented here. The hypothetical native parasite considered here has a two-host life cycle involving a definitive host predator and an intermediate host prey, transmission from the intermediate host to the definitive host requiring consumption of infected intermediate host prey. The variable sizes of squares, circles and diamonds represent relative intermediate and definitive hosts, and parasite abundances, respectively. During transmission, some parasites are unsuccessful and therefore lost from the system (parasite loss); the thickness of the arrows indicates the relative numbers that are either lost or successfully transmitted. The life cycle at the top represents the situation prior to the invasion, providing a benchmark for comparisons. (A) The invader is a suitable alternative intermediate host in which native parasite larvae can survive. However, the introduced host is also a poor transmission vector, due to low predation rate from the definitive host and/or failed host manipulation by the parasite, for example. Introduced hosts are thus more infected than their congeneric, native hosts only because of the accumulation of native parasite larvae that fail to get transmitted to the definitive host. This may in turn negatively affect parasite dynamics in native hosts as shown here. (B) The invader is again a suitable alternative intermediate host but also a good transmission vector to the definitive host, leading to greater infection risk for native definitive hosts. In this case, the invader positively influences parasite dynamics and may increase infection levels in definitive hosts, as shown here. In extreme cases, invasive hosts may be more efficient vectors for the parasite than native hosts and become key hosts. (C) The invader is not a suitable host but directly impacts native intermediate hosts, the transmission vector for the parasite, through predation and thus indirectly reduces native parasite abundance in native definitive hosts.
Fig. 1 in Impacts of crustacean invasions on parasite dynamics in aquatic ecosystems: A plea for parasite-focused studies
Fig. 1. Hypothetical examples of enemy release (A), dilution effect (B), parasite spillback (C) and spillover (D) following introduction of a non-native host in a recipient ecosystem, illustrating the fundamental differences among the different processes. The theoretical recipient ecosystem is here composed of a native host infected by a parasite with a simple life cycle and direct transmission, invaded by a congeneric non-native host infected with a co-introduced parasite with a similar life cycle, to simplify representation. The variable sizes of squares and diamonds represent relative host and parasite abundances, respectively. The thickness of the arrows represents transmission dynamics of the parasite and account for parasite loss during transmission. Enemy release (A) happens when the introduced species benefits from a reduction, or total loss as represented here, in parasitism as a result of invasion. This may in turn have drastic effects on invasion success and both native and invasive host abundances. Dilution effect (B) results from the failure of native parasites to use invasive hosts for successful reproduction and transmission. Native parasites may be unable to infect or be killed (as represented here) by the invasive host. Dilution may in turn decrease parasite transmission among native hosts and negatively affect parasite population dynamics. Parasite spillback (C) happens when invasive hosts acquire a native parasite that is already present in the native host population. Infected invasive hosts can then act as reservoirs of native parasites, potentially increasing infection levels in native hosts as represented here. Increased infection levels in the native host may in turn reduce native host abundance, compared to pre-invasion levels (not represented here). Parasite spillover (D) follows the co-introduction of non-native parasites with their invasive hosts and infection of native hosts by the introduced parasite. Infection of the native host can be maintained by the invasive host, which acts as a reservoir of infection, self-sustained if the parasite can reproduce in its novel host, or both as represented here. Infection of the native host by the introduced parasite can in turn influence host abundances, compared to pre-invasion levels. Note that in scenario D, the native host may or may not possess native parasites.
