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.
71
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
71 results for “habitat restoration”
Soundscape enrichment enhances recruitment and habitat building on new oyster reef restorations
<p>Biogenic marine soundscapes provide important navigational cues to dispersing larvae in search of suitable habitat. Yet, widespread habitat loss has degraded marine soundscapes and their functional role in recruitment. Habitat restorations can provide suitable substrate for habitat regeneration, such as reefs constructed to facilitate recruitment and habitat growth by oysters, but typically occur where soundscapes are degraded and recruitment limited. Enhancing marine soundscapes on newly constructed reefs using speaker technology may ensure sufficient recruitment to establish a trajectory of recovery for the desired habitat.</p> <p>Across two of the largest oyster reef restorations in Australia, we deployed speakers at four sites and at three times throughout the recruitment season to test whether soundscape enhancement could boost recruitment and habitat building by oysters. In the presence and absence of soundscape playback, we compared oyster recruitment rates to settlement panels across space and time, and oyster habitat formation on newly constructed boulder reefs.</p> <p>On the settlement panels deployed across the two reef restorations, soundscape playback significantly increased oyster recruitment at 8 of the 10 sites by an average (±1SE) 5.1 ± 1.9 times (5,281 ± 1,384 more larvae per m2), and by as much as 18 times.</p> <p>On boulders atop newly constructed reefs, where the restoration goal is for oysters to form three-dimensional habitat, the surface area covered by oysters after 5 months did not differ between speaker and control treatments. However, soundscape playback appeared to influence the earlier recruitment of oysters, resulting in significantly more large oysters per boulder that formed significantly more three-dimensional habitat building by an average 4.3 ± 1.2 times relative to non-speaker controls.</p> <p>Synthesis and applications. Our results show that using speakers to enhance marine soundscapes boosts the number of oyster recruits, resulting in more larger oysters that form more three-dimensional habitat atop reef restorations. In accelerating the formation of these vertical growth forms, which provide the ecological functions that motivate restoration efforts, the early application of speaker technology on new reef restorations may help steer ecological succession on a trajectory of desired habitat recovery, potentially reducing the substantial cost of ongoing intervention.</p>
Data from: Intra-specific variation in responses to habitat restoration: Could artificial reefs increase spatiotemporal segregation between migratory phenotypes of lake sturgeon?
<p>Habitat restoration is an important tool used to conserve biodiversity and restore species, but its effects are notoriously difficult to predict. Although outcomes of restoration projects are usually assessed using indices of species abundance and diversity, phenotypic differences among individuals within species are likely associated with differing responses to restored habitats. Here, we use lake sturgeon (<span>Acipenser fulvescens</span>) as a case study to illustrate how responses to habitat restoration can differ between phenotypes and potentially lead to unanticipated effects on populations. North America<span>'</span>s St. Clair River supports one of the largest remaining populations of lake sturgeon but has lost much spawning habitat due to its role as a major industrial corridor between the Laurentian Great Lakes Erie and Huron. Two artificial reefs were recently built in the lower and middle segments of the river to increase the available sturgeon spawning habitat. Interestingly, lake sturgeon in the St. Clair River express different migratory phenotypes that may be associated with different likelihoods of colonizing artificial reefs. Acoustic telemetry revealed that artificial reefs were more likely to be used by sturgeon that migrated downstream to overwinter in Lake St. Clair than those that migrated upstream to overwinter in Lake Huron. Furthermore, increasing time spent at the artificial reefs by Lake St. Clair migrants was associated with later arrival to and shorter occupancy of the river<span>'</span>s only natural spawning site, the primary location where the two phenotypes have opportunity to interbreed. Additional research is necessary to determine the ultimate impacts of the artificial reefs on lake sturgeon populations; nevertheless, our study showed phenotype-specific opportunity to colonize restored habitat and a mechanism through which this could lead to changes in gene flow. Our results illustrate the importance of considering intra-specific diversity when planning restoration projects and assessing the effects on populations.</p>
Data from: Cultural burden of wild pet ownership causes selective parrot defaunation despite habitat restoration efforts in Costa Rica
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Habitat restoration promotes pollinator persistence and colonization in intensively managed agriculture
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Enhanced ecosystem functioning following stream restoration: the roles of habitat heterogeneity and invertebrate species traits
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Influence of beaver mimicry restoration on habitat availability for fishes, including Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus)
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Intra-specific variation in responses to habitat restoration: Could artificial reefs increase spatiotemporal segregation between migratory phenotypes of lake sturgeon?
