Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2013View details →

Fig. 6 in Using occupancy models to investigate the prevalence of ectoparasitic vectors on hosts: An example with fleas on prairie dogs

Fig. 6. Probabilities of flea occupancy (W) and flea colonization (γ) for black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) in plots with differing densities of prairie dogs during May–September 2011, at the Vermejo Park Ranch, New Mexico. Solid lines depict estimates and dotted lines depict 95% confidence intervals.

Fig. 3 in Complex interactions within the ectoparasite community of the eastern rock sengi (Elephantulus myurus)

Fig. 3. Relationships between the abundance of (a) Rc. nuttalli and (b) Ixodes spp. and the abundance of Rhipicephalus spp. and the (c) abundance of Rc. nuttalli and the chigger abundance when only first captures are considered.

Fig. 2 in Complex interactions within the ectoparasite community of the eastern rock sengi (Elephantulus myurus)

Fig. 2. Effects of antiparasite treatment in the three study years on the abundance of (a) Rhipicephalus spp., (b) Rc. nuttalli and (c) chiggers. Displayed are means ± SE. Open bars indicate untreated and filled bars treated animals.

Fig. 1 in Complex interactions within the ectoparasite community of the eastern rock sengi (Elephantulus myurus)

Fig. 1. Seasonal variation in the (a) prevalence of Rhipicephalus spp. as well as the abundance of (b) R. warburtoni/arnoldi, (c) chiggers and (d) other Rhipicephalus spp. on sengis in Telperion/Ezemvelo Nature Reserve between study years. Displayed are means ± SE. Open bars indicate the first, grey bars the second and black bars the third study year.

Fig. 4 in Complex interactions within the ectoparasite community of the eastern rock sengi (Elephantulus myurus)

Fig. 4. Relationships between the abundance of (a) R. warburtoni/arnoldi on the other Rhipicephalus spp. abundance, (b) other Rhipicephalus spp. on the abundance of chiggers, (c) Rc. nuttalli on the abundance of Ixodes spp. and (d) fleas on the abundance of R. warburtoni/arnoldi when all capture data are considered.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2015View details →

Fig. 2 in Endo- and ectoparasites of large whales (Cetartiodactyla: Balaenopteridae, Physeteridae): Overcoming difficulties in obtaining appropriate samples by non- and minimally-invasive methods

Fig. 2. Minimally-invasive sampling method. Dart-based skin biopsy sampling using a crossbow from a free-ranging sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) in the North Atlantic Ocean, Portugal.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2015View details →

Fig. 1 in Endo- and ectoparasites of large whales (Cetartiodactyla: Balaenopteridae, Physeteridae): Overcoming difficulties in obtaining appropriate samples by non- and minimally-invasive methods

Fig. 1. Non-invasive sampling method. Faecal sample collection from free-ranging whales in the North Atlantic Ocean, Portugal: (A) blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) defecating, (B) floating blue whale (B. musculus) faeces, (C) telescope fixed net with collected blue whale faeces.

Fig. 5 in Comparison of sampling methodologies and estimation of population parameters for a temporary fish ectoparasite

Fig. 5. Histograms of emergence counts from the time-series emergence traps. Count bars for each day are subdivided by individual trap.

Fig. 4 in Comparison of sampling methodologies and estimation of population parameters for a temporary fish ectoparasite

Fig. 4. Scatterplot showing total body length in mm versus estimated volume of blood and plasma extracted in Ml. The box-and-whisker plots are centered on the mean body length for each of the three juvenile stages. The box edges are placed at the 2nd and 3rd quartiles for volume estimates and the whiskers show extreme minimum and maximum volumes. The mean estimate of extracted volume by juvenile stage is shown as a labeled dashed-red horizontal line. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 1 in Comparison of sampling methodologies and estimation of population parameters for a temporary fish ectoparasite

Fig. 1. Traps used in the first study. (A) Small emergence trap, (B) fish-baited emergence trap, (C) fish-baited tripod, (D) open-mesh fish-baited trap and (E) lighted plankton trap. Note that the sample container holding a small French grunt fish for the fish-baited emergence trap (B) and the fish-baited tripod trap (C) are identical units other than the sealed floats attached to the top of the sample container when used with the fish-baited emergence trap.

