Find research datasets worth reusing

Figure 2 in Sex-related differences in the postmolt distribution of Weddell seals (Leptonychotes weddellii) in the southern Weddell Sea

Figure 2. Weddell seal tracks created by interpolating estimated dive positions in time. Coastline and contours from Arndt et al. (2013) and bathymetry from ETOPO1 1 Arc-Minute Global Relief Model (Amante and Eakins 2009). Projection: Polar Stereographic. Datum: World Geodetic 1984 (WGS84).

Figure 5 in Sex-related differences in the postmolt distribution of Weddell seals (Leptonychotes weddellii) in the southern Weddell Sea

Figure 5. Resident time (the proportion of dives allocated a resident behavioral state from the state-space model taken from Bestley et al. 2015) for five male and eight female Weddell seals in region A (shallow water in the shelf), region B (deep water Filchner Trough), region C (continental shelf edge), and region D (deep water off the shelf).

Figure 1b in Sex-related differences in the postmolt distribution of Weddell seals (Leptonychotes weddellii) in the southern Weddell Sea

Figure 1b. Four regions categorized by chart contours and bathymetry. Region A is south of 74°200S and <600 m, region B is south of 74°200S and ≥600 m, region C is north of 74°400S and <2,000 m and region D is north of 74°400S and ≥2,000 m. Coastline and contours from Arndt et al. (2013) and bathymetry from ETOPO1 1 Arc-Minute Global Relief Model (Amante and Eakins 2009). Projection: Polar Stereographic. Datum: World Geodetic 1984 (WGS84).

Figure 1a in Sex-related differences in the postmolt distribution of Weddell seals (Leptonychotes weddellii) in the southern Weddell Sea

Figure 1a. Study area showing postmolt range of Weddell seals tagged with CTD-SRDLs during 2011 deployment. Axes include data on both latitude and longitude. Minimum ice extent data from January 2011 and maximum ice extent data from June 2011 (Fetterer et al. 2002). Coastline and contours from Arnt et al. (2013) and bathymetry from ETOPO1 1 Arc-Minute Global Relief Model (Amante and Eakins 2009). Projection: Polar Stereographic. Datum: World Geodetic 1984 (WGS84).

Figure 4 in Sex-related differences in the postmolt distribution of Weddell seals (Leptonychotes weddellii) in the southern Weddell Sea

Figure 4. Bathymetry in meters associated with each estimated dive position for 9 males and 10 females. Bathymetry data were extracted from ETOPO1 1 Arc-Minute Global Relief Model (Amante and Eakins 2009).

Fig. 2 in A Different Perspective on Sex Dimorphism in the Adult Hermann's Tortoise: Geometric Morphometry.

Fig. 2. Dorsal view of landmarks used for the carapace. A, Landmark points used on the photo. B, The differences between females and males are indicated by landmarks (MorphoJ). The round marks represent the female, and extensions from those marks indicate the direction and changes in the male turtles.

Fig. 5. 95 in A Different Perspective on Sex Dimorphism in the Adult Hermann's Tortoise: Geometric Morphometry.

Fig. 5. 95% confidence ellipses for plastron landmarks (used past, Version 2.17c). PC1-PC2 and PC1-PC3. Blue dots are male; red dots are female. Table 1. The length ratios of three interscute sutures in the midline of the Hermann's tortoise plastron

Fig. 4 in A Different Perspective on Sex Dimorphism in the Adult Hermann's Tortoise: Geometric Morphometry.

Fig. 4. Dorsal view of landmarks used for the plastron. A, Landmark points used on the photo. B, The differences between females and males are indicated by landmarks (MorphoJ). The round marks represent the female, and extensions from those marks indicate the direction and changes in the male turtles.

Fig. 3. 95 in A Different Perspective on Sex Dimorphism in the Adult Hermann's Tortoise: Geometric Morphometry.

