Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0May 2022View details →

Time to Update the Split-Sample Approach in Hydrological Model Calibration v1.1

Time to Update the Split-Sample Approach in Hydrological Model Calibration Hongren Shen1, Bryan A. Tolson1, Juliane Mai1 1Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Corresponding author: Hongren Shen (hongren.shen@uwaterloo.ca) Abstract Model calibration and validation are critical in hydrological model robustness assessment. Unfortunately, the commonly-used split-sample test (SST) framework for data splitting requires modelers to make subjective decisions without clear guidelines. This large-sample SST assessment study empirically assesses how different data splitting methods influence post-validation model testing period performance, thereby identifying optimal data splitting methods under different conditions. This study investigates the performance of two lumped conceptual hydrological models calibrated and tested in 463 catchments across the United States using 50 different data splitting schemes. These schemes are established regarding the data availability, length and data recentness of the continuous calibration sub-periods (CSPs). A full-period CSP is also included in the experiment, which skips model validation. The assessment approach is novel in multiple ways including how model building decisions are framed as a decision tree problem and viewing the model building process as a formal testing period classification problem, aiming to accurately predict model success/failure in the testing period. Results span different climate and catchment conditions across a 35-year period with available data, making conclusions quite generalizable. Calibrating to older data and then validating models on newer data produces inferior model testing period performance in every single analysis conducted and should be avoided. Calibrating to the full available data and skipping model validation entirely is the most robust split-sample decision. Experimental findings remain consistent no matter how model building factors (i.e., catchments, model types, data availability, and testing periods) are varied. Results strongly support revising the traditional split-sample approach in hydrological modeling. Version updates v1.1 Updated on May 19, 2022. We added hydrographs for each catchment. There are 8 parts of the zipped file attached in v1.1. You should download all of them and unzip all those eight parts together. In this update, we added two zipped files in each gauge subfolder:     (1) GR4J_Hydrographs.zip and     (2) HMETS_Hydrographs.zip Each of the zip files contains 50 CSV files. These CSV files are named with keywords of model name, gauge ID, and the calibration sub-period (CSP) identifier. Each hydrograph CSV file contains four key columns:     (1) Date time (note that the hour column is less significant since this is daily data);     (2) Precipitation in mm that is the aggregated basin mean precipitation;     (3) Simulated streamflow in m3/s and the column is named as "subXXX", where XXX is the ID of the catchment, specified in the CAMELS_463_gauge_info.txt file; and     (4) Observed streamflow in m3/s and the column is named as "subXXX(observed)". Note that these hydrograph CSV files reported period-ending time-averaged flows. They were directly produced by the Raven hydrological modeling framework. More information about the format of the hydrograph CSV files can be redirected to the <a href="http://raven.uwaterloo.ca/">Raven webpage</a>. v1.0 First version published on Jan 29, 2022. Data description This data was used in the paper entitled "Time to Update the Split-Sample Approach in Hydrological Model Calibration" by Shen et al. (2022). Catchment, meteorological forcing and streamflow data are provided for hydrological modeling use. Specifically, the forcing and streamflow data are archived in the Raven hydrological modeling required format. The GR4J and HMETS model building results in the paper, i.e., reference KGE and KGE metrics in calibration, validation and testing periods, are provided for replication of the split-sample assessment performed in the paper. Data content The data folder contains a gauge info file (CAMELS_463_gauge_info.txt), which reports basic information of each catchment, and 463 subfolders, each having four files for a catchment, including:     (1) Raven_Daymet_forcing.rvt, which contains Daymet meteorological forcing (i.e., daily precipitation in mm/d, minimum and maximum air temperature in deg_C, shortwave in MJ/m2/day, and day length in day) from Jan 1st 1980 to Dec 31 2014 in a Raven hydrological modeling required format.     (2) Raven_USGS_streamflow.rvt, which contains daily discharge data (in m3/s) from Jan 1st 1980 to Dec 31 2014 in a Raven hydrological modeling required format.     (3) GR4J_metrics.txt, which contains reference KGE and GR4J-based KGE metrics in calibration, validation and testing periods.     (4) HMETS_metrics.txt, which contains reference KGE and HMETS-based KGE metrics in calibration, validation and testing periods. Data collection and processing methods        Data source <ul> <li> Catchment information and the Daymet meteorological forcing are retrieved from the CAMELS data set, which can be found <a href="https://ral.ucar.edu/solutions/products/camels">here</a>.</li> <li> The USGS streamflow data are collected from the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Water Information System (NWIS), which can be found <a href="https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/sw">here</a>.</li> <li>The GR4J and HMETS performance metrics (i.e., reference KGE and KGE) are produced in the study by Shen et al. (2022).