Find research datasets worth reusing

openCC0Mar 2020View details →

Point-count bird censusing: bird abundance and diversity in CAP LTER Phoenix Area Social Survey neighborhoods throughout the greater Phoenix metropolitan area, 2006-2016

The Phoenix Area Social Survey (PASS) parallels the Ecological Survey of Central Arizona (formerly, Survey 200) as a long-term monitoring program of the CAP LTER. Every five years, the PASS research team surveys households in selected neighborhoods in the metropolitan Phoenix area to better understand perceptions, values, and behaviors of several key environmental issues, including water conservation, urban growth, air pollution, land conservation, biodiversity and urban climate change, as well as perceptions about their neighborhoods. The survey was piloted in 2001-2002 in eight neighborhoods in Phoenix with 302 respondents, and grew to over 40 neighborhoods and 800 households in 2005. Bird survey locations were established in each of the PASS neighborhoods, colocated as much as possible with the corresponding ESCA survey location in the neighborhood. Bird surveys were conducted biannualy (spring, winter) approximately the year of and the year after each PASS. In a given season, each bird survey location is visited independently by three birders who count all birds seen or heard within a 15-minute window.

openCC0Mar 2021View details →

Does water-bath cleaning affect the health of visiting birds? A study of parasite loads in house finches (Haemorhous mexicanus) in the Phoenix, Arizona, USA metropolitan area (2018)

There is evidence that urban animals have higher parasite and pathogen burdens than those from natural areas, but the mechanism behind this pattern is unclear. One possibility for yard-visiting birds is that they drink from bird baths that have not been regularly cleaned and thus they have elevate infection risks and rates by consuming unusually soiled water. We experimentally tested this idea in house finches (Haemorhous mexicanus) – a common backyard visitor in North America – by implementing a rotating bath-cleaning regime, where we either left baths uncleaned for 5 weeks or cleaned them daily with dilute bleach for 5 weeks, and did so at both an urban and rural study site. We found that coccidian endoparasitism decreased in urban birds when they drank from clean baths, but the same was not true for rural birds. These results reveal a habitat-specific effect of feeder cleaning on disease status in an abundant yard-visiting songbird.

openCC0Mar 2021View details →

Lovebirds perch in building vents to cool down during hot times of year, a study of rosy-cheeked lovebirds (Agapornis roseicollis) in the Phoenix, Arizona, USA metropolitan area (2018-2019)

Extreme heat can place significant environmental and physiological pressures on animals. One means of tolerating extreme thermal conditions is to seek cool microclimates. Few empirical studies have documented use by wild animals of human-provided cool microsites as means of thermoregulating. Here we show that rosy-cheeked lovebirds in Phoenix, Arizona – the hottest city in North America – use relief air vents on the face of a building (which direct cool air outdoors when internal air-conditioning systems are on) as perching sites, and only during extremely hot times of day and year (> 45 C). Though this highlights a wasteful anthropogenic energy system (the product of an old building with outdated temperature-control technology), our results reveal how an introduced bird species (from Africa) can tolerate extreme thermal conditions in the novel environment.

openCC0Feb 2022View details →

Wildlife in the greater Phoenix, Arizona, USA metropolitan area: results of a camera-trapping project (2019-2020)

The goal of this research project was to evaluate how wildlife populations responded to the gradient of urbanization. We deployed 50 wildlife cameras across the gradient of urbanization from downtown Phoenix to nearby wildland areas from January 2019 to August 2020. We documented a suite of wildlife species, from small mammals and birds to large mammals. Data present whether a species was detected at a site during this time period.

openCC0Feb 2022View details →

A survey of scorpion (Scorpiones) populations along an urbanization gradient in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area, Arizona, USA (summer 2019)

The goal of this research project was to evaluate how scorpion populations responded to the gradient of urbanization. We conducted 50 night-time walking transects across the gradient of urbanization from downtown Phoenix to nearby wildland areas during Summer 2019. We commonly documented three scorpion species. Data present whether a species was detected at a site during this time period.

openCC0Feb 2022View details →

Wildlife along the Salt River corridor of the greater Phoenix, Arizona, USA metropolitan area: results of a camera-trapping project (2020-2021)

The goal of this research project was to evaluate how wildlife populations responded to the gradient of urbanization, water, and vegetation. We deployed 43 wildlife cameras across the gradient of urbanization January 2021 to January 2022. We documented a suite of wildlife species, from small mammals and birds to large mammals. Data present whether a species was detected at a site during this time period.

