Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 6 in Does dredging activity exert an influence on benthic macrofauna in tropical estuaries? Case study on the northern coast of Brazil

Fig. 6. Number of species, density and diversity of Shannon of the benthic macrofauna found in the Port Complex of SÃo LuÍs, MaranhÃo, Brazil: (A) Number of species, (B) Density, (C) Shannon diversity and (D) Lumbrineris sp.

Fig 5 in Does dredging activity exert an influence on benthic macrofauna in tropical estuaries? Case study on the northern coast of Brazil

Fig 5. Temporal and spatial variation of metals and semimetals concentrations (mg kg-1) in the sediment at SÃo LuÍs Harbor, MaranhÃo, Brazil: (A) Lead, (B) Copper, (C) Chrome, (D) Nickel, (E) Zinc and (F) Arsenic.

Fig. 2 in Does dredging activity exert an influence on benthic macrofauna in tropical estuaries? Case study on the northern coast of Brazil

Fig. 2. Temporal and spatial variation of sub superficial salinity (A), temperature (B), dissolved oxygen (C) and pH (D) at SÃo LuÍs Harbor, MaranhÃo, Brazil.

Fig. 1 in Does dredging activity exert an influence on benthic macrofauna in tropical estuaries? Case study on the northern coast of Brazil

Fig. 1. Map of the location of Port Complex of SÃo LuÍs, MaranhÃo, Brazil, indicating the eight sampling points.

Fig. 4 in Does dredging activity exert an influence on benthic macrofauna in tropical estuaries? Case study on the northern coast of Brazil

Fig. 4. Temporal and spatial variation of total iron (A), dissolved iron (B), manganese (C) and zinc (D) concentrations (mg kg-1) in the sub superficial water at SÃo LuÍs Harbor, MaranhÃo, Brazil. The thick black bar indicates the maximum allowed by resolution 357/05.

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2018View details →

Fig. 1 in Does the landscape surrounding streams affect the occurrence of freshwater crabs? A case study of the genus Aegla (Crustacea: Decapoda: Anomura) in subtropical basins

Fig. 1. Map of the study area in state of Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil showing land uses and the location of sampling sites (1 through 21) in the northern, central and southern regions.

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2018View details →

Fig. 3 in Does the landscape surrounding streams affect the occurrence of freshwater crabs? A case study of the genus Aegla (Crustacea: Decapoda: Anomura) in subtropical basins

Fig. 3. RDA between landscape uses, stream morphology, and abiotic factors that influence the distribution of Aegla in the study area, state of Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil.

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2018View details →

Fig. 2 in Does the landscape surrounding streams affect the occurrence of freshwater crabs? A case study of the genus Aegla (Crustacea: Decapoda: Anomura) in subtropical basins

Fig. 2. Boxplot of limnological differences (total nitrogen), stream morphometry hydro-geomorphological differences (Dm) and land use differences (agriculture/exposed soil and pasture) in the three regions (northern, central, and southern) of the study area, state of Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil. Different letters above boxes represent significant differences among groups.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2016View details →

Fig. 1 in Polyphasic growth in fish: a case study with Corydoras paleatus (Siluriformes, Callichthyidae)

Fig. 1. Length frequency distribution of Corydoras paleatus (Jenyns, 1842) – samples taken in November-December 2009 and March-April 2010, in Pinguela Lagoon, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2016View details →

Fig. 2 in Polyphasic growth in fish: a case study with Corydoras paleatus (Siluriformes, Callichthyidae)

Fig. 2. Gondossomatic Index (GSI) according to fish total length for Corydoras paleatus (Jenyns, 1842) – samples taken in November-December 2009 and March-April 2010, in Pinguela Lagoon, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (n=120). Gray dots: GSI individual measures; black dots: GSI median; solid black line: logistic regression for Lmat calculation; dotted line: estimated Lmat according to GSI (MARQUES et al., 2007).

Fig. 12 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study

Fig. 12. Historical synthesis of the taxonomic interpretation for the genus Phricodoceras from 1826 until today. Six options are considered: H?, no taxonomic attribution or attribution deliberately left undetermined; Eo, explicit attribution to Eoderoceratoidea or implicit proximity with some ammonites currently attributed to the Eoderoceratidae; Ko, explicit attribution to the Kosmoceratidae; Ly, explicit attribution to the Lytoceratoidea (in the current sense); Ps, explicit attribution to the Psiloceratoidea and proximity with the Schlotheimiidae; La, enigmatic lazarus taxon. A cross indicates an absence of attribution to a taxon. A single black dot suggests an implicit or explicit but very reserved attribution. Two black dots suggest an explicit but debatable attribution. Three black dots suggest an unconditional explicit attribution. Four black dots suggest an explicit attribution based on ontogenetic evidence. For easy reading, the two columns corresponding to the two most frequent taxonomic interpretations (i.e., Eo and Ps) are shaded.