</li> </ul>        Forcing data processing <ul> <li>A quality assessment procedure was performed. For example, daily maximum air temperature should be larger than the daily minimum air temperature; otherwise, these two values will be swapped.</li> <li>Units are converted to Raven-required ones. Precipitation: mm/day, unchanged; daily minimum/maximum air temperature: deg_C, unchanged; shortwave: W/m2 to MJ/m2/day; day length: seconds to days.</li> <li>Data for a catchment is archived in a RVT (ASCII-based) file, in which the second line specifies the start time of the forcing series, the time step (= 1 day), and the total time steps in the series (= 12784), respectively; the third and the fourth lines specify the forcing variables and their corresponding units, respectively.</li> <li>More details of Raven formatted forcing files can be found in the Raven manual (<a href="http://raven.uwaterloo.ca/">here</a>).</li> </ul>        Streamflow data processing <ul> <li>Units are converted to Raven-required ones. Daily discharge originally in cfs is converted to m3/s.</li> <li>Missing data are replaced with -1.2345 as Raven requires. Those missing time steps will not be counted in performance metrics calculation.</li> <li>Streamflow series is archived in a RVT (ASCII-based) file, which is open with eight commented lines specifying relevant gauge and streamflow data information, such as gauge name, gauge ID, USGS reported catchment area, calculated catchment area (based on the catchment shapefiles in CAMELS dataset), streamflow data range, data time step, and missing data periods. The first line after the commented lines in the streamflow RVT files specifies data type (default is HYDROGRAPH), subbasin ID (i.e., SubID), and discharge unit (m3/s), respectively. And the next line specifies the start of the streamflow data, time step (=1 day), and the total time steps in the series(= 12784), respectively.</li> </ul> GR4J and HMETS metrics  The GR4J and HMETS metrics files consists of reference KGE and KGE in model calibration, validation, and testing periods, which are derived in the massive split-sample test experiment performed in the paper. <ul> <li>Columns in these metrics files are gauge ID, calibration sub-period (CSP) identifier, KGE in calibration, validation, testing1, testing2, and testing3, respectively.</li> <li>We proposed 50 different CSPs in the experiment. "CSP_identifier" is a unique name of each CSP. e.g., CSP identifier "CSP-3A_1990" stands for the model is built in Jan 1st 1990, calibrated in the first 3-year sample (1981-1983), calibrated in the rest years during the period of 1980 to 1989. Note that 1980 is always used for spin-up.</li> <li>We defined three testing periods (independent to calibration and validation periods) for each CSP, which are the first 3 years from model build year inclusive, the first 5 years from model build year inclusive, and the full years from model build year inclusive. e.g., "testing1", "testing2", and "testing3" for CSP-3A_1990 are 1990-1992, 1990-1994, and 1990-2014, respectively.</li> <li>Reference flow is the interannual mean daily flow based on a specific period, which is derived for a one-year period and then repeated in each year in the calculation period. <ul> <li>For calibration, its reference flow is based on spin-up + calibration periods.</li> <li>For validation, its reference flow is based on spin-up + calibration periods.</li> <li>For testing, its reference flow is based on spin-up +calibration + validation periods.</li> </ul> </li> <li>Reference KGE is calculated based on the reference flow and observed streamflow in a specific calculation period (e.g., calibration). Reference KGE is computed using the KGE equation with substituting the "simulated" flow for "reference" flow in the period for calculation. Note that the reference KGEs for the three different testing periods corresponds to the same historical period, but are different, because each testing period spans in a different time period and covers different series of observed flow.</li> </ul> More details of the split-sample test experiment and modeling results analysis can be referred to the paper by Shen et al. (2022). Citation Journal Publication This study: Shen, H., Tolson, B. A., & Mai, J.(2022). Time to update the split-sample approach in hydrological model calibration. Water Resources Research, 58, e2021WR031523. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR031523">https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR031523</a> Original CAMELS dataset: A. J. Newman, M. P. Clark, K. Sampson, A. Wood, L. E. Hay, A. Bock, R. J. Viger, D. Blodgett, L. Brekke, J. R. Arnold, T. Hopson, and Q. Duan (2015). Development of a large-sample watershed-scale hydrometeorological dataset for the contiguous USA: dataset characteristics and assessment of regional variability in hydrologic model performance. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 209-223, <a href="http://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-209-2015">http://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-209-2015</a> Data Publication This study: H. Shen, B. A. Tolson, and J. Mai (2022). Time to Update the Split-Sample Approach in Hydrological Model Calibration. Zenodo. <a href="http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5915374">http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5915374</a> Original CAMELS dataset: A. Newman; K. Sampson; M. P. Clark; A. Bock; R. J. Viger; D. Blodgett, 2014. A large-sample watershed-scale hydrometeorological dataset for the contiguous USA. Boulder, CO: UCAR/NCAR.<a href="http:// https://dx.doi.org/10.5065/D6MW2F4D"> https://dx.doi.org/10.5065/D6MW2F4D</a>