openCC0Oct 2022View details →

Hourly Mean Radiant Temperature Distribution on a summer day (2012-06-27) in the greater Phoenix, Arizona (USA) metropolitan area

This dataset is a collection of 1-m resolution mean radiant temperature (Tmrt) rasters generated using digital surface models and the Solar and longwave environmental irradiance geometry (SOLWEIG) model. The dataset provides hourly Tmrt in the Phoenix, Arizona (USA) metropolitan area for a typical summer day (June 27, 2012, peak air temperature of 41 degrees C) from 07:00 hrs to 20:00 hrs (local time (America/Phoenix)). The dataset can serve as a guide for heat mitigation programs within the area and as input for heat exposure studies.

opencc-by-4.0Jan 2021View details →

A Geo-Tagged COVID-19 Twitter Dataset for 10 North American Metropolitan Areas

The dataset comprises of 10 JSON files, each containing geographic metadata and a sentiment score collected from tweets between March 20, 2020 and December 1, 2020 pertaining to the COVID-19 global pandemic for ten of the most populous cities in the United States and Canada.

opencc-by-4.0Mar 2024View details →

Ecosystem Services Potential Dynamics of European Capital Metropolitan Areas

These are the Supplementary Dataset of the article "Ecosystem Services Potential is Declining across European Capital Metropolitan Areas". These results rely on the Urban Atlas (UA) data. In our study, we first used the UA data 2018 to compare all ECMA by their current ESP. While the UA change products enabled us to reveal the ESP dynamics across three different periods. Consequently, we could differentiate between metropolitan areas that have faced high rates of ESP reduction and ECMA that have slightly improved.  The data presented here include the following files: <ol> <li>UAch_12_18_ALL.gpkg: Includes all altered LULC patches within the European capital metropolitan areas.</li> <li>FINAL_corr_Table.xlsx: Is the cumulative table which feeds the correlation analysis between ESP and ESPD results to socio-economic and other variables.</li> <li>WB_Urban_Population_Growth_Europe.xlsx: Delivers the population change metrics based on World Bank data.</li> <li>ESPD__Experts_Matrix_Revision: Including the revision procedure of the expert matrox evaluation criteria.</li> <li>ESPD_1806_ALL_City_level:  Results of Ecosystem Services Potential Dynamics between 12 year period for 27 European metropolitan regions.</li> <li>ESPD_1812_ALL_City_level: Results of Ecosystem Services Potential Dynamics between 6 year period for 38 European metropolitan regions.</li> <li>ESPD_1812_ALL_Patch_level: Detailed table including all changed patches within 38 European metropolitan regions.</li> <li>ESPD_1812_UD_Pop_correlation: cumulative table incuding the urban expansion ratio and population growth, which feed our correlation analysis in our article.</li> </ol>

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2022View details →

Asiantuntijakysely kaupunkibiotooppien monimuotoisuudesta ja kaupunkibiotooppikartta Suomen pääkaupunkiseudulla / Expert Questionnaire Results Regarding Biodiversity of Urban Biotopes and an Urban Biotope Map in Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Finland