Fig. 11 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study

Fig. 11. Habitus of some nodded, spined and/or tuberculate Lytoceratoidea (A) and Eoderoderatoidea (B–D). A. Analytoceras hermanni (Gümbel, 1861), Kammerkaralpe, Waidring, Tyrol, Austria, probably Late Hettangian (from Wähner 1894: pl. 3: 3a, b, modified), in ventral (A1) and lateral (A2) views. B. Epideroceras lorioli (Hug, 1899), St Peter's Field, Radstock, Somerset, UK, Echioceras raricostatum Chronozone, Paltechioceras aplanatum Subchronozone (from Edmunds et al. 2003: fig. 21. 4, modified), in lateral (B1) and apertural (B2) views. C. Tetraspidoceras repentinum Edmunds, 2009, St Peter's Field, Radstock, Somerset, UK, Uptonia jamesoni Chronozone, Phricodoceras taylori Subchronozone (from Edmunds 2009: pl. 32: 1, modified), in lateral (C1) and ventral (C2) views. D. Becheiceras bechei (Sowerby, 1821), Golden Cap, Seatown, Dorset, UK, Prodactylioceras davoei Chronozone, Oistoceras figulinum Subchronozone (from Edmunds 2009: pl. 38: 1, modified), in lateral (D1) and apertural (D2) views. Tubercles and/or spines in (t1) and/or (t2) positions of the Eoderoceratoidea (B–D) are not homologous with those of Phricodoceras, nevertheless this genus was long understood as a (borderline) member of this superfamily. In the case of Lytoceratoidea (A) the ornamental features in peri−siphonal position (pn3) are parabolic nodes which are morphologically clearly distinct from the tubercles or spines of both Eoderoceratoidea and Phricodoceras. The growth stage of the specimen is unknown.

Fig. 10 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study

Fig. 10. Schematic representation and comparison of the ontogenies of an Angulaticeras macroconch (A. boucaultianum) and of a Phricodoceras macroconch (P. lamellosum) in a simplified diagram taking into account the assumed mobility (x−axis) and the assumed passive shell protection (y−axis). These parameters cannot be fully expressed quantitatively. Mobility depends mainly on hydrodynamic abilities, which are correlated with shell geometry but also with some aspects of ornamentation. Marked ornamental traits may play an important role. For example a keel or a ventral groove may increase the hydrodynamic stability of the shell and thereby facilitate mobility, but prominent tubercles and/or spines may significantly increase hydrodynamic drag thereby reducing mobility. Conversely the prominence of ornamentation (chiefly of tubercles and/or spines) may be an effective passive protection against predators. Although highly schematic and hypothetical, such a diagram can be understood as an approximate representation of an "adaptative landscape" in which successive growth stages can be roughly situated. This "adaptative landscape" can be divided into four quadrants labeled A–D. The two studied species occupy only quadrants A (rather poor mobility but good passive shell protection) and C (good mobility but poor passive shell protection). In fact, only the juvenile growth stages of Phricodoceras lamellosum are situated in quadrant A but all the other growth stages, of both species, are in quadrant C. This pattern underlines the adaptative peculiarity of the juvenile growth stages of Phricodoceras.

Fig. 8 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study

Fig. 8. Septal suture lines of several Lytoceratoidea (A–D) and Eoderoceratoidea (E–H) for comparisons with those of the scholtheimiid ammonoids Angulaticeras and Phricodoceras (Fig. 7). A. Zaghouanites arcanum (Wiedenmayer, 1977) (from Rakús and Guex 2002: fig. 54e, modified). B. Eolytoceras tasekoi Frebold, 1967 (from Wiedmann 1970: text−fig. 9c, modified). C. Pleuroacanthites biformis (Sowerby in De La Beche, 1831) (from Canavari 1888: text–fig. 2.3, modified). D. Analytoceras gr. articulatum (Sowerby in De La Beche, 1831) (from Wiedmann 1970: text–fig. 8a, modified). E. Epideroceras planarmatum (Quenstedt, 1856) (from Schlatter 1980: beil. 15a, modified). F. Xipheroceras rasinodum (Quenstedt, 1884) (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 57, modified). G. Xipheroceras ziphus (Zieten, 1830) (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 56, modified). H. Eoderoceras bisbinigerum (Buckman, 1918) (from Schlegelmilch 1992: 62, modified). For each suture line the whorl height (wh) is indicated, if known. The main elements of the suture line are indicated by following abbreviations: E, external lobe; L, lateral lobe; U1, U2, umbilical lobes; I, internal lobe.

