Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2007View details →

FIG. 7 in Comparative root anatomy of Duchesnea indica, Fragaria vesca and Potentilla tucumanensis (Rosaceae) in Tucumán province, Argentina

FIG. 7. — Potentilla tucumanensis Castagnaro & Arias: A, transversal section of root, diarch primary structure; B, early secondary structure; C, secondary structure; D, longitudinal section, trachea segment with areolate punctuation and tracheids. Abbreviations: en, endodermis; ep, epidermis; cp, cortex of the primary structure; pa, parenchyma; pe, peridermis; px, protoxylem; tq, tracheid; tr, trachea. Scale bars: A, D, 10 µm; B, 20 µm; C, 100 µm.

dryad40/100

Greater reproductive assurance of asexual plant compared to sexual relative in a low density sympatric population – experimental evidence for pollen limitation

This dataset contains data from a common garden experiment described in the paper: "Mráz P, Mrázová V. 2021. Greater reproductive assurance of asexual plant compared to sexual relative in a low density sympatric population – experimental evidence for pollen limitation. Journal of Evolutionary Ecology ". We compared the level and stability of reproductive assurance between sexual self-incompatible and asexual autonomously apomictic plants of Hieracium alpinum (Asteraceae) cultivated in a sympatric low-density population with two levels of spatial clumping of sexual plants. Overall, we found that the realized seed set (i.e. proportion of well developed seeds per capitulum) of asexuals was ca. 3-times greater than that of sexuals (83% versus 27%), while the variance of this trait expressed as coefficient of variation was ca. 4-times smaller in asexuals compared to sexuals (19% versus 83%). Solitary sexual plants had more than 2-times lower realized seed set when compared to clumps composed of two spatially close (20-30 cm) sexual plants (13% versus 34%). Our study provides experimental evidence for benefit of uniparental reproduction of asexuals in a sympatric situation when the availability of mates is limited. This, together with unpredictability of pollinator environment could provide autonomous apomicts with an ultimate demographic superiority during colonization reflected in geographical parthenogenesis observed in this species.

opencc-zeroAug 2021View details →

Figure 2 in Comparative population biology of Uca rapax (Smith, 1870) (Brachyura, Ocypodidae) from two subtropical mangrove habitats on the Brazilian coast

Figure 2. Uca rapax. Comparison of the median sizes of males and females at each site (A) and comparison of the median size of each sex and site (B). Boxes with at least one letter in common showed no statistically significant difference (P.0.05).

Figure 5 in Comparative population biology of Uca rapax (Smith, 1870) (Brachyura, Ocypodidae) from two subtropical mangrove habitats on the Brazilian coast

Figure 5. Uca rapax. Sex ratio by month (A) and size classes of carapace width (mm) (B) for populations from Itamambuca and Ubatumirim. Asterisks above the columns indicate significant differences between the proportions of males and females (P,0.05).

Figure 6 in Comparative population biology of Uca rapax (Smith, 1870) (Brachyura, Ocypodidae) from two subtropical mangrove habitats on the Brazilian coast

Figure 6. Uca rapax. Recruitment in the Itamambuca and Ubatumirim habitats by season of the year. Small letters above bars compare the proportions of juveniles among seasons in the same site. Bars with at least one letter in common did not differ statistically (P.0.05).

Figure 1 in Comparative population biology of Uca rapax (Smith, 1870) (Brachyura, Ocypodidae) from two subtropical mangrove habitats on the Brazilian coast

Figure 1. Uca rapax. Median values (¡SD) of the organic matter content of the sediment at Itamambuca and Ubatumirim. The statistical comparisons were performed for each season between sites (Kruskal–Wallis, a50.05). White bars with at least one letter in common did not differ statistically.

opencc-by-4.0Feb 2005View details →

Figure 1 in Contributions of Walter G. Ridewood to systematic comparative anatomy, especially of the osteology of ''lower'' vertebrates

Figure 1. Photograph to show how Ridewood disarticulated a fish skull in order to preserve the maximum amount of original articulation as well as to reveal the greater part of the internal skeleton. This is a skull of Scleropages leichardti (Günther 1864). Top: braincase and the right palate, hyomandibular, preopercle and lower jaw shown in medial view. Middle: left palate, hyomandibular and opercular bones in lateral view. Bottom: the ventral gill arches seen in dorsal view. This specimen (The Natural History Museum registration number BMNH 1905.3.20.6) was prepared and used by Ridewood (1905a) in his description of osteoglossid fishes.

Figure 9 in The life-cycle of Hemigalichus chrotogale sp. nov. (Acari: Listrophoridae), with comparative observations on listrophorid morphology

Figure 9. Male genital organs. (A) Lynxacarus mustelae Mégnin; (B) Lynxacarus mustelae Mégnin, folds removed; (C) Aplodontochirus borealis Fain and Hyland. Abbreviations: a, aedeagus; d.a., post-dorsal apodeme; d.o., diachilous orifice; g.c., genital capsule; g.p., genital papilla; g.v., genital valves; i.s., intermediate sclerite; p.s., progenital sclerite.