opencc-by-4.0Jul 2022View details →

Gaia Data Release 3: BP/RP split-epoch validation dataset

This dataset includes mean BP/RP spectra for about 43.6 thousand sources for which two mean spectra per source were generated using only a random selection of the available epoch spectra. More details about this dataset are given in Appendix D in the paper "Gaia Data Release 3: Processing and validation of BP/RP low-resolution spectral data", De Angeli, F., et al. A&A (2022). Results obtained from this dataset are published in the same paper and in "Gaia Data Release 3: The Galaxy in your preferred colours. Synthetic photometry from Gaia low-resolution spectra", Gaia Collaboration, Montegriffo, P., et al. A&A (2022).

Data Cleaning, Translation & Split of the Dataset for the Automatic Classification of Documents for the Classification System for the Berliner Handreichungen zur Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft

<ul> <li>Cleaned_Dataset.csv – The combined CSV files of all scraped documents from DABI, e-LiS, o-bib and Springer.</li> <li>Data_Cleaning.ipynb – The Jupyter Notebook with python code for the analysis and cleaning of the original dataset.</li> <li>ger_train.csv – The German training set as CSV file.</li> <li>ger_validation.csv – The German validation set as CSV file.</li> <li>en_test.csv – The English test set as CSV file.</li> <li>en_train.csv – The English training set as CSV file.</li> <li>en_validation.csv – The English validation set as CSV file.</li> <li>splitting.py – The python code for splitting a dataset into train, test and validation set.</li> <li>DataSetTrans_de.csv – The final German dataset as a CSV file.</li> <li>DataSetTrans_en.csv – The final English dataset as a CSV file.</li> <li>translation.py – The python code for translating the cleaned dataset.</li> </ul>

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2021View details →

Text-fig. 6. Scanning electron micrographs of seeds of ericalean affinity (a–d) and seeds of uncertain affinity (e–i) from Zliv-Řídká Blana locality. a: Protovisnea sp. 1, rounded seed with the narrow elongate seed cavity flanked by two bulging regions of larger cells, no. NM-F 3177; b: Protovisnea sp. 2, angular seed with the narrow elongate seed cavity flanked by two bulging regions of larger cells, no. NM-F 3179; c, d: Eurya crassitesta, one seed split into two parts, no. NM-F 3211, c – surface cells of the seed coat are palisade, d – cross-section of the seed; e: Nympheaceae sp. 1, seed, no. NM-F 3636; f: Nympheaceae sp. 2, seed, no. NM-F 4634; g: Klikovispermum sp.1, seeds with irregular outline and smooth outer surface, no. NM-F 3203; h: Klikovispermum malechii, seed with an orange-segment shape, no. NM-F 3299; i: Taxon 35, seed, no. NM-F 3236. in Plant Mesofossils From The Late Cretaceous Klikov Formation, The Czech Republic

Text-fig. 6. Scanning electron micrographs of seeds of ericalean affinity (a–d) and seeds of uncertain affinity (e–i) from Zliv-Řídká Blana locality. a: Protovisnea sp. 1, rounded seed with the narrow elongate seed cavity flanked by two bulging regions of larger cells, no. NM-F 3177; b: Protovisnea sp. 2, angular seed with the narrow elongate seed cavity flanked by two bulging regions of larger cells, no. NM-F 3179; c, d: Eurya crassitesta, one seed split into two parts, no. NM-F 3211, c – surface cells of the seed coat are palisade, d – cross-section of the seed; e: Nympheaceae sp. 1, seed, no. NM-F 3636; f: Nympheaceae sp. 2, seed, no. NM-F 4634; g: Klikovispermum sp.1, seeds with irregular outline and smooth outer surface, no. NM-F 3203; h: Klikovispermum malechii, seed with an orange-segment shape, no. NM-F 3299; i: Taxon 35, seed, no. NM-F 3236.