(in English below) ASIANTUNTIJAKYSELY KAUPUNKIBIOTOOPPIEN MONIMUOTOISUUDESTA JA KAUPUNKIBIOTOOPPIKARTTA SUOMEN PÄÄKAUPUNKISEUDULLA Tausta ja tavoitteet Luonnonsuojelu on keskittynyt perinteisesti Suomessa tiettyihin lajeihin ja luontotyyppeihin, mikä ei välttämättä kuvaa erilaisten kaupunkiympäristöjen ekologisia arvoja kattavasti. Lisäksi tulisi huomioida eliöyhteisöjä, jotka turvaavat kestävän ja monimuotoisen ekosysteemien toiminnallisuuden. Tämän asiantuntijakyselyn tavoitteena oli selvittää, miten erilaiset kaupunkibiotoopit tukevat erilaisia ekologisten yhteisöjen monimuotoisuutta kuvaavia tekijöitä eri eliöryhmillä. Nämä monimuotoisuuden laatutekijät kuvaavat yhdessä biotooppien roolia kaupunkiluonnon monimuotoisuudessa, toiminnallisuudessa ja täten epäsuorasti myös mm. ekosysteemipalvelujen tarjoamisessa. Kyselyn tuloksia voidaan hyödyntää ekologisten arvojen turvaamiseksi paremmin osana kaupunkisuunnittelua tai kaupunkiluonnon monimuotoisuuden kattavan turvaamisen perustana. Kysely keskittyi pääkaupunkiseudun (Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, Kauniainen) biotooppeihin. Lisäksi asiantuntijat antoivat arvionsa biotooppipisteytyksen sovellettavuudesta muualla Suomessa. Kysely on kuvattu Terra-lehdessä (Jalkanen & Vierikko 2022) sekä Jalkanen ym. (2020). Menetelmät Kaupunkibiotooppien pisteytys Aineisto kerättiin internetkyselyllä 5.10.-21.11.2016 välisenä aikana. Kysely lähetettiin 38 paikalliselle lajiasiantuntijalle (Luonnontieteellisessä keskusmuseossa, Helsingin yliopistossa, Suomen ympäristökeskuksessa, ympäristökonsulttiyrityksissä ja luontojärjestöissä), joista 24 osallistui kyselyyn. Mukana olleet asiantuntijat (suluissa heidän lajiryhmänsä): <ul> <li>Heidi Björklund (Linnut)</li> <li>Tea von Bonsdorff (Sienet, muut kuin käävät)</li> <li>Eero Haapanen (Nisäkkäät, muut kuin lepakot)</li> <li>Nina Hagner-Wahlsten (Lepakot)</li> <li>Jari Kaitila (Perhoset)</li> <li>Jarkko Korhonen (Sienet, muut kuin käävät)</li> <li>Jaakko Kullberg (Perhoset)</li> <li>Eeva-Maria Kyheröinen (Lepakot)</li> <li>Esa Lammi (Putkilokasvit)</li> <li>Riku Lumiaro (Nisäkkäät, muut kuin lepakot)</li> <li>Sampsa Malmberg (Kovakuoriaiset)</li> <li>Ilpo Mannerkoski (Kovakuoriaiset)</li> <li>Olli Manninen (Käävät)</li> <li>Heikka Marttila-Tornio (Matelijat & sammakkoeläimet)</li> <li>Juho Paukkunen (Pistiäiset)</li> <li>Terhi Ryttäri (Putkilokasvit)</li> <li>Jarmo Saarikivi (Matelijat & sammakkoeläimet)</li> <li>Hannu Sarvanne (Linnut)</li> <li>Keijo Savola (Käävät)</li> <li>Ilkka Teräs (Pistiäiset)</li> <li>Stephen Venn (Kovakuoriaiset)</li> <li>Tarmo Virtanen (Perhoset)</li> <li>Terhi Wermundsen (Lepakot)</li> <li>Rauno Yrjölä (Linnut)</li> </ul> Asiantuntijat pisteyttivät kyselyssä 68 biotooppia sen mukaan, kuinka ne tukevat heidän lajiryhmiensä eri ominaisuustekijöitä. Jokainen biotooppi arvioitiin erikseen kunkin tekijän näkökulmasta. Pisteet annettiin 5-portaisella asteikolla (0–4; 0 alin). Asiantuntijoita ohjeistettiin miettimäään koko vuodenaikaiskiertoa (arvioimaan biotooppien merkitystä siis myös esim. talvehtimisen kannalta). Kysely perustui Vierikon ym. (2014) biotooppiluokitteluun seuraavin muutoksin: <ul> <li>Metsäbiotoopit jaettiin kahteen ikäluokkaan (30–100-vuotiaat ja yli 100-vuotiaat metsät)</li> <li>Piha-alueet jaettiin päällystettyihin ja maavaraisiin</li> <li>Tiiviiden pientaloalueiden ja townhouse-alueiden pihat lisättiin omana biotooppinaan</li> <li>Kalliolaet, -rinteet ja -seinämät sekä kivikot yhdistettiin samaksi biotoopiksi (paljaat kalliopinnat)</li> <li>Uimarannat, kanaalit ja rantaterassit yhdistettiin samaksi biotoopiksi (rakennetut rannat)</li> <li>Kiviseinät ja lintuluodot poistettiin</li> <li>Viherseinät lisättiin omana biotooppinaan</li> </ul> Biotooppien merkitystä kysyttiin seuraavissa eliöyhteisöjen monimuotoisuuden laatua kuvaavissa kategorioissa: <ol> <li>Lajirikkaus</li> <li>Vaatelias lajisto</li> <li>Biomassa</li> <li>Runsaus</li> <li>Tasaisuus</li> <li>Uniikkius</li> <li>Seudullinen edustavuus</li> <li>Herkkyys ihmissyntyisiä häiriöitä kohtaan</li> <li>Kytkeytyvyys</li> </ol> Asiantuntijat arvioivat lisäksi omien vastaustensa luotettavuutta, erikseen jokaisen tekijän kohdalla. Tässä aineistossa biotooppien pisteet on painotettu nousevan painokertoimen mukaan, jotta luotettavat vastaukset korostuvat epäluotettavia voimakkaammin. Luotettavuuskertoimet ovat 0, 1, 2, 4 ja 8, mitkä tarkoittavat “erittäin epäluotettavia”, “epäluotettavia”, “jonkin verran epäluotettavia”, ”melko luotettavia” ja ”erittäin luotettavia” vastauksia.  