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.
31
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
31 results for “invasive dominance”
Data from: Testing for beneficial reversal of dominance during salinity shifts in the invasive copepod Eurytemora affinis, and implications for the maintenance of genetic variation
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
A trait‐based approach predicting community assembly and dominance of microbial invasive species
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Invasive dominance and resident diversity: unpacking the impact of plant invasion on biodiversity and ecosystem function
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Disruption of foraging by a dominant invasive species to decrease its competitive ability
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Habitat alteration facilitates the dominance of invasive species through disrupting niche partitioning in floodplain wetlands
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Invasion promotes invasion: facilitation of C3 perennial grass dominance
<p><b>1.</b> In the southern Great Plains (SGP) of the USA, encroachment of the native invasive woody legume, honey mesquite (<i>Prosopis glandulosa </i>Torr.), has caused a decline in C<sub>4</sub> mid-grass abundance. <i>Prosopis glandulosa</i> invasion has also facilitated growth of the C<sub>3</sub> mid-grass species, Texas wintergrass (<i>Nassella leucotricha </i>[Trin & Rupr.] Pohl) initially beneath its canopy but extending to interspaces between <i>P. glandulosa</i> as stand density increases. Little is known about the stability of the <i>Prosopis</i>/<i>Nassella</i> association, or C<sub>4</sub> grass recovery following <i>P. glandulosa</i> disturbance.</p> <p><b>2.</b> We quantified C<sub>3</sub> and C<sub>4</sub> grass production in interspaces, and basal cover in interspaces and <i>P. glandulosa</i> subcanopy microsites for 9 years following <i>P. glandulosa</i> suppression (top-kill) and compared this to untreated <i>P. glandulosa</i> woodland (woodland). </p> <p><b>3.</b> The <i>Prosopis</i>/<i>Nassella</i> association limited the window of C<sub>4</sub> mid-grass recovery to only a few years. <i>Nassella leucotricha</i> dominated grass production during the first 3 years after top-kill. C<sub>4</sub> mid-grass recovery began in year 4, but was interrupted by severe drought in years 5 through 7. Recovery resumed in year 8, due to above average summer rainfall, but <i>P. glandulosa</i> regrowth was large enough by this time to limit C<sub>4</sub> mid-grass production to a third of its potential. </p> <p><b>4.</b> <i>Nassella leucotricha</i> basal cover remained dominant and stable in woodland subcanopy microsites, even during drought, and only briefly declined in top-kill subcanopy microsites before returning to pre-treatment levels by year 8 as <i>P. glandulosa</i> regrowth increased and provided shade.</p> <p><b>5.</b> <i>Synthesis and applications</i>. A single suppression event had little impact on disrupting the<i> Prosopis</i>/<i>Nassella</i> association and allowing C<sub>4</sub> mid-grass recovery. The coupling of a deciduous, N-fixing C<sub>3</sub> woody species with this C<sub>3</sub> perennial grass may be a vegetative "state" that is resistant to multiple woody suppression disturbances, and permanently limits the transition back to C<sub>4</sub> grassland. </p>
Supplementary material 1 from: Yazlık A, Ambarlı D (2022) Do non-native and dominant native species carry a similar risk of invasiveness? A case study for plants in Turkey. In: Giannetto D, Piria M, Tarkan AS, Zięba G (Eds) Recent advancements in the risk screening of freshwater and terrestrial non-native species. NeoBiota 76: 53-72. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.76.85973
Tables S1–S3, Figure S1
Figure 2 in First record of the near threatened native seahorse Hippocampus reidi (Teleostei: Syngnathidae) in an ecosystem dominated by the invasive seagrass Halophila stipulacea in the Caribbean Sea
Figure 2. – Map of the study area with observation site; Madiana beach, Schoelcher, West coast of Martinique Island. June 2017.
Invasion promotes invasion: facilitation of C3 perennial grass dominance
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Negative impacts of dominance on bee communities: Does the influence of invasive honey bees differ from native bees?
<p>Invasive species can reach high abundances and dominate native environments. One of the most impressive examples of ecological invasions is the spread of the African sub-species of the honey bee throughout the Americas, starting from its introduction in a single locality in Brazil. The invasive honey bee is expected to more negatively impact bee community abundance and diversity than native dominant species, but this has not been tested previously. We developed a comprehensive and systematic bee sampling scheme, using a protocol deploying 11,520 pan traps across regions and crops for three years in Brazil. We found that invasive honey bees are now the single most dominant bee species. Such dominance has not only negative consequences for abundance and species richness of native bees but also for overall bee abundance (i.e., strong "numerical" effects of honey bees). Contrary to expectations, honey bees did not have stronger negative impacts than other native bees achieving similar levels of dominance (i.e., lack of negative "identity" effects of honey bees). These effects were remarkably consistent across crop species, seasons and years, and were independent from land-use effects. Dominance could be a proxy of bee community degradation and more generally of the severity of ecological invasions.</p>
Negative impacts of dominance on bee communities: Does the influence of invasive honey bees differ from native bees?
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
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.