Text-fig. 4. Charred grass from diatomite of Saint-Bauzile. a: Overview of diatomite slab with one larger specimen of charred grass (left) and several smaller, lath-shaped charcoal fragments; SM.B 22260; scale bar = 1 cm. b: Detail of vein exhibited on split grass blade, with stomata oriented parallel to vein. c: Stomata oriented in rows and bands parallel to veins exposed on split grass blade. d: Surface of grass leaf with rectangular, elongated cells with strongly undulating margins in an intercostal area. in Evidence For Wildfires During Deposition Of The Late Miocene Diatomites Of The Konservat-Lagerstätte Lake Saint-Bauzile (Ardèche, France) - Preliminary Results

Text-fig. 4. Charred grass from diatomite of Saint-Bauzile. a: Overview of diatomite slab with one larger specimen of charred grass (left) and several smaller, lath-shaped charcoal fragments; SM.B 22260; scale bar = 1 cm. b: Detail of vein exhibited on split grass blade, with stomata oriented parallel to vein. c: Stomata oriented in rows and bands parallel to veins exposed on split grass blade. d: Surface of grass leaf with rectangular, elongated cells with strongly undulating margins in an intercostal area.

Text-fig. 8. Carpolithes (a–t). a–e: Carpolithes sp. 1. USNM PAL 772366. Scale bar = 1 cm. a: Lateral view of endocarp, note two longitudinal ridges. b: Lateral view of endocarp rotated 90° from (a), note single lateral ridge in center, a, b reflected light, palladium coated. c: Lateral view, Micro-CT scan surface rendering. d: View of rounded end of the endocarp, reflected light, palladium coated. e: View of the opposite (pointed) end of the endocarp, note split; reflected light, palladium coated. f–j: Carpolithes sp. 2. USNM PAL 772367. Scale bar = 5 mm. f: Lateral view, base down; note raphe-like structure (arrow), reflected light, palladium coated. g: Lateral view, the raphe-like structure extending vertically from the base. h: Lateral view, rotated 90° from (g). i: Lateral view, the opposite face to that in (h). j: Basal view, raphe-like structure running from the center to the right of the image. g–j: CT scan surface renderings. k–o: Carpolithes sp. 3 USNM PAL 772368. Scale bar = 5 mm. k: Ventral view of the specimen, note flared apical extension, reflected light, uncoated. l: Dorsal view illustrating the flared apical extension, rotated 180o from (k). m: Lateral view rotated 90° from that in (l). n: Apical view, the apical extension with central pore (arrow) and a clear lineation running down the side to the top of the image. o: Basal view. l–o: Micro-CT scan surface renderings. p–t: Carpolithes sp. 4. USNM PAL 772369. Scale bar = 3 mm. p: Basal view illustrating the concentric rings of radiating possible cells surrounding a central depression. q: Lateral view, base down, note possible cellular pattern. r: Lateral view, rotated 180° from (q), base down; p–r: reflected light, palladium coated. s, t: Basal and lateral views, micro-CT scan surface renderings. in The Early Middle Eocene Wagon Bed Carpoflora Of Central Wyoming, U.S.A.

