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.
269
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
269 results for “vegetation cover”
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1986
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1986</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1991
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1991</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1994
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1994</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1995
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1995</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2000
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2000</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1998
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1998</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2007
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2007</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2005
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2005</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2004
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2004</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2014
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2014</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 2015
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 2015</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Vegetation cover and plant diversity on cold climate green roofs
<p>Both vegetation abundances and community compositions play important roles for the functions of green roofs (e.g. stormwater retention, habitat provision, aesthetic appearance). However, green roof vegetation can change significantly over time, which may consequently affect the functions related to them. This study investigated vascular plant covers and species compositions on 41 roof sections located in Sweden's subarctic and continental climate zones. For the roof sections with a known originally intended vascular plant composition (n=32), on average 24±9% of the intended species were present in surveys while unintended species made up 69±3% of the the species found. The Intended species dominated plant cover (93±3%) and <i>Sedum acre </i>(58±36% cover) was the most commonly found species. As revealed in previous studies, substrate depth had a positive relationship with plant cover and species richness. The vascular plant cover of the roofs in this study was not related to species richness as hypothesized but instead had a significant negative correlation with moss cover. The results in this study emphasize the importance of substrate depth for both plant abundance and species diversity, and that even in a cold climate, colonising unintended species can have a great contribution to the species richness of green roofs. However, since most colonising species formed sparse cover on the roofs, their potential benefit to green roof functions that benefit from a dense vegetation cover (e.g. stormwater management and thermal performance) could be limited while the intended vegetation performs these functions more effectively.</p>
Data: On the role of water table depth, and urban and vegetation cover on groundwater dry period susceptibility
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Urban scavenging: Vertebrates display greater sensitivity to land-cover and garden vegetation cover than invertebrates
<p>1. Scavenging removes carrion or littered food waste from the environment, providing ecosystem services including nutrient cycling, reduced pathogen spread, and reduced waste management costs. These services are particularly important in urban environments, where high human population densities result in increased littered food waste. It is unclear how the magnitude of scavenging across urban-rural gradients is influenced by agent (vertebrates and invertebrates), land-cover type and patch size.</p> <p>2. We investigated scavenging provision by vertebrates and invertebrates across a gradient of urbanisation in 37 woodlands and 35 domestic gardens across Liverpool, UK. Sites were selected using random stratification across a gradient of urbanisation based on impervious surface cover. At each site, four different bait types were deployed either within vertebrate exclusion cages or exposed to vertebrates and invertebrates. The percentage dry weight loss of bait after 48 hours was used to quantify scavenging provision.</p> <p>3. Data were analysed using general linear mixed effects models (Gaussian error distribution) and a full model approach to assess 1) the relative contributions of vertebrates and invertebrates across an urban-rural gradient; 2) variation in scavenging between woodlands and gardens; 3) the effects of semi-natural vegetation cover on scavenging provision. We also consider patch size as a preliminary assessment of how fragmentation influences scavenging.</p> <p>4. Vertebrates contributed substantially more to scavenging provision than invertebrates across the urbanisation gradient. Vertebrate scavenging was substantially greater in woodlands than gardens, invertebrate scavenging was similar in both land-cover types. Scavenging increased with patch size in gardens, but not woodlands. Vertebrate scavenging increased with patch size, while invertebrate scavenging decreased. Within gardens, vertebrate scavenging increased with semi-natural vegetation cover.</p> <p>5. Scavenging-mediated ecosystem services are important in urban areas where food littering is frequent, and efforts should be made to facilitate these services. Urban woodlands and gardens both make important contributions to scavenging-mediated ecosystem services in urban areas, but woodlands' contributions are much greater. There is a need to increase the cover of semi-natural vegetation in gardens to increase their contributions, and protect and expand woodlands, especially in areas with a high demand for ecosystem services reliant on scavenging.</p>
A 10 m resolution land cover map of the Tibetan Plateau with detailed vegetation types
<p>A 10 m resolution land cover map of the Tibetan Plateau with 12 vegetation types and 3 non-vegetation types for the year 2022 (TP_LC10-2022) by leveraging state-of-the-art remote sensing approaches including the Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 imagery, environmental and topographic datasets, and Random Forest model using Google Earth Engine platform.</p>