Fig. 7 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study

Fig. 7. Septal suture lines of several Schlotheimiidae belonging to the genera Phricodoceras (A–E) and Angulaticeras (F–J). A. Phricodoceras urkuticum (Géczy, 1959) (from Géczy 1976: fig. 49, modified). B. Phricodoceras taylori (Sowerby, 1826) (from Dommergues 2003: fig. 6A, modified). C. Phricodoceras taylori (from Dommergues 2003: fig. 6B, modified). D. Phricodoceras taylori (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 61, modified). E. Phricodoceras gr. taylori (Sowerby, 1826) (from Schlatter 1990: fig. 3, modified). F. Angulaticeras martinischmidti (Lange, 1951) (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 38, modified). G. Angulaticeras charmassei (Orbigny, 1844) (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 38, modified). H. Angulaticeras densilobatum (Pompeckj, 1893) (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 39, modified). I. Angulaticeras lacunatum (J. Buckman, 1844) (from Schlegelmilch 1976, 38, modified). J. Angulaticeras rumpens (Oppel, 1862) (from Schlegelmilch 1976: 39, modified). For each suture line the whorl height (wh) is indicated, if known. The main elements of the suture line are indicated by following abbreviations: E, external lobe; L, lateral lobe; U1, U2, umbilical lobes; I, internal lobe.

Fig. 4 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study

Fig. 4. Position and terminology of the tubercles, spines and/or bullae on Phricodoceras shells (juvenile and/or microconch. A, B. Normal view. C, D. Shaded view with indication of the main ornamental structure outlines (white lines). Abbreviations: t1, latero−umbilical position; t2, latero−ventral position; t3, peri−siphonal position; us, umbilical seam; vb, ventral band.

Fig. 3 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study

Fig. 3. Microconch (m) / macroconch (M) dimorphism expressed by scholtheimiid ammonoid Phricodoceras exemplified by the NW Europe forms in the Uptonia jamesoni to Tragophylloceras ibex chronozones. A. Phricodoceras lamellosum (Orbigny, 1844) (M), UBGD 277451, Mazenay, Saône et Loire, France, probably early Uptonia jamesoni Chronozone, in apertural (A1), lateral (A2), and ventral (A3) views. B. Phricodoceras lamellosum (M), Kircheim unter Teck, Baden−Würtemberg, Germany, Early Pliensbachian (from Schlegelmilch 1976: pl. 27: 4, modified; original from Quenstedt 1884: pl. 28: 24), in apertural (B1), lateral (B2), and ventral (B3) views. C. Phricodoceras taylori (Sowerby, 1826) (m), Corbigny, Nièvre, France, Uptonia jamesoni Chronozone, Phricodoceras taylori Subchronozone (from Dommergues 2003: pl. 1: 4), in lateral view. D. Phricodoceras aff. cornutum (Simpson, 1843) (m), Fresnayle−Puceux, Calvados, France, Early Pliensbachian (from Dommergues et al. 2008: pl. 3: 6, modified), in ventral (D1) and lateral (D2) views. E. Phricodoceras taylori (m), Fresnay−le−Puceux, Calvados, France, Early Pliensbachian (from Dommergues et al. 2008: pl. 3: 5, modified), in ventral (E1) and lateral (E2) views. The two specimens corresponding to A, B are incomplete phragmocones (juvenile or immature shells) but the three corresponding to C–E are adult microconchs with the major part of the body chamber. The end of the phragmocone is starred. Notice the progressive ontogenetic transformation from tubercle (t3) to faint shoulder (s3) in specimen B. Abbreviations: t2, tubercle in latero−ventral position; t3, tubercle in peri−siphonal position; s3, shoulder peri−siphonal position.

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2008View details →

Fig. 9 in Morphological requirements in limulid and decapod gills: A case study in deducing the function of lamellipedian exopod lamellae

Fig. 9. Conceptual figure showing growth accompanied amplification of pyramidial shaped multi−foliated gills. A. Limulid type of gills with low−relief conical profile. B. Decapod type of gills with high relief.

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2008View details →

Fig. 8 in Morphological requirements in limulid and decapod gills: A case study in deducing the function of lamellipedian exopod lamellae

Fig. 8. Body−weight specific lamellar numbers and average single lamellar area in bi−logarithmic coefficients. A. Bi−logarithmic graph of total number of lamellae with respect to dry−body weight in Limulus polyphemus (close circle), Tachypleus rotundicauda (open circle), Callinectes sapidus (solid square) and Libinia dubia (open square). B. Results of allometric analysis shown in Fig. 5A. Sample size (N), correlation coefficient (r), reduced major axis of logW = αlogNL + logβ, and K = α – α / [(s)2 + (s)2]1/2 where s is the standard deviation of α. K is a statistic with the standard normal distribution used for 1 2 α1 α2 α discrimination of the differences of α significant or not. If K>1.96 or K <−1.96, the difference is significant. See also Fig. 7 for the abbreviations of W and NL. C. Bi−logarithmic graph of average area per lamella with respect to dry−body weight. Abbreviations as in Fig. 5A. D. Results of allometric analysis shown in Fig. 5C. Same abbreviations as in Fig. 5B. The data of two decapods are referred to Hughes (1983), which presented average, maximum and minimum specific dry−body weight and lamellar number among the examined samples as well as α and logβ of the allometric analysis with respect to their dry−body weight. Readers are referred to the results of T. rotundicauda as reference data, because too small numbers have been examined. This is to show the trend that the results of a species fall in a neighboring area to that of a taxonomically close species.