Text-fig. 8. Carpolithes (a–t). a–e: Carpolithes sp. 1. USNM PAL 772366. Scale bar = 1 cm. a: Lateral view of endocarp, note two longitudinal ridges. b: Lateral view of endocarp rotated 90° from (a), note single lateral ridge in center, a, b reflected light, palladium coated. c: Lateral view, Micro-CT scan surface rendering. d: View of rounded end of the endocarp, reflected light, palladium coated. e: View of the opposite (pointed) end of the endocarp, note split; reflected light, palladium coated. f–j: Carpolithes sp. 2. USNM PAL 772367. Scale bar = 5 mm. f: Lateral view, base down; note raphe-like structure (arrow), reflected light, palladium coated. g: Lateral view, the raphe-like structure extending vertically from the base. h: Lateral view, rotated 90° from (g). i: Lateral view, the opposite face to that in (h). j: Basal view, raphe-like structure running from the center to the right of the image. g–j: CT scan surface renderings. k–o: Carpolithes sp. 3 USNM PAL 772368. Scale bar = 5 mm. k: Ventral view of the specimen, note flared apical extension, reflected light, uncoated. l: Dorsal view illustrating the flared apical extension, rotated 180o from (k). m: Lateral view rotated 90° from that in (l). n: Apical view, the apical extension with central pore (arrow) and a clear lineation running down the side to the top of the image. o: Basal view. l–o: Micro-CT scan surface renderings. p–t: Carpolithes sp. 4. USNM PAL 772369. Scale bar = 3 mm. p: Basal view illustrating the concentric rings of radiating possible cells surrounding a central depression. q: Lateral view, base down, note possible cellular pattern. r: Lateral view, rotated 180° from (q), base down; p–r: reflected light, palladium coated. s, t: Basal and lateral views, micro-CT scan surface renderings.

Text-fig. 4. Juglandaceae Carya (a–w). Scale bars = 1 cm. a–d: USNM PAL 772352, reflected light, palladium coated. a: Obliquelateral view of nut, apex up. b: Basal view with damage to left and clear depiction of meridional grooves. c, d: Two lateral views oriented about 130° from each other and avoiding the area of damage; the meridional grooves clear in (c). e–l: USNM PAL 772350. e: Intact nut, lateral view, apex up, reflected light. f: One half of split nut revealing in situ chalcedony locule cast, reflected light. g–k: Virtual sections from micro-CT data. g: Longitudinal section parallel to the exposed face in (f). h: Longitudinal section at 90° from (g). i: Transverse section in apical 1/3 showing locule bracketed by C-shaped lacunae (arrows). j: Equatorial transverse section showing two lobes of the locule separated by primary septum, lacuna evident below as white line. k: Transverse section near base in The Early Middle Eocene Wagon Bed Carpoflora Of Central Wyoming, U.S.A.

Text-fig. 4. Juglandaceae Carya (a–w). Scale bars = 1 cm. a–d: USNM PAL 772352, reflected light, palladium coated. a: Obliquelateral view of nut, apex up. b: Basal view with damage to left and clear depiction of meridional grooves. c, d: Two lateral views oriented about 130° from each other and avoiding the area of damage; the meridional grooves clear in (c). e–l: USNM PAL 772350. e: Intact nut, lateral view, apex up, reflected light. f: One half of split nut revealing in situ chalcedony locule cast, reflected light. g–k: Virtual sections from micro-CT data. g: Longitudinal section parallel to the exposed face in (f). h: Longitudinal section at 90° from (g). i: Transverse section in apical 1/3 showing locule bracketed by C-shaped lacunae (arrows). j: Equatorial transverse section showing two lobes of the locule separated by primary septum, lacuna evident below as white line. k: Transverse section near base

opencc-by-4.0May 2017View details →

Fig. 1. NeighborNet split network for the 104 in Scandinavian Oncophorus (Bryopsida, Oncophoraceae): species, cryptic species, and intraspecific variation

Fig. 1. NeighborNet split network for the 104 specimens studied, based on ITS (A) and the chloroplast markers trnG and rps4 (B): Oncophorus crispifolius (O.c., 2 specimens), O. dendrophilus (O.d., 2), O. elongatus (24), O. rauei (O.r., 2), O. virens (22), O. wahlenbergii (22), O. integerrimus Hedenäs sp. nov. (26), and outgroup (light grey boxes: C.s. = Cynodontium strumiferum, 2; R.f. = Rhabdoweisia fugax, 2). Haplotype networks based on all samples of O. elongatus, O. virens, O. wahlenbergii, and O. integerrimus Hedenäs sp. nov. are shown distal to 'branches' identified in the split network to show the full resolution among haplotypes. Circle size in the haplotype networks is proportional to the number of sampled populations of a certain haplotype, and sample numbers are explained in Table 1. Circles connected by a line differ in a single mutational difference; black dots indicate 'missing' haplotypes. Jacknife support values of 75–94.99 and 95–100 are indicated by transverse grey and black lines, respectively.

Figure 9. A–F in Taxonomic revision of the Australian native bee subgenus Australictus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Halictini: genus Lasioglossum) - "Wood-Splitting Axe Bees"

Figure 9. A–F Lasioglossum (Australictus) tertium: A, dorsal female; B, lateral female; C, dorsal male; D, lateral male; E, female head front; F, male vestiture on metasomal sterna.