Figure 8 in The life-cycle of Hemigalichus chrotogale sp. nov. (Acari: Listrophoridae), with comparative observations on listrophorid morphology

Figure 8. Hemigalichus chrotogale sp. nov., details of female. (A–D) Legs I–IV in ventral view, respectively; (E) ovipore; (F) pretarsal ambulacarum, dorsal view. Abbreviations: a.s., ambulacral stalk; b.p., basilar piece; c, condylophore; c.g., condylophore guide; c.s., central sclerite; d.o., diachilous orifice; f, flap; f.s., fan-shaped structure; g.p., genital papilla; p.f., progenital fold; ps.f., posterogynal fold; u.l., undulate lamina.

Figure 4 in The life-cycle of Hemigalichus chrotogale sp. nov. (Acari: Listrophoridae), with comparative observations on listrophorid morphology

Figure 4. Hemigalichus chrotogale sp. nov., homeomorphic male (holotype). (A) Dorsal view; (B) ventral view; (C) opisthosoma, ventral view. Abbreviations: i.a., internal apodeme; l. m., lobar membrane; l. r., longitudinal ridge; op. s., opisthogastric sclerite; t. l., terminal lobes. Scale bars: 100 mm (A, B); 50 mm (C).

Figure 2 in The life-cycle of Hemigalichus chrotogale sp. nov. (Acari: Listrophoridae), with comparative observations on listrophorid morphology

Figure 2. Hemigalichus chrotogale sp. nov., protonymph. (A) Dorsal view; (B) ventral view; (C) leg IV in ventral view. Scale bars: 25 mm (A, B); 50 mm (C).

Figure 1 in The life-cycle of Hemigalichus chrotogale sp. nov. (Acari: Listrophoridae), with comparative observations on listrophorid morphology

Figure 1. Hemigalichus chrotogale sp. nov., larva. (A) Lateral view; (B–D) legs I–III in ventral view, respectively. Abbreviations: c.f., clasping flap, l.i., lateral incision, l.t., lateral tooth, o.g., opening of oil gland, p.c., podocephalic canal, s.g., opening of supracoxal gland. Scale bars: 25 mm (A); 50 mm (B–D).

Figure 3 in The life-cycle of Hemigalichus chrotogale sp. nov. (Acari: Listrophoridae), with comparative observations on listrophorid morphology

Figure 3. Hemigalichus chrotogale sp. nov., teleonymph. (A) Ventral view; (B) coxa of leg II; (C) leg IV in ventral view. Abbreviations: fe, femur; ge, genu; ta, tarsus; ti, tibia; tr, trochanter. Scale bars: 100 mm (A); 50 mm (B, C).

Figure 6 in Comparative morphology of scales of four teleost fishes from Sudan and Yemen

Figure 6. Scales from different body regions of Lates niloticus. (A–H) Regions 1–8; (I) area around anus; (J) lateral line scale. Scale bars: 1 mm.

Figure 5 in Comparative morphology of scales of four teleost fishes from Sudan and Yemen

Figure 5. Scales from different body regions of Labeo niloticus. (A–H) Regions 1–8; (I) area around anus; (J) lateral line scale. Scale bars: 300 mm.

Figure 7 in Comparative morphology of scales of four teleost fishes from Sudan and Yemen

Figure 7. Scale details (SEM). (A) Interradial denticles (Barbus arabicus); (B) focus area (Barbus arabicus); (C, D) tubercles (Barbus exolatus); (E, F) interradial denticles (Barbus exolatus); (G) circuli at interradial area without denticles (Labeo niloticus); (H) focus area (Labeo niloticus). Scale bars: 10 mm (A); 200 mm (B); 500 mm (C, D); 20 mm (E–G); 50 mm (H).

Figure 4 in Comparative morphology of scales of four teleost fishes from Sudan and Yemen

Figure 4. Scales from different body regions of Barbus exolatus. (A–G) Regions 1–7; (H) region 8; (I, J) area around anus; (K) lateral line scale. Scale bars: 1 mm.

Figure 2 in Comparative morphology of scales of four teleost fishes from Sudan and Yemen

Figure 2. Principal scale fields. (A) Body scale (Lates niloticus); (B) body scale (Barbus exolatus); (C) lateral line scale (Lates niloticus); (D) lateral line scale (Barbus exolatus). AF, anterior field; LF, lateral field; PF, posterior field.

Figure 3 in Comparative morphology of scales of four teleost fishes from Sudan and Yemen

Figure 3. Scales from different body regions of Barbus arabicus. (A–G) Regions 1–7; (H, I) region 8; (J, K) area around anus; (L) lateral line scale. Scale bars: 1 mm.