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.
65
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
65 results for “Land management”
OpenET model data for assessing the accuracy of OpenET satellite-based evapotranspiration data to support water resource and land management applications
<h2>Overview</h2> <p>This dataset includes daily and monthly evapotranspiration (ET) data from the remote sensing models that comprise the [OpenET](https://openetdata.org/) ensemble as described in Melton et al., 2022 (https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12956); these data were extracted at specific locations within the contiguous United States that coincide with *in situ* measurement stations, including eddy covaraiance, Bowen-ratio, and lysimeter stations. Model ET data where extracted at each site in this dataset using flux footprints as described in Volk et al., (2023) (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2023.109307). These model data alongside the corresponding *in situ* ET data (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2023.109274) were subsequently used in the manuscript for the OpenET Phase II Intercomparison and Accuracy Assessment (https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-023-00181-7). </p> <h3><br>Description of the data and file structure</h3> <p>The dataset is in a compressed (zipped) archive titled "OpenET_PhaseII_model_ET_dataset", so first it needs to be downloaded and extracted. The dataset is comprised of just three files. The first file is a Microsoft Excel file "Station_metadata.xlsx" that contains information about the *in situ* ET measurement stations where the OpenET model data was extracted. This file contains information such as site ID's, coordinates, land cover information, and site principal investigator (PI) contact information. Again, the corresponding *in situ* ET data are not included in this dataset. The other two files are tab-delimited text files containing timeseries the OpenET model data themselves, namely the daily ET [mm/day] and monthly ET [mm/month] as extracted for each model and the ensemble value as used in the OpenET Phase II Intercomparison and Accuracy Assessment. </p> <h3><br>Access information and code/software</h3> <p>OpenET data that was used here was produced using operational methods that are implemented on the Google Earth Engine platform. Monthly OpenET model data can be retrieved through Google Earth Data Catalog (e.g., https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/OpenET_ENSEMBLE_CONUS_GRIDMET_MONTHLY_v2_0) or through the [online data explorer](https://openetdata.org/) or using the [OpenET API](https://openetdata.org/api-info/).</p>
Supplementary material 1 from: Unterweger PA, Klammer J, Unger M, Betz O (2018) Insect hibernation on urban green land: a winter-adapted mowing regime as a management tool for insect conservation. BioRisk 13: 1-29. https://doi.org/10.3897/biorisk.13.22316
Table with all captured species / morphotypes sorted by order, family and species / morphotype. : Explanation note: Collection: University of Tübingen, Evolutionary Biology of Invertebrates, Auf der Morgenstelle 28, 72076 Tübingen, Germany. Individuals with scientific species name that were checked by a taxonomic expert were counted as taxonomic species (s); all the other determinations were counted as morphotypes (m). Morphotypes are defined by the lowest practical taxonomic level (e.g. Hanula et al. 2009; Kutschbach-Brohl et al. 2010). In some cases, the family or the morphometric body length (in mm, numbers in column C, Mini: smaller than 1 mm) was counted as a morphotype (Daly 1985). In cases for which the determination was not validated by a taxonomic expert, our species determination was checked for plausibility in terms of its geographical occurrence via the Entomofauna Germanica (http://www.colkat.de, 2017.11.06). Alternatively (if no taxonomic name could be found), a classification letter / number was assigned for a morphotype. The provided author name refers to the lowest practical taxonomic level (e.g. Hanula et al. 2009; Kutschbach-Brohl et al. 2010). Validation: name of scientific expert who checked the taxonomic determination. Management type of meadow in autumn: mown /unmown. Plant compartment: flower head, stem, tuft, leaves. All numbers represent total sums of all sample sites over the entire study period. Brown-labelled species names are thought to have hibernated in the soil. Green-labelled species names could only be found in flower heads and stems. Black-labelled species occurred in all plant compartments without any preference for a specific plant compartment.
Effectiveness of agri-environmental management on pollinators is moderated more by ecological contrast than by landscape structure or land-use intensity
<p>Study dataset</p>
Figure 4 in Shell surface adaptations in relation to water management in rockdwelling land snails, Albinaria (Pulmonata: Clausiliidae)
Figure 4. Means ¡95% confidence intervals of activation time for smooth and ribbed Albinaria snails.
Figure 3 in Shell surface adaptations in relation to water management in rockdwelling land snails, Albinaria (Pulmonata: Clausiliidae)
Figure 3. Means ¡95% confidence intervals of (a) water gain; (b) water loss and (c) proportion of retained water, for smooth and ribbed Albinaria shells after removing the effect of length (and water gain in b).
Figure 2 in Shell surface adaptations in relation to water management in rockdwelling land snails, Albinaria (Pulmonata: Clausiliidae)
Figure 2. (a) Relation between shell length and dry weight for ribbed and smooth Albinaria snails; (b) means ¡95% confidence intervals of dry weight for smooth and ribbed Albinaria shells after removing the effect of length.