Fig. 3 in Impacts of crustacean invasions on parasite dynamics in aquatic ecosystems: A plea for parasite-focused studies
Fig. 3. Introduced parasites ‾ native/introduced hosts: hypothetical examples of the potential effects of invasive crustaceans on native parasites. Note that only a subsample of non-exclusive scenarios from a number of potential outcomes of non-native parasite introduction is represented here. The hypothetical non-native parasite considered here has a two-host life cycle involving a definitive host predator and an intermediate host prey, transmission from the intermediate host to the definitive host requiring consumption of infected intermediate host prey. The variable sizes of squares, circles and diamonds represent relative intermediate and definitive hosts, and parasite abundances, respectively. During transmission, some parasites are unsuccessful and therefore lost from the system (parasite loss); the thickness of the arrows indicates the relative numbers that are either lost or successfully transmitted. The life cycle at the top left represents the situation in the ecosystem of origin of the parasite, providing a benchmark for comparisons. Prior to the invasion, the hypothetical recipient ecosystem does not contain native parasites for simplification of representation. (A) The parasite is co-introduced with its intermediate host prey. The invasive parasite retains its original, co-introduced hosts and uses native definitive hosts to complete its life cycle. The situation represented here is the simplest one where the native predator exactly replaces the original definitive host of the parasite with no effect on either parasite dynamics or host abundance. However, parasite invasion may in turn negatively affect native predators and change parasite dynamics compared to that observed in the original ecosystem (shown at the top left). (B) The parasite is again cointroduced with its intermediate host prey. The invasive parasite retains its original, co-introduced hosts and uses native definitive hosts to complete its life cycle but also uses the native prey species as an alternative transmission vector. The introduced parasite may negatively influence native host abundance, thus influencing invasion success of its co-introduced host, as shown here. This may in turn lead to greater infection levels in definitive hosts in the recipient ecosystem than in the original ecosystem of the parasite (situation not represented here) (C) The non-native parasite is introduced without its original host (or this host does not survive translocation) but is subsequently included in the recipient food web. The novel parasite may in turn have drastic effects on intermediate and/or native hosts and reach higher infection levels in these novel hosts as represented here. However, a multitude of alternative scenarios are possible with as many outcomes in terms of parasite dynamics.
Helping or not Helping? Why and How Trivial Packages Impact the npm Ecosystem
<p>Developers often share their code snippets by packaging them and making them available to others through software packages. How much a package does and how big it is can be seen as positive or negative. Recent studies showed that many packages that exist in the npm ecosystem are trivial and may introduce high dependency overhead.</p> <p>Hence, one question that arises is why developers choose to publish these trivial packages. Therefore, in this paper, we perform a developer-centered study to empirically examine why developers choose to publish such trivial packages. Specifically, we ask 1) why developers publish trivial packages, 2) what they believe to be the possible negative impacts of these packages, and 3) how such negative issues can be mitigated. The survey response of 59 JavaScript developers who publish trivial npm packages showed that the main reasons for publishing these trivial packages are to provide <em>reusable components</em>, <em>testing</em> & <em>documentation</em>, and <em>separation of concerns</em>. Even the developers who publish these trivial packages admitted to having issues when they publish such packages, which include the <em>maintenance of multiple packages</em>, <em>dependency hell</em>, <em>finding the right package</em>, and the <em>increase of duplicated packages</em> in the ecosystems. Furthermore, we found that the majority of the developers suggested grouping these trivial packages to cope with the problems associated with publishing them. Then, to quantitatively investigate the impact of these trivial packages on the npm ecosystem and its users, we examine grouping these trivial packages. We found that if trivial packages that are always used together are grouped, the ecosystem can reduce the number of dependencies by approximately 13%. Our findings shed light on the impact of publishing trivial packages and show that ecosystems and developer communities need to rethink their publishing policies since it can negatively impact the developers and the entire ecosystem.</p> <p>The published data set contains the following:</p> <ol> <li>List of identified trivial npm packages.</li> <li>The survey questions.</li> <li>The developers' responses to the survey.</li> <li>The results of the co-usage analysis of trivial npm packages.</li> </ol> <p> </p>
Data and analysis code for Repo et al., "Contrasting forest management strategies: impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services under changing climate and disturbance regimes"
<p>This repository contains analysis code and pre-processed data for the study "Contrasting forest management strategies: impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services under changing climate and disturbance regimes" by Repo et al.<br>Data processing and analysis mainly done by Aapo Jantunen, Katharina Albrich<br>Due to respository space limitations, the original model outputs are archived in the Finnish "Allas" data storage service. For access, contact katharina.albrich@luke.fi<br>The code used to process the raw data is included here for reproducibility.</p> <p>If you are interested in using iLand, visit https://iland-model.org/ and https://iland-model.org/iland-book/ for information on using the model and a guide to setting up a landscape.</p> <p><span>This work was supported by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry by funding project Future multifunctional forests and their disturbance risk in the changing climate (Foster) through the “Catch the Carbon” initiative (<span>project number VN/28654/2020)</span>. A.R. has been supported by the grant [TRACY Trade-offs and synergies in land-based climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation decision 322066 by the Academy of Finland.], J. H by the grant [CASCADE - Changing Disturbance Regimes and Forest Landscapes of Fennoscandia 342569 by the Academy of Finland]. </span></p> <p> </p>
