Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 4 in Heartworm and seal louse: Trends in prevalence, characterisation of impact and transmission pathways in a unique parasite assembly on seals in the North and Baltic Sea

Fig. 4. Histological sections and staining of E. horridus revealing filarial stages in E. horridus. A: Filarial stages (arrowheads) in the pharynx. bar = 20 μm. B: Filarial stage (arrow) in the mouth region. bar = 40 μm. C: Filarial stage (arrowhead) in the intestine (in) surrounded by erythrocytes (e). bar = 15 μm. D: Filarial stage in the haemocoel (hc) of the abdomen of E. horridus (square). E: Close up of filarial stage. mp = mouthparts, mo = mouth, cu = cuticula. A–C: Haematoxylin - Eosin stain, D: Giemsa stain.

Fig. 3. A in Heartworm and seal louse: Trends in prevalence, characterisation of impact and transmission pathways in a unique parasite assembly on seals in the North and Baltic Sea

Fig. 3. A: Prevalence of A. spirocauda and E. horridus in harbour seals in the North and Baltic Sea from 1996 to 2021, data from 1996 to 2013 according to Lehnert et al. (2016). B: Prevalence of A. spirocauda and E. horridus in harbour seals during the seasons in the North and Baltic Sea from 2014 to 2021.

Fig. 2 in Heartworm and seal louse: Trends in prevalence, characterisation of impact and transmission pathways in a unique parasite assembly on seals in the North and Baltic Sea

Fig. 2. Sampling routine of E. horridus infected seal skin for histological and bacteriological examinations. A: Mild E. horridus infection of a harbour seal yearling, asterisk pointing at E. horridus. B: Close up of E. horridus C: Removing of E. horridus D: Cutting and removing of the infected skin with a sterile forceps for further investigations. Scale bars: A-D 1 cm.

Fig. 1 in Heartworm and seal louse: Trends in prevalence, characterisation of impact and transmission pathways in a unique parasite assembly on seals in the North and Baltic Sea

Fig. 1. Levels of infection with E. horridus in P. vitulina. A: Mild E. horridus infection of a harbour seal yearling, asterisk pointing at E. horridus B: Close up of E. horridus in the head area of a harbour seal C: Severe E. horridus infection of a harbour seal D: Close up of severe E. horridus infection. Scale bars: A-D 1 cm.

Fig. 2 in Impacts of crustacean invasions on parasite dynamics in aquatic ecosystems: A plea for parasite-focused studies

Fig. 2. Introduced hosts ‾ native parasites: hypothetical examples of the potential effects of invasive crustaceans on native parasites. Note that only a subsample of nonexclusive scenarios from a number of potential outcomes of biological invasion on native parasite dynamics is represented here. The hypothetical native parasite considered here has a two-host life cycle involving a definitive host predator and an intermediate host prey, transmission from the intermediate host to the definitive host requiring consumption of infected intermediate host prey. The variable sizes of squares, circles and diamonds represent relative intermediate and definitive hosts, and parasite abundances, respectively. During transmission, some parasites are unsuccessful and therefore lost from the system (parasite loss); the thickness of the arrows indicates the relative numbers that are either lost or successfully transmitted. The life cycle at the top represents the situation prior to the invasion, providing a benchmark for comparisons. (A) The invader is a suitable alternative intermediate host in which native parasite larvae can survive. However, the introduced host is also a poor transmission vector, due to low predation rate from the definitive host and/or failed host manipulation by the parasite, for example. Introduced hosts are thus more infected than their congeneric, native hosts only because of the accumulation of native parasite larvae that fail to get transmitted to the definitive host. This may in turn negatively affect parasite dynamics in native hosts as shown here. (B) The invader is again a suitable alternative intermediate host but also a good transmission vector to the definitive host, leading to greater infection risk for native definitive hosts. In this case, the invader positively influences parasite dynamics and may increase infection levels in definitive hosts, as shown here. In extreme cases, invasive hosts may be more efficient vectors for the parasite than native hosts and become key hosts. (C) The invader is not a suitable host but directly impacts native intermediate hosts, the transmission vector for the parasite, through predation and thus indirectly reduces native parasite abundance in native definitive hosts.