Greater Prairie-chicken data used in "Responses to land cover and grassland management vary across life-history stages for a grassland specialist"
<p>Grassland birds have exhibited dramatic and widespread declines since the mid-20th century. Greater Prairie-Chickens (<i>Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus</i>) are considered an umbrella species for grassland conservation and are frequent targets of management, but their responses to land use and management can be quite variable. We used data collected during 2007-2009 and 2014-2015 to investigate effects of land use and grassland management practices on habitat selection and survival rates of Greater Prairie-Chickens in central Wisconsin, USA. We examined habitat, nest-site, and brood-rearing site selection by hens and modeled effects of land cover and management on survival rates of hens, nests, and broods. Prairie-chickens consistently selected grassland over other cover types, but selection or avoidance of management practices varied among life-history stages. Hen, nest, and brood survival rates were influenced by different land cover types and management practices. At the landscape scale, hens selected areas where brush and trees had been removed during the previous year, which increased hen survival. Hens selected nest sites in hay fields and brood-rearing sites in burned areas, but prescribed fire had a negative influence on hen survival. Brood survival rates were positively associated with grazing and were highest when home ranges contained ≈15-20% shrub/tree cover. The effects of landscape composition on nest survival were ambiguous. Collectively, our results highlight the importance of evaluating responses to management efforts across a range of life history stages, and suggest that a variety of management practices are likely necessary to provide structurally heterogeneous, high-quality habitat for Greater Prairie-Chickens. Brush and tree removal, grazing, hay cultivation, and prescribed fire may be especially beneficial for prairie-chickens in central Wisconsin, but trade-offs among life-history stages and the timing of management practices must be considered carefully.</p>
Dataset for "Responses of Soil Greenhouse Gas Fluxes to Land Management in Forests and Grasslands : A Global Meta-analysis"
<p>This dataset archives the original data for the study "Responses of Soil Greenhouse Gases Fluxes to Land Management in Forests and Grasslands: A Global Meta-analysis".</p>
Data from: Land management practices associated with house loss in wildfires
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Flower resource and land management drives hoverfly communities and bee abundance in semi-natural and agricultural grasslands
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Gene flow and population structure of a common agricultural wild species (Microtus agrestis) under different land management regimes
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Land management modulates the environmental controls on global earthworm communities
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Greater Prairie-chicken data used in "Responses to land cover and grassland management vary across life-history stages for a grassland specialist"
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Paying for conservation: a bioeconomic analysis of the effects of land management options on the viability of an endangered species, Eryngium alpinum
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Patterns of rangeland productivity and land ownership: implications for conservation and management
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Runoff modeling of a coastal basin to assess variations in response to shifting climate and land use: Implications for managed recharge
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Prioritizing land management efforts at a landscape scale: a case study using prescribed fire in Wisconsin
One challenge in the effort to conserve biodiversity is identifying where to prioritize resources for active land management. Cost-benefit analyses have been used successfully as a conservation tool to identify sites that provide the greatest conservation benefit per unit cost. Our goal was to apply cost-benefit analysis to the question of how to prioritize land management efforts, in our case the application of prescribed fire to natural landscapes in Wisconsin, USA. We quantified and mapped frequently burned communities, and prioritized management units based on a suite of indices that captured ecological benefits, management effort, and the feasibility of successful long-term management actions. Data for these indices came from LANDFIRE, Wisconsin's Wildlife Action Plan, and a nationwide Wildland Urban Interface assessment. We found that the majority of frequently burned vegetation types occurred in the southern portion of the state. However, the highest-priority areas for applying prescribed fire occurred in the central, northwest, and northeast portion of the state where frequently burned vegetation patches were larger and where identified areas of high biological importance area occurred. Although our focus was on the use of prescribed fire in Wisconsin, our methods can be adapted to prioritize other land management activities. Such prioritization is necessary to achieve the greatest possible benefits from limited funding for land management actions, and our results show that it is feasible at scales that are relevant for land management decisions.
Data from: An ecosystem services perspective on brush management: research priorities for competing land use objectives
1. The vegetation of semi-arid and arid landscapes is often comprised of mixtures of herbaceous and woody vegetation. Since the early 1900s, shifts from herbaceous to woody plant dominance, termed woody plant encroachment and widely regarded as a state change, have occurred world-wide. This shift presents challenges to the conservation of grassland and savanna ecosystems and to animal production in commercial ranching systems and pastoral societies. 2. Dryland management focused on cattle and sheep grazing has historically attempted to reduce the abundance of encroaching woody vegetation (hereafter, 'brush management') with the intent of reversing declines in forage production, stream flow or groundwater recharge. Here, we assess the known and potential consequences of brush management actions, both positive and negative, on a broader suite of ecosystem services, the scientific challenges to quantifying these services and the trade-offs among them. 3. Our synthesis suggests that despite considerable investments accompanying the application of brush management practices, the recovery of key ecosystem services may be short-lived or absent. However, in the absence of such interventions, those and other ecosystem services may be compromised, and the persistence of grassland and savanna ecosystem types and their endemic plants and animals threatened. 4. Addressing the challenges posed by woody plant encroachment will require integrated management systems using diverse theoretical principles to design the type, timing and spatial arrangement of initial management actions and follow-up treatments. These management activities will need to balance cultural traditions and preferences, socio-economic constraints and potentially competing land-use objectives. 5. Synthesis. Our ability to predict ecosystem responses to management aimed at recovering ecosystem services where grasslands and savannas have been invaded by native or exotic woody plants is limited for many attributes (e.g. primary production, land surface–atmosphere interactions, biodiversity conservation) and inconsistent for others (e.g. forage production, herbaceous diversity, water quality/quantity, soil erosion, carbon sequestration). The ecological community is challenged with generating robust information about the response of ecosystem services and their interactions if we are to position land managers and policymakers to make objective, science-based decisions regarding the many trade-offs and competing objectives for the conservation and dynamic management of grasslands and savannas.
Fig. 2 in Land management and biodiversity maintenance: a case study in grasslands in the Coastal Plain of Rio Grande do Sul
Fig. 2. Jaccard index showing similarity and plant species shared between the four grassland. São Lourenço do Sul, RS. GSB = grassland soybean/ ryegrass, GRC = grassland rice/livestock. GR1 = grassland extensive livestock breeding 1, GR2 = grassland extensive livestock breeding 2.
Soil carbon stocks in sugarcane cultivation: an evidence synthesis associated with land use and management practices
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.