Vegetative cover, light availability, and Buckthorn performance in five forest revegetation treatments
<p>Data describing the cover, light availability, and buckthorn performance of five forest revegetation treatments (passive restoration, herbaceous seeding, sedge planting, shrub planting, and tree planting). </p>
Data from: Trends in plant cover derived from vegetation-plot data using ordinal zero-augmented beta regression
<p><strong>Questions.</strong> Plant cover values in vegetation-plot data are bounded between 0 and 1, and cover is typically recorded in discrete classes with non-equal intervals. Consequently, cover data are skewed and heteroskedastic, which hampers the application of conventional regression methods. Recently developed ordinal beta regression models consider these statistical difficulties. Our primary question is if we can detect species trends in vegetation-plot time series data with this modelling approach. A second question is whether trends in cover have additional value compared to trends in occurrence, which are easier to assess for practitioners.</p> <p><strong>Location</strong>. The Netherlands, Western Europe.</p> <p><strong>Methods. </strong>We used vegetation-plot data collected from 10.000 fixed plots which were surveyed once every four years during 1999-2022. We used the ordinal zero-augmented beta regression (OZAB) model, a hierarchical model consisting of a logistic regression for presence and an ordinal beta regression for cover. We adapted the OZAB model for longitudinal data and produced estimates of cover and occurrence for each four-year period. Thereafter we assessed trends in cover and in occurrence across all periods.</p> <p><strong>Results.</strong> We found evidence of a trend in cover in 318 out of the 721 species (44%) with sufficient data. Most species showed similar directional trends in occurrence and percent cover. No trend in occurrence was detected for 64 species that had evidence of a trend in cover. Declining species had stronger relative changes in cover than in occurrence.</p> <p><strong>Conclusions. </strong>Our model enables researchers to detect trends in cover using longitudinal vegetation-plot data. Cover trends often corroborated trends in occurrence, but we also regularly found trends in cover even in the absence of evidence for trends in occurrence. Our approach thus contributes to a more complete picture of (changes in) vegetation composition based on large monitoring datasets.</p>
Urban stormwater pond water quality and vegetation cover data
<p>These data include measurements of water physical and chemical parameters and littoral vegetation measurements in urban stormwater ponds located in three different urban land use types in Orlando, Florida, USA.</p>
Yards, block groups, and vegetation cover measures
<p>Residential yards are a significant component of urban socio-ecological systems; residential land covers 11% of the United States and is often the dominant land use within urban areas. Residential yards also play an important role in the sustainability of urban socio-ecological systems, affecting biogeochemical cycles, water, and the climate via individual- and household-level behaviors. Vegetation, such as trees and grasses, are unevenly distributed across front and back yards, and we sought to understand how similar yards are to each other when compared to their neighboring yards and neighborhoods using aerial imagery. There are many ways to measure yard similarity, and we compared several measures to account for different definitions of 'neighborness'. We examined the spatial autocorrelation of several yard vegetation characteristics in both front and backyards in Boston, MA, USA. Our study area included 1,027 Census block groups (sub-neighborhood areas) and 175,576 parcels with matched front-backyard pairings (n = 351,152 yards in total) across Boston's metropolitan area. This data package contains 1) 351,152 yard spatially-referenced yard polygons with five measures of vegetation summarized, 2) the containing block groups, and 3) and *.R script that replicates the analyses reported in Locke, D. H., Ossola, A., Minor, E., & Lin, B. B. (2021). Spatial contagion structures urban vegetation from parcel to landscape. People and Nature, 00, 1–15. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10254">https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10254</a></p>
Ecogeographical patterns in owl plumage colouration: climate and vegetation cover predict global colour variation
<p>Aim: Ecogeographical rules link animal colours, especially those produced by melanin pigments, with variation in environmental conditions over wide geographical scales. In particular, Gloger's rule, coined in two versions for endothermic animals, suggests that tegument darkness would increase at high temperature, as well as in highly humid environments. On the other hand, the thermal melanism hypothesis, predicts that darker colourations should be more frequent in colder areas given their thermoregulation benefits.</p> <p>Location: Global</p> <p>Time period: Contemporary</p> <p>Major taxa studied: Strigiformes</p> <p>Methods: Here, we provide a global comparative test of these contrasting expectations in all extant owls (n = 198 species), a group of nocturnal birds displaying huge variability in the degree of melanin-based plumage colouration and environmental specialization. Combining analyses at both species and assemblage level, we assessed the climatic and environmental variables explaining variation in plumage lightness and redness across broad geographical gradients.</p> <p>Results: Darker and redder owl phenotypes are more likely found near the equator. Species and assemblage level analyses reveal that owls have more frequently darker and redder plumages in warmer regions. In addition, owl species living in more vegetated areas are darker, and owl assemblages show darker colours in wetter areas.</p> <p>Main conclusions: Global patterns of colour variation in owls do not fit expectations from the thermal melanism hypothesis but supports Gloger´s rule. Our findings also stresses that several alternative selective forces may explain climatic effects on colouration over large geographical scales. Experimental work is urged to uncover the possible mechanisms behind the detected associations between owl colour and environmental variables.</p>
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.