Fig. 1 in Impacts of crustacean invasions on parasite dynamics in aquatic ecosystems: A plea for parasite-focused studies

Fig. 1. Hypothetical examples of enemy release (A), dilution effect (B), parasite spillback (C) and spillover (D) following introduction of a non-native host in a recipient ecosystem, illustrating the fundamental differences among the different processes. The theoretical recipient ecosystem is here composed of a native host infected by a parasite with a simple life cycle and direct transmission, invaded by a congeneric non-native host infected with a co-introduced parasite with a similar life cycle, to simplify representation. The variable sizes of squares and diamonds represent relative host and parasite abundances, respectively. The thickness of the arrows represents transmission dynamics of the parasite and account for parasite loss during transmission. Enemy release (A) happens when the introduced species benefits from a reduction, or total loss as represented here, in parasitism as a result of invasion. This may in turn have drastic effects on invasion success and both native and invasive host abundances. Dilution effect (B) results from the failure of native parasites to use invasive hosts for successful reproduction and transmission. Native parasites may be unable to infect or be killed (as represented here) by the invasive host. Dilution may in turn decrease parasite transmission among native hosts and negatively affect parasite population dynamics. Parasite spillback (C) happens when invasive hosts acquire a native parasite that is already present in the native host population. Infected invasive hosts can then act as reservoirs of native parasites, potentially increasing infection levels in native hosts as represented here. Increased infection levels in the native host may in turn reduce native host abundance, compared to pre-invasion levels (not represented here). Parasite spillover (D) follows the co-introduction of non-native parasites with their invasive hosts and infection of native hosts by the introduced parasite. Infection of the native host can be maintained by the invasive host, which acts as a reservoir of infection, self-sustained if the parasite can reproduce in its novel host, or both as represented here. Infection of the native host by the introduced parasite can in turn influence host abundances, compared to pre-invasion levels. Note that in scenario D, the native host may or may not possess native parasites.

Fig. 3 in Using experimental de-worming to measure the immunological and pathological impacts of lungworm infection in cane toads

Fig. 3. The effects of lungworm (Rhabdias pseudosphaerocephala infection level on lung pathology of 15 cane toads. (A) number of areas of inflammation predominated by lymphocytes, (B) number of areas of regional septal fibrosis, and (C) areas of inflammation predominated by neutrophils and macrophages. The size of the symbols represents sample size of each count.

Fig. 2 in Using experimental de-worming to measure the immunological and pathological impacts of lungworm infection in cane toads

Fig. 2. Effects of anthelmintic injection (Ivermectin) on the viability of adult lungworms (Rhabdias pseudosphaerocephala inside the lungs of cane toads (n = 10) hosts over a 7-day period following anthelmintic injection. Lungworm viability scores (see text for definitions) decreased with time since injection. The size of the symbols represents sample size of each score. Two toads had not been treated with anthelmintic when euthanized and were given scores of 0 days post injection.

Fig. 3 in Impacts of crustacean invasions on parasite dynamics in aquatic ecosystems: A plea for parasite-focused studies

Fig. 3. Introduced parasites ‾ native/introduced hosts: hypothetical examples of the potential effects of invasive crustaceans on native parasites. Note that only a subsample of non-exclusive scenarios from a number of potential outcomes of non-native parasite introduction is represented here. The hypothetical non-native parasite considered here has a two-host life cycle involving a definitive host predator and an intermediate host prey, transmission from the intermediate host to the definitive host requiring consumption of infected intermediate host prey. The variable sizes of squares, circles and diamonds represent relative intermediate and definitive hosts, and parasite abundances, respectively. During transmission, some parasites are unsuccessful and therefore lost from the system (parasite loss); the thickness of the arrows indicates the relative numbers that are either lost or successfully transmitted. The life cycle at the top left represents the situation in the ecosystem of origin of the parasite, providing a benchmark for comparisons. Prior to the invasion, the hypothetical recipient ecosystem does not contain native parasites for simplification of representation. (A) The parasite is co-introduced with its intermediate host prey. The invasive parasite retains its original, co-introduced hosts and uses native definitive hosts to complete its life cycle. The situation represented here is the simplest one where the native predator exactly replaces the original definitive host of the parasite with no effect on either parasite dynamics or host abundance. However, parasite invasion may in turn negatively affect native predators and change parasite dynamics compared to that observed in the original ecosystem (shown at the top left). (B) The parasite is again cointroduced with its intermediate host prey. The invasive parasite retains its original, co-introduced hosts and uses native definitive hosts to complete its life cycle but also uses the native prey species as an alternative transmission vector. The introduced parasite may negatively influence native host abundance, thus influencing invasion success of its co-introduced host, as shown here. This may in turn lead to greater infection levels in definitive hosts in the recipient ecosystem than in the original ecosystem of the parasite (situation not represented here) (C) The non-native parasite is introduced without its original host (or this host does not survive translocation) but is subsequently included in the recipient food web. The novel parasite may in turn have drastic effects on intermediate and/or native hosts and reach higher infection levels in these novel hosts as represented here. However, a multitude of alternative scenarios are possible with as many outcomes in terms of parasite dynamics.