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data Archival for Economic Cost Modeling of Chinook Habitat Restoration in the Stillaguamish River Basin
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Rapid adaptive phenotypic change following colonization of a newly restored habitat
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Mechanism matters: the cause of fluctuations in boom-bust populations governs optimal habitat restoration strategy
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Coastal Habitat Restoration Survey
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Riparian habitat restoration increases the availability and occupancy of Yellow-breasted Chat territories but brood parasitism is the primary influence on reproductive performance
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Habitat restoration benefits wild bees: a meta-analysis
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Recolonization after habitat restoration leads to decreased genetic variation in populations of a terrestrial orchid
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Bat overpasses: an insufficient solution to restore habitat connectivity across roads
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Soundscape enrichment enhances recruitment and habitat building on new oyster reef restorations
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Maximizing the value of forest restoration for tropical mammals by detecting three-dimensional habitat associations
<b>Description: </b><p>Species detection data for 28 medium-large mammal species obtained using camera trap methods across a logging-induced degradation gradient. Cameras were deployed using a paired design across 74 sampling locations. Data were used to explore species-habitat associations with LiDAR-derived measures of forest structure.</p><p><b>Project: </b>This dataset was collected as part of the following SAFE research project: <a href="https://www.safeproject.net/projects/project_view/26"><b>Understanding covariation between mammalian diversity and forest carbon across a human-modified tropical landscape</b></a></p><p><b>Funding: </b>These data were collected as part of research funded by: </p><ul><li>NERC (Standard grant, NE/K016407/1, <a href="http://gotw.nerc.ac.uk/list_full.asp?pcode=NE%2FK016407%2F1&classtype=ENRIs&classification=Biodiversity&cookieConsent=A">http://gotw.nerc.ac.uk/list_full.asp?pcode=NE%2FK016407%2F1&classtype=ENRIs&classification=Biodiversity&cookieConsent=A</a>)</li></ul><p>This dataset is released under the CC-BY 4.0 licence, requiring that you cite the dataset in any outputs, but has the additional condition that you acknowledge the contribution of these funders in any outputs.</p><p></p><p><b>XML metadata: </b>GEMINI compliant metadata for this dataset is available <a href="https://www.safeproject.net/datasets/xml_metadata?id=4010757">here</a></p><p><b>Files: </b>This consists of 1 file: DeereEtAl2020_PNAS.xlsx</p><p><b>DeereEtAl2020_PNAS.xlsx</b></p><p>This file contains dataset metadata and 2 data tables:</p><ol><li><p><b>Site metadata and deployment details</b> (described in worksheet Deployment)</p><p>Description: Details of sampling locations, operational dates and survey effort for each camera trap station (N=126)</p><p>Number of fields: 9</p><p>Number of data rows: 126</p><p>Fields: </p><ul><li><b>Site_ID</b>: Unique alphanumeric identifier of the location camera traps were deployed (Field type: location)</li><li><b>Habitat_Class</b>: Forest condition relative to logging-indiced degradation. Follows Putz and Redford Classification scheme (Putz, Francis E., and Kent H. Redford. "The importance of defining 'forest': tropical forest degradation, deforestation, long‐term phase shifts, and further transitions." Biotropica 42.1 (2010): 10-20) (Field type: categorical)</li><li><b>Latitude</b>: Geographic coordinate of camera trap location (Field type: latitude)</li><li><b>Longitude</b>: Geographic coordinate of camera trap location (Field type: longitude)</li><li><b>Date_On</b>: Date camera traps were deployed (Field type: date)</li><li><b>Time_On</b>: Time camera traps were deployed (Field type: time)</li><li><b>Date_Off</b>: Date camera traps were collected (Field type: date)</li><li><b>Time_Off</b>: Time camera traps were collected (Field type: time)</li><li><b>CTNs</b>: Total survey effort for camera trap station (Field type: numeric)</li></ul></li><li><p><b>Species detection data</b> (described in worksheet Detection)</p><p>Description: Raw camera trap detection data for 28 medium-large mammal species obtained from 126 camera trap stations deployed using a paired design across 74 sampling locations </p><p>Number of fields: 7</p><p>Number of data rows: 29008</p><p>Fields: </p><ul><li><b>Site</b>: Unique alphanumeric identifier of the location camera traps were deployed (Field type: location)</li><li><b>common_name</b>: Mammal species identifier (Field type: taxa)</li><li><b>Sp_ID</b>: Numeric species identifier, used to coerce dataframe into a 4D array (Field type: id)</li><li><b>Site_ID</b>: Numeric site identifier, used to coerce dataframe into a 4D array (Field type: id)</li><li><b>Spatial_Rep</b>: Spatial replicate indicative of the number of camera trap stations deployed at a site. Also used to coerce dataframe into a 4d array (Field type: replicate)</li><li><b>Temporal_Rep</b>: Temporal replicate, each comprising six camera trap nights (Field type: replicate)</li><li><b>Detection</b>: Presence/absence of species during survey period (Field type: abundance)</li></ul></li></ol><p><b>Date range: </b>2014-06-20 to 2017-10-09</p><p><b>Latitudinal extent: </b>4.5536 to 4.8121</p><p><b>Longitudinal extent: </b>117.4122 to 117.7398</p><p><b>Taxonomic coverage: </b><br> All taxon names are validated against the GBIF backbone taxonomy. If a dataset uses a synonym, the accepted usage is shown followed by the dataset usage in brackets. Taxa that cannot be validated, including new species and other unknown taxa, morphospecies, functional groups and taxonomic levels not used in the GBIF backbone are shown in square brackets.</p><div> -  Animalia <br> -  -  Chordata <br> -  -  -  Mammalia <br> -  -  -  -  Rodentia <br> -  -  -  -  -  Sciuridae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Rheithrosciurus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Rheithrosciurus macrotis</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  Hystricidae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Hystrix</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Hystrix brachyura</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Hystrix crassispinis</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Trichys</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Trichys fasciculata</i> <br> -  -  -  -  Proboscidea <br> -  -  -  -  -  Elephantidae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Elephas</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Elephas maximus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  Carnivora <br> -  -  -  -  -  Viverridae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Viverra</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Viverra