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.
7,378
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
7,378 results for “case”
Fig. 3 in Does dredging activity exert an influence on benthic macrofauna in tropical estuaries? Case study on the northern coast of Brazil
Fig. 3. Temporal and spatial variation of different granulometric size fractions contribution (%) to the sediment total weight at SÃo LuÍs Harbor, MaranhÃo, Brazil. The number below the x-axis indicate the sampling stations.
Fig. 6 in Does dredging activity exert an influence on benthic macrofauna in tropical estuaries? Case study on the northern coast of Brazil
Fig. 6. Number of species, density and diversity of Shannon of the benthic macrofauna found in the Port Complex of SÃo LuÍs, MaranhÃo, Brazil: (A) Number of species, (B) Density, (C) Shannon diversity and (D) Lumbrineris sp.
Fig 5 in Does dredging activity exert an influence on benthic macrofauna in tropical estuaries? Case study on the northern coast of Brazil
Fig 5. Temporal and spatial variation of metals and semimetals concentrations (mg kg-1) in the sediment at SÃo LuÍs Harbor, MaranhÃo, Brazil: (A) Lead, (B) Copper, (C) Chrome, (D) Nickel, (E) Zinc and (F) Arsenic.
Fig. 2 in Does dredging activity exert an influence on benthic macrofauna in tropical estuaries? Case study on the northern coast of Brazil
Fig. 2. Temporal and spatial variation of sub superficial salinity (A), temperature (B), dissolved oxygen (C) and pH (D) at SÃo LuÍs Harbor, MaranhÃo, Brazil.
Fig. 1 in Does dredging activity exert an influence on benthic macrofauna in tropical estuaries? Case study on the northern coast of Brazil
Fig. 1. Map of the location of Port Complex of SÃo LuÍs, MaranhÃo, Brazil, indicating the eight sampling points.
Fig. 4 in Does dredging activity exert an influence on benthic macrofauna in tropical estuaries? Case study on the northern coast of Brazil
Fig. 4. Temporal and spatial variation of total iron (A), dissolved iron (B), manganese (C) and zinc (D) concentrations (mg kg-1) in the sub superficial water at SÃo LuÍs Harbor, MaranhÃo, Brazil. The thick black bar indicates the maximum allowed by resolution 357/05.
Fig. 1 in Does the landscape surrounding streams affect the occurrence of freshwater crabs? A case study of the genus Aegla (Crustacea: Decapoda: Anomura) in subtropical basins
Fig. 1. Map of the study area in state of Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil showing land uses and the location of sampling sites (1 through 21) in the northern, central and southern regions.
Fig. 3 in Does the landscape surrounding streams affect the occurrence of freshwater crabs? A case study of the genus Aegla (Crustacea: Decapoda: Anomura) in subtropical basins
Fig. 3. RDA between landscape uses, stream morphology, and abiotic factors that influence the distribution of Aegla in the study area, state of Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil.
Fig. 2 in Does the landscape surrounding streams affect the occurrence of freshwater crabs? A case study of the genus Aegla (Crustacea: Decapoda: Anomura) in subtropical basins
Fig. 2. Boxplot of limnological differences (total nitrogen), stream morphometry hydro-geomorphological differences (Dm) and land use differences (agriculture/exposed soil and pasture) in the three regions (northern, central, and southern) of the study area, state of Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil. Different letters above boxes represent significant differences among groups.
Fig. 1 in Polyphasic growth in fish: a case study with Corydoras paleatus (Siluriformes, Callichthyidae)
Fig. 1. Length frequency distribution of Corydoras paleatus (Jenyns, 1842) – samples taken in November-December 2009 and March-April 2010, in Pinguela Lagoon, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Fig. 2 in Polyphasic growth in fish: a case study with Corydoras paleatus (Siluriformes, Callichthyidae)
Fig. 2. Gondossomatic Index (GSI) according to fish total length for Corydoras paleatus (Jenyns, 1842) – samples taken in November-December 2009 and March-April 2010, in Pinguela Lagoon, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (n=120). Gray dots: GSI individual measures; black dots: GSI median; solid black line: logistic regression for Lmat calculation; dotted line: estimated Lmat according to GSI (MARQUES et al., 2007).