Fig. 2 in Comparison of sampling methodologies and estimation of population parameters for a temporary fish ectoparasite

Fig. 2. Traps used in the second study. The lighted plankton trap, in the left foreground, stands on short legs—four large emergence traps can be seen in the middleground to the right of the lighted plankton trap. A second lighted plankton trap in the background can be seen towards the center of the frame.

Fig. 3 in Comparison of sampling methodologies and estimation of population parameters for a temporary fish ectoparasite

Fig. 3. Scatterplots of total body length in mm plotted against eye length in mm along the long axis. The upper plot shows measurements for zuphea and the lower plot for praniza. The body length cutoff values separating juvenile stages are shown as a dotted-green line. Gnathiids collected from emergence traps are seen as gold-filled squares and those collected from light traps are presented as purple-filled triangles. Differences in the ontological sampling bias of these two trap designs can be seen by comparing the two scatterplots. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 6 in Comparison of sampling methodologies and estimation of population parameters for a temporary fish ectoparasite

Fig. 6. Histograms of trap counts by sample day and juvenile stage. The upper histograms show counts from emergence traps and the lower histograms show counts from light traps. Mean count for each histogram is shown as a dashed horizontal line. See text for an explanation of the number of sampling days shown in each plot.

Fig. 6. Ectoparasite-host interactions for A in Ectoparasitism on deep-sea fishes in the western North Atlantic: In situ observations from ROV surveys

Fig. 6. Ectoparasite-host interactions for A) Antimora rostrata, B) Nezumia bairdii, and C) Synaphobranchus spp. across the region for which the presence or absence of ectoparasites could be confirmed. Circle Size = Number of confirmed ectoparasite-host interactions 10 m —2. Square = No ectoparasites observed. Colors denote habitats.

Fig. 2 in Ectoparasitism on deep-sea fishes in the western North Atlantic: In situ observations from ROV surveys

Fig. 2. Example images of ectoparasites infecting various host species. A) Antimora rostrata with a lernaeopodid copepod (1059 m, Alvin Canyon); B) Synaphobranchus sp. with a sphyriid copepod (820 m, open slope); C) Nezumia bairdii with a sphyriid copepod parasitized by eight leeches (1035 m, Phoenix Canyon; D), Black fish, Diaphus sp. with an unknown siphonostomatid copepod (1130 m, cold seep) attached behind dorsal fin; E) N. bairdii with aegid isopod (780 m, open slope); F) Hoplostethus mediterraneus with a cymothoid isopod (744 m, Nygren Canyon); G) Amblyraja radiata with aegid isopod (1010 m, Alvin Canyon); and H) Cottunculus thomsonii with gnathiids (1210 m, Oceanographer Canyon).

Fig. 3 in Ectoparasitism on deep-sea fishes in the western North Atlantic: In situ observations from ROV surveys

Fig. 3. Percentage of ectoparasites infecting three common demersal fishes. Unconfirmed observations are not included.

Fig. 1 in Ectoparasitism on deep-sea fishes in the western North Atlantic: In situ observations from ROV surveys

Fig. 1. Locations of 43 ROV dives conducted along the northeastern U.S. continental margin and New England Seamount Chain. Circle Size = Number of ectoparasite-host interactions per dive. Square = No ectoparasites observed. Colors denote habitats.

Fig. 5 in Ectoparasitism on deep-sea fishes in the western North Atlantic: In situ observations from ROV surveys

Fig. 5. Mean abundance (±SE) of A) Antimora rostrata, B) Nezumia bairdii, and C) Synaphobranchus spp. per habitat (black bars). Mean abundance (±SE) of ectoparasitehost interactions (grey bars) is also included. n = number of dives during which the species was present.

Fig. 4 in Ectoparasitism on deep-sea fishes in the western North Atlantic: In situ observations from ROV surveys

Fig. 4. Mean abundance (±SE) of A) Antimora rostrata, B) Nezumia bairdii, and C) Synaphobranchus spp. per depth zone (black bars). Mean abundance (±SE) of ectoparasite-host interactions (grey bars) also included. n = number of dives during which the species was present.