tangalunga</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Arctictis</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Arctictis binturong</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Paradoxurus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Paradoxurus hermaphroditus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Hemigalus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Hemigalus derbyanus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Paguma</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Paguma larvata</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  Felidae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Pardofelis</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Pardofelis marmorata</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Prionailurus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Prionailurus bengalensis</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Neofelis</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Neofelis diardi</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  Mustelidae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Martes</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Martes flavigula</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  Ursidae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Helarctos</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Helarctos malayanus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  Herpestidae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Herpestes</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Herpestes brachyurus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  Mephitidae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Mydaus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Mydaus javanensis</i> <br> -  -  -  -  Primates <br> -  -  -  -  -  Cercopithecidae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Macaca</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Macaca fascicularis</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Macaca nemestrina</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  Hominidae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Pongo</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Pongo pygmaeus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  Artiodactyla <br> -  -  -  -  -  Suidae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Sus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Sus barbatus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  Tragulidae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Tragulus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Tragulus napu</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Tragulus kanchil</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  Cervidae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Muntiacus</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Muntiacus atherodes</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Muntiacus muntjak</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Rusa</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Rusa unicolor</i> <br> -  -  -  -  Pholidota <br> -  -  -  -  -  Manidae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Manis</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Manis javanica</i> <br> -  -  -  -  Erinaceomorpha <br> -  -  -  -  -  Erinaceidae <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Echinosorex</i> <br> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  <i>Echinosorex gymnura</i> <br></div><p></p>
Data from: Contrasting the roles of section length and instream habitat enhancement for river restoration success: a field study on 20 European restoration projects
1. Restoration of river hydromorphology often has limited detected effects on river biota. One frequently discussed reason is that the restored river length is insufficient to allow populations to develop and give the room for geomorphologic processes to occur. 2. We investigated ten pairs of restored river sections of which one was a large project involving a long, intensively restored river section and one represented a smaller restoration effort. The restoration effect was quantified by comparing each restored river section to an upstream non-restored section. We sampled the following response variables: habitat composition in the river and its floodplain, three aquatic organism groups (aquatic macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish), two floodplain-inhabiting organism groups (floodplain vegetation, ground beetles), as well as food web composition and land–water interactions reflected by stable isotopes. 3. For each response variable, we compared the difference in dissimilarity of the restored and nearby non-restored section between the larger and the smaller restoration projects. In a second step, we regrouped the pairs and compared restored sections with large changes in substrate composition to those with small changes. 4. When comparing all restored to all non-restored sections, ground beetles were most strongly responding to restoration, followed by fish, floodplain vegetation, benthic invertebrates and aquatic macrophytes. Aquatic habitats and stable isotope signatures responded less strongly. 5. When grouping the restored sections by project size, there was no difference in the response to restoration between the projects targeting long and short river sections with regard to any of the measured response variables except nitrogen isotopic composition. In contrast, when grouping the restored sections by substrate composition, the responses of fish, benthic invertebrates, aquatic macrophytes, floodplain vegetation and nitrogen isotopic composition were greater in sections with larger changes in substrate composition as compared to those with smaller changes. 6. Synthesis and applications. The effects of hydromorphological restoration measures on aquatic and floodplain biota strongly depend on the creation of habitat for aquatic organisms, which were limited or not present prior to restoration. These positive effects on habitats are not necessarily related to the restored river length. Therefore, we recommend a focus on habitat enhancement in river restoration projects.
FIGURE 3 in Short-term response of fish assemblages to instream habitat restoration in heavily impacted streams
FIGURE 3 | Physical changes in stream reaches: A. Picture of the buried structure in P2; B. P3 stream reach at the beginning of the experiment; C. P3 stream reach at the end of the experiment, illustrating organic matter retention by the woody structure; D. macrophytes retention by wire in P8; E. growth of periphyton on the wood; F. growth of algae on the wood.
FIGURE 2 in Short-term response of fish assemblages to instream habitat restoration in heavily impacted streams
FIGURE 2 | Details of the structure used in the experiment. A. top view; B. side view; C. representation of the placement of the leaf-packs; D. cross section of the stream channel showing details of how the structure was placed in the stream; E. top view of the structure showing the points where the iron rods were installed.
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.