Fig. 1 in A new evidence of passing the Maastichtian-Paleocene boundary by larger benthic foraminifers: The case of Elazigina from the Maastrichtian Tarbur Formation of Iran
Fig. 1. Paleogeographic distribution of Elazigina (open circles) and Laffitteina (red circles) in latest Maastrichtian (A) and Paleocene (B). Records for the Maastrichtian are from Rahaghi (1992); Inan (1988, 2005); Schlüter et al. (2008); Goldbeck and Langer (2009); Hottinger (2014 and the references herein); and this work. Records for the Paleocene are from Rahaghi (1992); Inan (2005); Hottinger (2014 and the references herein); Serra-Kiel et al. 2016); and Benedetti et al. (2018). Maps are from Scotese (2013, 2014).
Fig. 4 in A new evidence of passing the Maastichtian-Paleocene boundary by larger benthic foraminifers: The case of Elazigina from the Maastrichtian Tarbur Formation of Iran
Fig. 4. Rotaliid foraminifer Elazigina siderea sp. nov. (A, holotype) from the Maastrichtian of Rod Abad section, Iran; axial (A, B, D, I, K), subaxial (E–H, J, L, N, O), oblique (C), and transversal-basal (M) sections. A–D, G, J–O. APNU-Tf12 (type-level). F, H, N. APNU-Tf11. E. APNU-Tf4. Abbreviations: f, feathers; pi, piles; pl, umbilical plug; sc, spiral canal.
Fig. 6. A–F in A new evidence of passing the Maastichtian-Paleocene boundary by larger benthic foraminifers: The case of Elazigina from the Maastrichtian Tarbur Formation of Iran
Fig. 6. A–F. Facies from the Tarbur Formation of Rod Abad section, Iran. A, C, D. Packstone with Pseudomphalocyclus blumenthali Meriç, 1980 (o) and Elazigina siderea sp. nov. (e). B, E. Packstone-wackestone with Fissoelphidium operculiferum Smout, 1955 (f), Elazigina siderea sp. nov. (e), and mollusc fragments. F. Packstone-grainstone with Loftusia (lo) and echinoderm fragments (ec). G, H. Orbitokathina sp. G. APNU-Tf14. H. APNU-Tf12. Scale bars A–F, 1 mm; G, H, 0.5 mm.
Fig. 3 in A new evidence of passing the Maastichtian-Paleocene boundary by larger benthic foraminifers: The case of Elazigina from the Maastrichtian Tarbur Formation of Iran
Fig. 3. Stratigraphic columns from Mandegan (A) and Rod-Abad (B) sections with position of the studied samples and distribution of Elazigina siderea sp. nov.
Fig. 5 in A new evidence of passing the Maastichtian-Paleocene boundary by larger benthic foraminifers: The case of Elazigina from the Maastrichtian Tarbur Formation of Iran
Fig. 5. Rotaliid foraminifer Elazigina siderea sp. nov. from the Tarbur Formation of Rod Abad (A, C, D, F–J) and Mandegan (B, E, K) sections, Iran; transversal (A, C, E, J), transversal-basal (B, O), transversal-oblique (D, F–I, L), and tangential (K, M, N, P) sections. C, J, L, M. APNU-Tf12 (typelevel). D, G–I, P. APNU-Tf11. A, N. APNU-Tf10. F. APNU-Tf14. O. APNU-Tf4. B, E. APNU-Rt53. K. APNU-Rt55. Abbreviations: f, feathers; fo, folia; is, intraseptal canals; pi, piles; pl, umbilical plug; pr, proloculus; up, umbilical plate; sc, spiral canal.
Fig. 2 in A new evidence of passing the Maastichtian-Paleocene boundary by larger benthic foraminifers: The case of Elazigina from the Maastrichtian Tarbur Formation of Iran
Fig. 2. Position (asterisked) of studied localities in the general map of Iran (A) and position of Rod-Abad section (B).