Biotooppipisteiden sovellettavuus muualla Suomessa Kyselyn jälkeen asiantuntijat arvioivat työpajassa, kuinka hyvin heidän vastauksiaan voi soveltaa muissa suomalaisissa kaupungeissa. Työpaja pidettiin 29.11.2016. Tarkka kysymyksenasettelu oli: Tämä kysely on laadittu Etelä-Suomen ja erityisesti pääkaupunkiseudun (Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, Kauniainen) näkökulmasta. Kuinka hyvin kyselyn tulokset kuvaavat eliöryhmäsi lajistoa muiden Suomen maakuntien kaupungeissa? Vastaa asteikolla 0–10 (0: tämän kyselyn tuloksia ei voi soveltaa lainkaan ko. maakunnan kaupunkeihin, 10: kyselyn tulokset soveltuvat erittäin hyvin ko. maakunnan kaupunkiluontoon). Vastaa myös, kuinka luotettavina vastauksiasi voidaan pitää asteikolla 0-3 (0: hyvin epäluotettavina, 3: hyvin luotettavina). Vastaa oman eliöryhmäsi näkökulmasta. Tässä aineistossa vastaukset näytetään alkuperäisinä, eli luotettavia vastauksia ei korosteta erikseen kuten biotooppipisteytyksessä. Aineistot: Aineistot ovat suomeksi (etuliite ”FIN”) ja englanniksi (”ENG”). Aineisto sisältää: <ul> <li>Monimuotoisuuden laatutekijöiden luonnehdinnat ja pisteytysohjeet (.pdf)</li> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppien luonnehdinnat (.pdf)</li> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppien pisteytys taulukkona (.xlsx)</li> <li>Taulukko vastausten sovellettavuudesta muualla Suomessa (.xlsx)</li> </ul> Taulukkotiedostoissa monimuotoisuuden laatutekijän tai eliöryhmän perässä oleva numero viittaa asiantuntijaan (esim. lintuja koskevissa sarakkeissa ”Lajirikkaus 1” ja ”Vaateliaat lajit 1” viittaavat saman lintuasiantuntijan vastauksiin). Asiantuntijoiden vastaukset on listattu satunnaisjärjestyksessä. Kaikki asiantuntijat ovat suostuneet heidän vastaustensa ja nimiensä julkaisemiseen kirjallisesti. KAUPUNKIBIOTOOPPIKARTTA Kansiossa "FIN_Kaupunkibiotooppikartta" on rasterimuotoinen kartta pääkaupunkiseudun kaupunkibiotoopeista paikkatietomuodossa. Kartta on luotu 2021 eri paikkatietolähteistä (ks. Jalkanen ym. 2020). Kaupunkibiotooppikartta mahdollistaa esimerkiksi monimuotoisuusarvojen tarkastelun pääkaupunkiseudulla yhdessä asiantuntijakyselyn tulosten kanssa. HUOM! Karttaa ei ole tarkoitettu sellaisenaan suunnittelukäyttöön. Minkäänlaisia takuita tulosten oikeellisuudesta, virheettömyydestä tai käytettävyydestä ei myönnetä. Kansiossa on seuraavat tiedostot: <ul> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppikartta (.tif) (CRS: EPSG 3902)</li> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppikartan soluarvojen selitykset (.xlsx). Kaupunkibiotooppikartta käsittää 53 biotooppia/maanpeiteluokkaa, eli kaikkia asiantuntijakyselyn biotooppeja ei ole pystytty koostamaan kartalle.</li> <li>Kaupunkibiotooppikartan koostamisen ja lähtöaineistojen kuvaus (.pdf)</li> </ul> Kiitokset: Kiitämme Silviya Korpiloa, Susanna Lehvävirtaa ja Stephen Venniä avusta englanninnosten kanssa.  Viittausohje: Jalkanen, J. & Vierikko, K. (2022) Asiantuntijakysely kaupunkibiotooppien monimuotoisuudesta sekä kaupunkibiotooppikartta Suomen pääkaupunkiseudulla [Aineisto] https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6563190 Aineistoon tulee viitata käytettäessä. Viitteet: <ul> <li>Jalkanen, J. & Vierikko, K. (2022) Viheralueiden elonkirjo – Asiantuntijakysely ja luonnon monimuotoisuuden laatumittaristo kaupunkisuunnittelun tueksi. Terra 134: 207–223. https://doi.org/10.30677/terra.120163</li> <li>Jalkanen, J., Vierikko, K. & Moilanen, A. (2020) Spatial prioritization for urban Biodiversity Quality using biotope maps and expert opinion. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 49: 126586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126586.</li> <li>Vierikko, K., Niemelä, J., Salminen, J., Jalkanen, J. & Tamminen, N. 2014: Helsingin kestävä viherrakenne –Miten turvata kestävä viherrakenne ja kaupunkiluonnon monimuotoisuus tiivistyvässä kaupunkirakenteessa. Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluviraston yleissuunnitteluosaston selvityksiä 2014:27. Helsinki. 132 s.