Fig. 6 in Using experimental de-worming to measure the immunological and pathological impacts of lungworm infection in cane toads

Fig. 6. (A) The effects of anthelmintic treatment on relative liver mass of 5 de-wormed (open bars) vs. 6 not de-wormed (grey bars) free-ranging toads. (B) Effect of experimental treatment on relative liver mass of 49 captive cane toads. ID = infected, dewormed (n = 11), IC = infected, control (n = 13), ND = non-infected, de-wormed

Fig. 4 in Using experimental de-worming to measure the immunological and pathological impacts of lungworm infection in cane toads

Fig. 4. The effects of lungworm (Rhabdias pseudosphaerocephala) abundance on leukocyte concentrations in cane toads. Captive toads (n = 19) exhibited high leukocyte concentrations that were independent of the level of Rhabdias infection. In contrast, leukocyte concentrations in free-ranging toads (n = 11) increased with Rhabdias infection level.

Fig. 3 in The diversity and impact of hookworm infections in wildlife

Fig. 3. Host species diversity index for represented hookworm species, penalized by number of animals sampled (a) and the number of animal species sampled in each study (b).

Fig. 2 in The diversity and impact of hookworm infections in wildlife

Fig. 2. Hookworm diversity index penalized by the citation principal component (citation-PC) of the host species (a) and the number of sampled animals of each host species (b). Bar colors indicate represented mammalian orders. (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 The diversity and impact of hookworm infections in wildlife

Fig. 1. Percentage of studies describing hookworm infections in wildlife hosts divided by continent (a) and the main methodology used to collect the data (b).

opencc-by-4.0Jul 2024View details →

Supplementary files to "Impact of Heat Treatment on the Microbiological Quality of Frass Originating from Black Soldier Fly Larvae (Hermetia illucens)"

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

opencc-by-4.0Jul 2024View details →

Model configuration files and forcing data for Implementing deep soil and dynamic root uptake in Noah-MP (v4.5): impact on Amazon dry-season transpiration

This repository includes the model configuration files, input data, and forcing data used for simulations in Bieri et al. (2025) - Implementing deep soil and dynamic root uptake in Noah-MP (v4.5): impact on Amazon dry-season transpiration. <ul> <li>forcing.tar.gz - Compressed folder containing HRLDAS Noah-MP model forcing NetCDF files <ul> <li>These forcing files were derived from the NASA Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS; Beaudoing et al. 2020)</li> <li>The compressed file contains 3-hourly forcing files for the entire simulation period (01 Jun 2000 to 31 Dec 2019)</li> </ul> </li> <li>wrfinput_d01 - NetCDF file used as HRLDAS input file in HRLDAS Noah-MP simulations <ul> <li>Generated from WRF WPS (https://github.com/wrf-model/WPS)</li> </ul> </li> <li>Namelist files <ul> <li>namelist.hrldas.ROOT - Model namelist settings used for ROOT experiment</li> <li>namelist.hrldas.SOIL - Model namelist settings used for SOIL experiment</li> <li>namelist.hrldas.GW - Model namelist settings used for GW experiment</li> <li>namelist.hrldas.CONTROL - Model namelist settings used for FD (CONTROL) experiment</li> </ul> </li> </ul>

opencc-by-4.0Aug 2015View details →

Fig. 2 in The impact of meteorological parameters on the biological productivity of mycorrhizal mushrooms in Eastern Siberia

Fig. 2. The variation of total amount of month precipitations *** in August and biological productivity**** of mushrooms in different years. *** variation of total amount of month precipitations, **** biological productivity

opencc-by-4.0Aug 2015View details →

Fig. 1 in The impact of meteorological parameters on the biological productivity of mycorrhizal mushrooms in Eastern Siberia

Fig. 1. The variation of average month temperature * of soil at a depth of 40 cm below the natural cover in August and biological productivity** of mushrooms in different years. * variation of average month temperature, ** biological productivity, *** 1 centner = 100 kilograms (a centner is a metric unit of mass equal to one hundred kilograms).

opencc-by-4.0Jul 2024View details →

M4.4 (associated data) - FAIR-IMPACT Review of Semantic Artefact Catalogues and technologies

This dataset (version 1) takes the form of a spreadsheet corresponding to the associated data described by <a href="../records/12799796" target="_blank" rel="noopener">M4.4 - Review of Semantic Artefact Catalogues and guidelines for serving FAIR semantic artefacts in EOSC</a> The spreadsheept (available here in ODS format) contains the listing of Semantic Artefact Catalogues (SACs) done within FAIR-IMPACT's WP4, their classifications (by status, type, discipline and technology) and the evaluation of their FAIR-enabling dimensions.  A "live" version of this spreadsheet is available as an open Google Sheet open for comments and suggestions. We will take external contributions and comments into consideration when producing new verion of this dataset. Contributions could be of several types:  <ul> <li>New SAC or modification of the ones currently identified;</li> <li>New SAC technology or modification of the ones currently identified;</li> <li>New FAIR-enabling assessment or modification of the ones currently available.</li> </ul> For more information, interested parties may contact the authors.