Fig. 3. 95% confidence ellipses for carapace landmarks (used past, Version 2.17c). PC1-PC2 and PC1-PC3. Blue dots are male; red dots are female.

opencc-by-4.0Jan 2017View details →

Figure 1. DNA extraction with two different protocols from different noninvasive samples. Lines 1, 3, 5 in Evaluation of methods for molecular sex-typing of three heron species from different DNA sources

Figure 1. DNA extraction with two different protocols from different noninvasive samples. Lines 1, 3, 5, and 7: DNA extraction with commercial kit; Lines 2, 4, 6, and 8: DNA extracted with modified standard protocol. Lines 1–2: eggshells (Grey Heron); lines 3–4: eggshell swabs (Grey Heron); lines 5–6: pin feathers (Purple Heron); lines 7–8: contour feathers (Great Egret); 9: negative control; M: molecular marker.

opencc-by-4.0Jan 2017View details →

Figure 2. Heron sex-typing with 2550F in Evaluation of methods for molecular sex-typing of three heron species from different DNA sources

Figure 2. Heron sex-typing with 2550F/2718R primers. Lines 1–7: Purple Heron nestlings, males (600 bp for Z chromosome); 8–10: Great Egret nestlings, females (600 bp for Z chromosome and 450 bp for W chromosome); 11: negative control; M: molecular marker.

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2017View details →

Figure. Location of the study area in the Czech Republic near Nové Losiny village (marked by star), delimitation of the studied meadows and placement of pan-traps transects within them. in Comparison of two methods for sampling orthopterans in grassland: differences in species representation and sex ratios

Figure. Location of the study area in the Czech Republic near Nové Losiny village (marked by star), delimitation of the studied meadows and placement of pan-traps transects within them.

Fig. 7 in A geometric morphometric study of sex differences in the scapula, humerus and ulna of Chaetophractus villosus (Xenarthra, Dasypodidae)

Fig. 7. Ulna. Distribution of males (black dots) and females (white dots) of Chaetophractus villosus (Desmarest, 1804) in the plane determined by the first two relative warps (RW1 and RW2). Numbers indicate specimens. Deformation grids below the graph show shape changes linked to negative (left) and positive (right) scores in RW1. Grids on the right show deformations linked to negative (below) and positive (above) scores in RW2.

Fig. 6 in A geometric morphometric study of sex differences in the scapula, humerus and ulna of Chaetophractus villosus (Xenarthra, Dasypodidae)

Fig. 6. Scatterplot for the ulna of Chaetophractus villosus (Desmarest, 1804), showing the distribution of the individuals in the plane formed by the two first principal components. The black outlines below the plot represent the shape variation associated to PC1, and those of the right show the changes associated to PC2 with respect to the consensus of the species (grey outlines).

Fig. 4 in A geometric morphometric study of sex differences in the scapula, humerus and ulna of Chaetophractus villosus (Xenarthra, Dasypodidae)

Fig. 4. Humerus. Distribution of males (black dots) and females (white dots) of Chaetophractus villosus (Desmarest, 1804) in the plane determined by the first two relative warps (RW1 and RW2). Numbers indicate specimens. Deformation grids below the graph show shape changes linked to negative (left) and positive (right) scores in RW1. Grids on the right show deformations linked to negative (below) and positive (above) scores in RW2.

Fig. 3 in A geometric morphometric study of sex differences in the scapula, humerus and ulna of Chaetophractus villosus (Xenarthra, Dasypodidae)

Fig. 3. Scatterplot for the humerus of Chaetophractus villosus (Desmarest, 1804), showing the distribution of the individuals in the plane formed by the two first principal components. The black outlines below the plot represent the shape variation associated to PC1, and those of the right show the changes associated to PC2 with respect to the consensus of the species (grey outlines).

Fig. 2 in A geometric morphometric study of sex differences in the scapula, humerus and ulna of Chaetophractus villosus (Xenarthra, Dasypodidae)

Fig. 2. Canonical analysis for the humerus of males and females of Chaetophractus villosus (Desmarest, 1804). The bone outlines below the graph represent the tendencies to deformation in males and females (black dots and lines) with respect to the consensus of the species (grey dots and lines) along the axis.

Fig. 1 in A geometric morphometric study of sex differences in the scapula, humerus and ulna of Chaetophractus villosus (Xenarthra, Dasypodidae)

Fig. 1. Landmarks digitised on the left appendicular bones of Chaetophractus villosus (Desmarest, 1804). Scapula in dorsal view; humerus in caudal view; ulna in lateral view.

Fig. 5 in A geometric morphometric study of sex differences in the scapula, humerus and ulna of Chaetophractus villosus (Xenarthra, Dasypodidae)

Fig. 5. Canonical analysis for the ulna of males and females of Chaetophractus villosus (Desmarest, 1804). The bone outlines below the graph represent extreme individuals (black dots and lines) with respect to the consensus of the species (grey dots and lines) along the axis.