</li> </ul>   EXPERT QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS REGARDING BIODIVERSITY OF URBAN BIOTOPES AND AN URBAN BIOTOPE MAP IN HELSINKI METROPOLITAN AREA, FINLAND Background and aim: Finnish biodiversity conservation has traditionally focused on certain species and biotopes, which does not necessarily describe urban areas’ ecological values in a comprehensive manner. In addition, focus should be put on ecological communities that enable resilient and diverse ecosystem functioning. The aim of this questionnaire was to determine how different urban biotopes support different biodiversity quality attributes of ecological communities of different higher taxonomic groups. Together these attributes describe biotopes’ support for sustainable urban ecosystem functioning and, thus, indirectly for ecosystem services provisioning. The results can be used to better preserve ecological values in urban planning and as a basis for comprehensive urban biodiversity conservation. The questionnaire focused on biotopes found in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area (HMA; municipal cities of Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, and Kauniainen), Southern Finland. In addition, the applicability of the scoring elsewhere in Finnish cities was evaluated. The questionnaire is described in Terra (Jalkanen & Vierikko 2022; in Finnish with English abstract) and in Jalkanen et al. (2020). Methods: Scoring of urban biotopes The data was collected using an online questionnaire during 5.10.-21.11.2016. It was sent to 38 local taxonomic experts (from Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki, Finnish Environment Institute, environmental consultant firms, and local environmental NGOs), out of which 24 replied. Experts who participated were (their taxon): <ul> <li>Heidi Björklund (Birds)</li> <li>Tea von Bonsdorff (Fungi, other than polypores)</li> <li>Eero Haapanen (Mammals, other than bats)</li> <li>Nina Hagner-Wahlsten (Bats)</li> <li>Jari Kaitila (Butterflies)</li> <li>Jarkko Korhonen (Fungi, other than polypores)</li> <li>Jaakko Kullberg (Butterflies)</li> <li>Eeva-Maria Kyheröinen (Bats)</li> <li>Esa Lammi (Vascular plants)</li> <li>Riku Lumiaro (Mammals, other than bats)</li> <li>Sampsa Malmberg (Beetles)</li> <li>Ilpo Mannerkoski (Beetles)</li> <li>Olli Manninen (Polypores)</li> <li>Heikka Marttila-Tornio (Herpetofauna)</li> <li>Juho Paukkunen (Hymenoptera)</li> <li>Terhi Ryttäri (Vascular Plants)</li> <li>Jarmo Saarikivi (Herpetofauna)</li> <li>Hannu Sarvanne (Birds)</li> <li>Keijo Savola (Polypores)</li> <li>Ilkka Teräs (Hymenoptera)</li> <li>Stephen Venn (Beetles)</li> <li>Tarmo Virtanen (Butterflies)</li> <li>Terhi Wermundsen (Bats)</li> <li>Rauno Yrjölä (Birds)</li> </ul> In the questionnaire, the experts scored 68 local urban biotopes in terms of how well they support different biodiversity attributes of their taxonomic group. Each biotope was scored separately for every attribute. Scores were given on a 5-rank scale (0–4; 0 being the lowest). Experts were advised to consider all seasons (e.g., to consider the importance of the biotope also for wintering). We used the biotope classification from the expert questionnaire by Vierikko et al. (2014) with the following modifications: <ul> <li>Forest biotopes were further divided into two age classes (30-100 y. and over 100 y.)</li> <li>Yards were further divided into sealed and bare yards</li> <li>Densely-built residential gardens & townhouse gardens were added as a new biotope</li> <li>Outcrops, ledges, and rocky grounds were combined to one biotope (bare rocks)</li> <li>Beaches, canals, and terraced embankments were combined to one biotope (artificial shores)</li> <li>Stone walls and bird-colonized islets were excluded</li> <li>Green walls were added as a new biotope</li> </ul> The relevance of biotopes was evaluated for the following Biodiversity Quality attributes that describe or relate to the diversity of urban ecological communities: <ol> <li>Species richness</li> <li>Habitat specialist species</li> <li>Biomass</li> <li>Abundance</li> <li>Evenness</li> <li>Uniqueness</li> <li>Regional representativeness</li> <li>Sensitivity towards anthropogenic disturbance</li> <li>Connectivity</li> </ol> In addition, experts gave overall self-evaluated confidence rates for their answers concerning each attribute. In the data, biotopes’ scores are weighted by an increasing confidence coefficient in order to emphasize confident answers over non-confident ones. Confidence coefficients are 0, 1, 2, 4, and 8 that refer to ‘very unconfident’, ‘unconfident’, ‘somewhat