Data for: Positive impact of postfire environment on bumble bees not explained by habitat variables in a remote forested ecosystem
<p>Bumble bees are important pollinators in temperate forested regions where fire is a driving force for habitat change, and thus understanding how these insects respond to fire is critical. Previous work has shown bees are often positively affected by the post-fire environment, with burned sites supporting greater bee abundance and diversity, and increased floral resources. The extent to which fire impacts variation in bumble bee site occupancy is not well understood, especially in higher latitude regions with dense, primarily coniferous forests. Occupancy models are powerful tools for biodiversity analyses, as they separately estimate occupancy probability (likelihood that a species is present at a particular location) and detection probability (likelihood of observing a species when it is present). Using these models, we tested whether bumble bee site occupancy is higher in burned locations as a result of the increase in canopy openness, floral species richness, and floral abundance. We quantified the impact of fire, and associated habitat changes, on bumble bee species' occupancy in an area with high wildfire frequency in British Columbia, Canada. The burn status of a site was the only significant predictor for determining bumble bee occurrence (with burned sites having higher occupancy); floral resource availability and canopy openness only impacted detection probability (roughly, sample bias). These findings highlight the importance of controlling for the influence of habitat on species detection in pollinator studies and suggest that fire in this system changes the habitat for bumble bees in positive ways that extend beyond our measurements of differences in floral resources and canopy cover.</p>
Data set on the impact of selected plant protection products on ecosystem service providers, including interactive effects
<p>The Excel files contain the results of ecotoxicological tests for the effects of selected insecticides on ESP species. The objective of this dataset is to provide original data from acute and semi-chronic laboratory tests on a few important beneficial species with broad geographic distribution. The data allow the evaluation of delayed effects and possible interactive effects of combined treatments for those pesticides that are commonly used in mixtures or sprayed next to each other in short time intervals, effectively exposing non-target arthropods to combined/sequential effects. Each data file contains the “Description” sheet where all details of the test and the exact meaning of data fields in the database are reported. The data files are named in a self-explanatory manner, starting with the name of the institution that produced the data (UC – University of Coimbra; UJA – Jagiellonian University), followed by the name of the tested species and names of tested products.</p>
Disentangling responses to natural stressor and human impact gradients in river ecosystems across Europe
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data collected for: The contrasted impacts of grasshoppers on soil microbial activities in function of ecosystem productivity and herbivore diet
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Leopard (<em>Panthera pardus</em>) density and the impact of spotted hyaena (<em>Crocuta crocuta</em>) occurrence on leopard presence in the Maasai Mara ecosystem, Kenya
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
The impact of warming on peak-season ecosystem carbon uptake is influenced by dominant species in warmer sites
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Ecosystem engineers show variable impacts on habitat availability for cavity nesters in South American temperate forests
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data and code for: Combining eddy covariance towers, field measurements, and the MEMS 2 ecosystem model improves confidence in the climate impacts of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data for: Positive impact of postfire environment on bumble bees not explained by habitat variables in a remote forested ecosystem
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Extent, impacts, and drivers of oystershell scale invasions in aspen ecosystems in Arizona, USA 2020-2022
Invasive herbivores that kill foundation tree species pose a major threat to forest ecosystem sustainability. One important foundation tree species in the interior western United States is quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), which is threatened by recent outbreaks of an invasive insect, oystershell scale (Lepidosaphes ulmi; OSS). OSS outbreaks were first reported in 2016, when OSS began causing dieback and mortality of aspen in wildland forest settings in northern Arizona. Since then, OSS has been observed in other locations across Arizona and in other western states, and recent studies in Arizona have highlighted the threat that OSS poses to aspen sustainability, warranting a comprehensive survey of OSS invasions and their impacts on aspen ecosystems. We sampled aspen populations across Arizona and addressed three questions: (1) What is the geographic extent of OSS in Arizona? (2) What impacts does OSS have on aspen? (3) Which biotic and abiotic factors influence OSS abundance? We found that OSS was widespread in central Arizona and had a negative impact on aspen forest health. OSS was associated with crown damage and tree mortality, especially of intermediate-sized, recruiting stems. Climate was the most important driver of plot-level OSS abundance, with warmer, drier conditions resulting in significantly more OSS. OSS was also associated with less recent fire, presence of ungulate management strategies such as fenced exclosures, and stands with a greater density of aspen saplings. We conclude that active management is required to suppress OSS populations and mitigate damage to aspen ecosystems, and we provide OSS monitoring and management recommendations based on our findings.