Figure 8. A–F in Taxonomic revision of the Australian native bee subgenus Australictus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Halictini: genus Lasioglossum) - "Wood-Splitting Axe Bees"

Figure 8. A–F Lasioglossum (Australictus) plorator: A, dorsal female; B, lateral female; C, dorsal male; D, lateral male; E, female head front; F, male vestiture on metasomal sterna.

Figure 12 in Taxonomic revision of the Australian native bee subgenus Australictus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Halictini: genus Lasioglossum) - "Wood-Splitting Axe Bees"

Figure 12. Species distribution maps: A,Lasioglossum (Australictus) davide; B,Lasioglossum (Australictus) lithusca; C, Lasioglossum (Australictus) peraustrale: D, Lasioglossum (Australictus) plorator; E, Lasioglossum (Australictus) tertium; F, Lasioglossum (Chilalictus) orbatum.

Figure 11 in Taxonomic revision of the Australian native bee subgenus Australictus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Halictini: genus Lasioglossum) - "Wood-Splitting Axe Bees"

Figure 11. Lasioglossum (Australictus) male genital capsules: Lasioglossum plorator, A, ventral view, B, dorsal view; Lasioglossum tertium, C, ventral view, D, dorsal view.

Figure 10 in Taxonomic revision of the Australian native bee subgenus Australictus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Halictini: genus Lasioglossum) - "Wood-Splitting Axe Bees"

Figure 10. Lasioglossum (Australictus) male genital capsules: Lasioglossum davide, A, ventral view, B, dorsal view; Lasioglossum lithusca, C, ventral view, D, dorsal view; Lasioglossum peraustrale, E, ventral view, F, dorsal view.

Figure 6. A–F in Taxonomic revision of the Australian native bee subgenus Australictus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Halictini: genus Lasioglossum) - "Wood-Splitting Axe Bees"

Figure 6. A–F Lasioglossum (Australictus) lithusca: A, dorsal female; B, lateral female; C, dorsal male; D, lateral male; E, female head front; F, male vestiture on metasomal sterna.

Figure 4 in Taxonomic revision of the Australian native bee subgenus Australictus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Halictini: genus Lasioglossum) - "Wood-Splitting Axe Bees"

Figure 4. Lasioglossum (Australictus) plorator female using a beetle exit hole in wood. Image copyright Christopher Robbins.

Figure 5. A–F in Taxonomic revision of the Australian native bee subgenus Australictus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Halictini: genus Lasioglossum) - "Wood-Splitting Axe Bees"

Figure 5. A–F Lasioglossum (Australictus) davide: A, dorsal female; B, lateral female; C, dorsal male; D, lateral male; E, female head front; F, male vestiture on metasomal sterna.

Figure 2. A in Taxonomic revision of the Australian native bee subgenus Australictus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Halictini: genus Lasioglossum) - "Wood-Splitting Axe Bees"

Figure 2. A, Lasioglossum (Australictus) lithusca female labrum; B, Lasioglossum (Australictus) tertium female anterior metatibial spur; C, Lasioglossum (Australictus) peraustrale male vertical metapostnotum tomentum; D, Lasioglossum (Australictus) tertium, banded male metasoma form; E, Lasioglossum (Australictus) davide female dorsal surface of metapostnotum; F, Lasioglossum (Australictus) plorator female dorsal surface of metapostnotum.

Figure 1 in Taxonomic revision of the Australian native bee subgenus Australictus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Halictini: genus Lasioglossum) - "Wood-Splitting Axe Bees"

Figure 1. Lasioglossum (Australictus) tertium A; Lasioglossum (Australictus) lithusca C, E; Lasioglossum (Parasphecodes) hiltacum B, D, F. Head front: A & B; Mandible outer view: C & D; mandible dorsal view: E & F. All female images.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2018View details →

Fig. 9 in The origin and diversification of the Entorrhizales: deep evolutionary roots but recent speciation with a phylogenetic and phenotypic split between associates of the Cyperaceae and Juncaceae

Fig. 9 Macroscopic symptoms of the infection of Juncus oxycarpus (a, healthy plant) roots by Juncorrhiza oxycarpi (b). Scale bars: a approx. 1 cm, b = 1 mm