unconfident’, ‘somewhat confident’, and ‘very confident’ answers, respectively. Applicability of the urban biotope scores elsewhere in Finland After the questionnaire, experts assessed how applicable their answers are elsewhere in Finland. This task was done in an expert workshop on 29.11.2016. The exact question, given to the experts, was: This questionnaire is designed from Southern Finnish, and especially from the Helsinki Metropolitan area (cities of Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, Kauniainen) perspective. How well do the questionnaire results describe the species assemblages of your taxon found in cities in other Finnish provinces? Answer on a scale of 0-10 (0: the results of this questionnaire are completely inapplicable to the cities in the given province, 10: the results of the questionnaire apply very well to the urban nature of the given province). Also evaluate the confidence of your answers at the scale of 0-3 (0: very unconfident, 3: very confident). Answer from the point of view of your own taxon. In the data, the expert answers are reported as they were given, i.e., confident answers are not emphasized over non-confident ones like with biotope scores. Data: Data is provided in Finnish (files starting with ‘FIN’) and in English (‘ENG’). This data set includes: <ul> <li>Biodiversity Quality attribute descriptions and scoring instructions (.pdf)</li> <li>Urban biotope descriptions (.pdf)</li> <li>Table of urban biotope scores (.xlsx)</li> <li>Table of the applicability of biotope scores elsewhere in Finland (.xlsx)</li> </ul> In the tables, the Arabic number after the attribute or taxon name refers to the corresponding expert (i.e., under birds (‘Richness 1’ and ‘Specialist species 1’ refer to the answers of the same bird expert). Experts’ answers are listed in random order. All experts have agreed on publication of their answers and names using written informed consent. URBAN BIOTOPE MAP The folder ’ENG_UrbanBiotopeMap’ includes a raster-type GIS layer of urban biotopes in the Helsinki Metropolitan area. The map has been compiled from several GIS sources (see Jalkanen et al. 2020). The urban biotope map allows for example spatial analyses of biodiversity values together with the expert questionnaire results. OBS! The map is not meant for planning purposes. No warrant about the correctness, flawlessness, or feasibility of the results is given. The folder includes the following files: <ul> <li>The urban biotope map (.tif) (CRS: EPSG 3902)</li> <li>The explanation of the cell values of the urban biotope map (.xlsx). The urban biotope map comprises of 53 different biotopes/land cover types, i.e., every biotope asked in the questionnaire are not found in the map.</li> </ul> Acknowledgements: We thank Silviya Korpilo, Susanna Lehvävirta, and Stephen Venn for help with the English translations. How to cite: Jalkanen, J. & Vierikko, K. (2022) Expert questionnaire results regarding biodiversity of urban biotopes and an urban biotope map in Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Finland [Data set] https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6563190 Data should be properly cited when used. References: <ul> <li>Jalkanen, J. & Vierikko, K. (2022) Viheralueiden elonkirjo – Asiantuntijakysely ja luonnon monimuotoisuuden laatumittaristo kaupunkisuunnittelun tueksi (Biodiversity in urban green spaces: Expert questionnaire about urban Biodiversity Quality to support urban planning) . Terra 134: 207–223. https://doi.org/10.30677/terra.120163 [In Finnish with English abstract.]</li> <li>Jalkanen, J., Vierikko, K. & Moilanen, A. (2020) Spatial prioritization for urban Biodiversity Quality using biotope maps and expert opinion. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 49: 126586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126586.</li> <li>Vierikko, K., Salminen, J., Niemelä J., Jalkanen, J. & Tamminen, N. 2014: Sustainable green infrastructure of Helsinki – urban ecological research report and recommendations for the Helsinki master plan 2050. Strategic Planning Office of the City Planning Department of the City of Helsinki. Research report. [In Finnish with English abstract.] Available in: <a href="https://www.hel.fi/hel2/ksv/julkaisut/yos_2014-27.pdf">https://www.hel.fi/hel2/ksv/julkaisut/yos_2014-27.pdf</a> (Cited 16.1.2018). 132 pp.</li> </ul>