Drought Impact on Desert Ecosystems, Drought Network precipitation manipulation experiment in desert grasslands
Climate change amplifies the global water cycle, making droughts more frequent and more severe. The hot deserts of the U.S. rely on the stability and frequency of water availability in order to sustain biological communities, making these ecosystems incredibly vulnerable to anticipated alterations in the water cycle. This project seeks to understand which biotic and abiotic variables are principle in determining desert ecosystem sensitivity to drought? To answer these questions, we have installed a drought manipulation that will simulate an extreme drought event by reducing annual precipitation by 66% in seven desert sites. Plant abundance data are collected annually to track changes in the plant community. Data collection began in Spring 2018. Treatments at three Sevilleta sites began in Fall 2018 after data collection in October 2018. Treatments started at four sites in Arizona and California in March and April of 2019 and spring pretreatment data collection. The treatments will last for four years.
Relative impacts of gypsy moth outbreaks and insecticide treatments on forest resources and ecosystem: An experimental approach
<p><span class="KONAHeading1CharChar"><span>Gypsy moth outbreaks cause severe defoliation in Holarctic forests, both in North America where it is invasive, and in its native range in Eurasia. Severe defoliation can hamper timber production and impact ecological communities and processes. Aerial insecticide applications are regularly performed in outbreak areas to mitigate economic losses. These operations can be financially costly and harmful to non-target species and may disrupt species interaction networks. However, replicated studies of the relative impacts of gypsy moth outbreaks and insecticide application on forest growth and animal communities are rare and have yet to be carried out in the species' indigenous range. </span></span></p> <p><span class="KONAHeading1CharChar"><span>Here, we review the pathways in which gypsy moth outbreaks and the chemical control of these outbreaks affect forest ecosystems. We then present an experimental design established in South Central Germany in early 2019, aiming to study the ecological and economic consequences of gypsy moth eruptions and insecticide application in oak forests. The study's full factorial design comprises forest stands with high and low defoliation risk, either treated with tebufenozide or left unsprayed, within 12 experimental blocks. Measurements of forest growth and structure, tree mortality, gypsy moth density, and composition of lepidopteran, bird, bat, ground beetle, and canopy arthropod communities will be conducted for several years. </span></span></p> <p><span class="KONAHeading1CharChar"><span>One-year intensive monitoring of gypsy moth populations and damage across the selected sites showed substantial differences in population density between plots with high and low defoliation risk and high efficacy of tebufenozide in suppressing gypsy moth populations in treated plots. In the first year of the experiment, gypsy moth density and defoliation in predicted outbreak plots differed strongly, confirming the importance of using many replicates and blocking to control spatial heterogeneity. The experiment will be running continuously during the coming years to produce short- and medium-term economic and ecological data to improve our understanding and management of gypsy moth outbreaks.</span></span></p>
Geospatial dataset for Cumulative Impact assessment, Sea Use conflict analysis and Marine Ecosystem Services assessment in the Adriatic Ionian Region
<p>Geospatial dataset for Cumulative Impact assessment, Sea Use conflict analysis and Marine Ecosystem Services assessment in the Adriatic Ionian Region (reference year 2014).</p> <p>The datasets are derived from ADRIPLAN Portal (http://data.adriplan.eu/).</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.