Fig. 12 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study
Fig. 12. Historical synthesis of the taxonomic interpretation for the genus Phricodoceras from 1826 until today. Six options are considered: H?, no taxonomic attribution or attribution deliberately left undetermined; Eo, explicit attribution to Eoderoceratoidea or implicit proximity with some ammonites currently attributed to the Eoderoceratidae; Ko, explicit attribution to the Kosmoceratidae; Ly, explicit attribution to the Lytoceratoidea (in the current sense); Ps, explicit attribution to the Psiloceratoidea and proximity with the Schlotheimiidae; La, enigmatic lazarus taxon. A cross indicates an absence of attribution to a taxon. A single black dot suggests an implicit or explicit but very reserved attribution. Two black dots suggest an explicit but debatable attribution. Three black dots suggest an unconditional explicit attribution. Four black dots suggest an explicit attribution based on ontogenetic evidence. For easy reading, the two columns corresponding to the two most frequent taxonomic interpretations (i.e., Eo and Ps) are shaded.
Fig. 11 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study
Fig. 11. Habitus of some nodded, spined and/or tuberculate Lytoceratoidea (A) and Eoderoderatoidea (B–D). A. Analytoceras hermanni (Gümbel, 1861), Kammerkaralpe, Waidring, Tyrol, Austria, probably Late Hettangian (from Wähner 1894: pl. 3: 3a, b, modified), in ventral (A1) and lateral (A2) views. B. Epideroceras lorioli (Hug, 1899), St Peter's Field, Radstock, Somerset, UK, Echioceras raricostatum Chronozone, Paltechioceras aplanatum Subchronozone (from Edmunds et al. 2003: fig. 21. 4, modified), in lateral (B1) and apertural (B2) views. C. Tetraspidoceras repentinum Edmunds, 2009, St Peter's Field, Radstock, Somerset, UK, Uptonia jamesoni Chronozone, Phricodoceras taylori Subchronozone (from Edmunds 2009: pl. 32: 1, modified), in lateral (C1) and ventral (C2) views. D. Becheiceras bechei (Sowerby, 1821), Golden Cap, Seatown, Dorset, UK, Prodactylioceras davoei Chronozone, Oistoceras figulinum Subchronozone (from Edmunds 2009: pl. 38: 1, modified), in lateral (D1) and apertural (D2) views. Tubercles and/or spines in (t1) and/or (t2) positions of the Eoderoceratoidea (B–D) are not homologous with those of Phricodoceras, nevertheless this genus was long understood as a (borderline) member of this superfamily. In the case of Lytoceratoidea (A) the ornamental features in peri−siphonal position (pn3) are parabolic nodes which are morphologically clearly distinct from the tubercles or spines of both Eoderoceratoidea and Phricodoceras. The growth stage of the specimen is unknown.
Fig. 10 in Significance of intermediate forms in phyletic reconstruction of ammonites: Early Jurassic Phricodoceras case study
Fig. 10. Schematic representation and comparison of the ontogenies of an Angulaticeras macroconch (A. boucaultianum) and of a Phricodoceras macroconch (P. lamellosum) in a simplified diagram taking into account the assumed mobility (x−axis) and the assumed passive shell protection (y−axis). These parameters cannot be fully expressed quantitatively. Mobility depends mainly on hydrodynamic abilities, which are correlated with shell geometry but also with some aspects of ornamentation. Marked ornamental traits may play an important role. For example a keel or a ventral groove may increase the hydrodynamic stability of the shell and thereby facilitate mobility, but prominent tubercles and/or spines may significantly increase hydrodynamic drag thereby reducing mobility. Conversely the prominence of ornamentation (chiefly of tubercles and/or spines) may be an effective passive protection against predators. Although highly schematic and hypothetical, such a diagram can be understood as an approximate representation of an "adaptative landscape" in which successive growth stages can be roughly situated. This "adaptative landscape" can be divided into four quadrants labeled A–D. The two studied species occupy only quadrants A (rather poor mobility but good passive shell protection) and C (good mobility but poor passive shell protection). In fact, only the juvenile growth stages of Phricodoceras lamellosum are situated in quadrant A but all the other growth stages, of both species, are in quadrant C. This pattern underlines the adaptative peculiarity of the juvenile growth stages of Phricodoceras.
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.