opencc-by-4.0May 2024View details →

Figure 1 in Hepatozoon spp. in stray cats from the metropolitan area of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Figure 1. Phylogenetic tree showing relationships between isolates obtained in the present study and sequences used in the recent evolutionary analysis on Hepatozoon felis (Panda et al., 2024 [46]). The evolutionary history was inferred by using the Maximum Likelihood method and Hasegawa-Kishino-Yano model. The tree with the highest log likelihood (—783.89) is shown. The percentage of trees in which the associated taxa clustered together is shown above the branches. The tree is drawn to scale, with branch lengths measured in the number of substitutions per site. This analysis involved 58 nucleotide sequences, and there was a total of 184 positions in the final dataset.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2022View details →

Figure 3 in Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in different green areas in the metropolitan region of Salvador, Bahia state, Brazil

Figure 3. Comparison of the ant assemblages found in different green areas in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, through a similarity dendrogram.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2022View details →

Figure 2 in Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in different green areas in the metropolitan region of Salvador, Bahia state, Brazil

Figure 2. Distribution of the ant assemblages found in different green areas in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. Circle = Road median strip; Square = Fragment; Diamond = Public square; Triangle = Vacant lots.

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2019View details →

Urban Fabric Types in Osaka-Kobe Metropolitan Area

This upload provides the processed results of Multiple Fabric Assessment (Araldi and Fusco, 2019) performed on a hyper-urbanized region of 2,500 km2 in Japan and including Osaka and Kobe municipalities. The scale of analysis are the areas surrounding urban streets at close distance, which are named proximity bands. Outputs are made available using a geospatial vector data format (GeoPackage - WGS 84/UTM zone 53N) in order to be visualized in a geographic information system software. Attribute data contain the Bayesian probability assignment of each proximity band for the nine urban fabric types that have been identified in the Osaka-Kobe metropolitan area, namely, (1) High-rise and discontinuous modern fabric (2) Discontinuous mid-to-high-rise fabric of mixed land use (3-4) Peripheral low-to-mid-rise discontinuous mixed fabric (5) Industrial and logistic techno-fabrics (6) Residential hyper-compact continuous fabric (7) Residential compact continuous fabric (8) suburban planned single-house residential fabric (9) ex-urban irregular fabric with natural spaces. “MostProb” variable provides the higher probability of each proximity band, which is the main output cross analyzed with field observations in Perez et al., 2019. Results are based upon the processing of morphological indicators calculated using the following datasets: 2013/14 Zmap-TOWN II (ZENRIN Residential Maps) for building coverage and Digital Road Map Database extended version 2015. Perez J., Araldi A., Fusco G., Fuse T. (2019) “The Character of Urban Japan: Overview of Osaka-Kobe’s Cityscapes”, Urban Science, 3(105), pp 1-22. https://www.mdpi.com/2413-8851/3/4/105 Araldi A., Fusco G. (2019) “From the built environment along the street to the metropolitan region. Human perspective approach in urban fabric analysis”. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(7), pp. 1243-1263.

openCC (other)Feb 2019View details →

American Residential Macrosystems - Presence/absence and cultivation status of plant species within residential yards in seven major metropolitan areas, 2012-2013

"We used the presence and absence of plant species in residential yards and nearby natural areas to assess biotic ecological homogenization in seven cities across the U.S. that span major ecological biomes and climatic regions (Baltimore, MD, Boston, MA, Los Angeles, CA, Miami, FL, Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, Phoenix, AZ. and Salt Lake City, UT). "

openCC (other)Dec 2019View details →

American Residential Macrosystems - Presence/absence of plant species within land use groups in residential yards in six major metropolitan areas in the United States, 2017-2018

"This dataset includes presence/absence of plant species recorded in residential yards and nearby natural and interstitial areas (i.e.unmanaged vegetation areas in the residential/wildland interface) in six cities across the U.S. Baltimore, MD, Boston, MA, Los Angeles, CA, Miami, FL, Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, and Phoenix, AZ. Yards were grouped in 4 categories based on fertilizer input frequency, landscaping style and their impact on hydrology: high-input lawns, low-input lawns, wildlife-certified yards and yards with low impact on hydrology (or rain gardens)."

openCC0Feb 2021View details →

Database of Geographic Information: Canals in the Phoenix metropolitan area (1996-1998)

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

openCustomJun 2018View details →

Ecological Survey of Central Arizona: soil chemistry and soil properties in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area and surrounding Sonoran desert, survey year 2000

The Ecological Survey of Central Arizona (ESCA) is an extensive field survey and integrated inventory designed to capture key ecological indicators of the CAP LTER study area consisting of the urbanized, suburbanized, and agricultural areas of metropolitan Phoenix, and the surrounding Sonoran desert. The survey is conducted every five years at approximately 200 sample plots (30m x 30m) that were located randomly using a tessellation-stratified dual-density sampling design. Study plots cover habitats throughout the CAP LTER study area ranging from native Sonoran desert sites to residential yards to an airport tarmac. Measurements include an inventory of all plants (identified to the lowest possible taxonomic unit, typically species), plant biovolume, soil coring for physicochemical properties, arthropod sweep-net sampling, photo documentation, and a visual survey of site and area characteristics. The objectives of the survey are to (1) characterize patches in terms of key biotic, physical, and chemical variables, and (2) examine relationships among land use, general plant diversity, native plant diversity, plant biovolume, soil nutrient status, and social-economic indices along an indirect urban gradient. This data set focuses specifically on soil chemistry and soil properties assessed during the 2000 survey year. Investigators interested in soil data from more recent surveys or other measured variables should search the data catalog for 'ecological survey of central arizona' or 'survey 200' to locate those and other data related to the CAP LTER's ESCA.

openOpenFeb 2012View details →

Control of arthropod abundance, richness, and composition in the central Arizona-Phoenix metropolitan area

There is a demand for mechanistic studies to explore underlying drivers behind observed patterns of biodiversity in urban areas. We describe a two-year field experiment in which we manipulated bottom-up (resource availability) and top-down (bird predation) forces on arthropod communities associated with a native plant, Encelia farinosa, across three landuse types urban, desert remnant, and outlying natural desert in the Phoenix metropolitan area, Arizona, USA. We monitored the trophic structure, richness, and similarity of the arthropod communities on these manipulated plants over a two-year period. We predicted that:(1) increased water resources increase plant productivity, (2) increased productivity increases arthropod abundances, and (3) in the urban habitat, top-down forces are greater than in other habitats and limit arthropod abundances. We also predicted that urban remnant habitats are more similar to urban habitats in terms of arthropod richness and composition. Strong interannual differences due to an unusual cold and dry winter in the first year suppressed plant growth in all but urban habitats, and arthropod abundances in all habitats were severely reduced. In the following year, arthropod abundances in desert and remnant habitats were higher than in urban habitats. Water had positive effects on plant growth and arthropod abundance, but these water effects emerged through complex interactions with habitat type and the presence/absence of cages used to reduce bird predation. Plants grew larger in urban habitats, and phenology also differed between urban and desert habitats. The results from caging suggest that bird predation may not be as important in cities as previously thought, and that arthropods may retard plant growth. As expected, desert communities are strongly bottom-up regulated, but, contrary to predictions, we did not find evidence for strong topdown control in the city. Remnant habitats were intermediate between desert and urban habitats in te