Skip to main content
Powered by ShareScore

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.

390

datasets available to search

ShareScore release 0.9.0

Reset

Dataset results

390 results for “ecosystem services”

Learn how ShareScore rates datasets ↗
zenodo36/100

Global heat map of probable importance of terrestrial ecosystems on meeting local demand of freshwater services

<p>This map (raster dataset, single layer) uses existing datasets to map globally &ldquo;How important point x is likely to be for meeting the demand of a reliable &amp; useable source of water on a scale of 0 to 1?&rdquo; This relatively simple approach uses estimated water demand in a given basin as weight to identify pressure for flow regulation and water provisioning services. Precipitation and land cover estimates are then combined with it to give some insight into the hydrologic attributes of &ldquo;location&rdquo; and &ldquo;timing&rdquo; of flow that the ecosystems may influence. The underlying assumption here is that undisturbed ecosystems everywhere are performing the ecohydrological functions leading to freshwater services. The question is more (at the global scale): how dependent are the populations in the basin on the continued functioning of these services.</p> <p><strong>Input datasets:</strong></p> <ol> <li>Annual surface &amp; groundwater (&ldquo;blue&rdquo;) water consumption estimates. URL: <a href="http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/water-footprint-statistics/">http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/water-footprint-statistics/</a></li> <li>HydroBasins watershed outline.</li> <li>European Space Agency (ESA) &nbsp;global land cover 2015.</li> <li>WorldClim annual average precipitation (Version 2.0).</li> </ol> <p><strong>Process:</strong></p> <p>Step 1: Calculate average annual water consumption estimates over HydroBasin outlines. This step spreads the demand laterally (in case of small basins) and upstream to the headwaters from (typically) downstream consumer concentration.</p> <p>Step 2: Normalize the demand globally and map the normalized values on to &ldquo;natural&rdquo; land cover classes from the land cover dataset [forests, grasslands, etc].</p> <p>Step 3: Normalize annual precipitation layer within basins on the scale 0-1 where 1 is the maximum annual precipitation in that basin. This is also mapped on the &ldquo;natural&rdquo; land cover. Precipitation is thus acting as &lsquo;weight&rsquo; for importance within the basin. Example, upland headwaters will typically receive more rainfall and can be argued to be important for the flow regulation in the basin.</p> <p>Step 4: Combine the layers from 2 and 3.</p> <p><strong>Caveats:</strong></p> <ol> <li>Identification of what constitutes a &ldquo;natural&rdquo; land cover is not trivial, especially from global land cover maps. Example: Forests and plantations are hard to distinguish from these products.</li> <li>Improvement of quality of water is assumed to be implicit for functioning ecosystems.</li> </ol>

opencc-by-nc-sa-4.0Jun 2017View details →
zenodo36/100

Dataset for: Navigating Ecosystem Services Trade-offs: A Global Comprehensive Review

<p><strong>Methods</strong></p> <p>The dataset is the output of a comprehensive literature-based search that aims to collate all the evidence on where ES relationships have been mentioned and addressed. We applied systematic mapping which is based on the &ldquo;Guidelines for Systematic Review in Environmental Management&rdquo; developed by the Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation at Bangor University (Pullin and Stewart 2006).</p> <p>The methodological framework followed the standard stages outlined for systematic mapping in environmental sciences (James et al. 2016). Briefly, we defined the scope and objectives:</p> <p>&middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; We comprehensively review and further explore the global evidence of ES trade-offs and synergies focusing on all systems including terrestrial, freshwater, and marine.</p> <p>&middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; We compiled the evidence on trade-offs and synergies among multiple ES interacting across various ecosystems.</p> <p>&middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; We performed a geographical and temporal trend analysis exploring the distribution of studies across the world examining how the focus on various ecosystem types and ES categories has evolved to highlight gaps and biases.</p> <p>Then we set the criteria for study inclusion (Table 1), searched the evidence, coded, and produced the database. Extracted article information including the specific criteria is detailed in Table 1.</p> <p>The first step was to search the ISI Web of Knowledge core collection (http://apps.webofknowledge.com) database, targeting the search on the ecosystem services literature and studies dealing with trade-offs/synergies, win-win outcomes or bundles when managing different ecosystem services in the landscape/seascape. All peer-reviewed journal articles written in English and Spanish have been considered for review.</p> <p>The <em>peer-reviewed </em>literature from 2005 to 2021 was reviewed identifying relevant studies according to specific search terms. The relevant search terms and descriptive words derived from (Howe et al. 2014) adding &ldquo;bundles&rdquo; and &ldquo;co-benefits&rdquo;. Boolean nomenclatures &lsquo;*&rsquo; = all letters were allowed after the *, were used on the root of words where several different endings applied (Figure 1). Search terms used were:</p> <p>(&ldquo;*ecosystem service*&rdquo; OR &ldquo;environment* service*&rdquo; OR &ldquo;ecosystem* approach*&rdquo; OR &ldquo;ecosystem good*&rdquo; OR &ldquo;environment* good*&rdquo;)</p> <p>AND</p> <p>(&ldquo;*trade-off*&rdquo; OR &ldquo;tradeoff*&rdquo; OR &ldquo;synerg*&rdquo; OR &ldquo;win-win*&rdquo; OR &ldquo;bundle*&rdquo; OR &ldquo;cost*and benefit*&rdquo; OR &ldquo;co-benefit*&rdquo;) n=5194</p> <p>Papers were preliminarily coded with a semantic analysis using the R package Bibliometrix (<a href="http://www.bibliometrix.org">http://www.bibliometrix.org</a>).</p> <p>In the second step (Figure 1) papers were preliminarily coded with a semantic analysis using the R package Bibliometrix (http://www.bibliometrix.org). Papers were classified according to three systems: terrestrial, marine, and freshwater (Table 1). Papers with multiple systems, transitional habitats or those that could not be classified were classified as &ldquo;other&rdquo; (Mazor et al. 2018). Articles were classified based on the occurrence of the most frequent system words in their title, keywords, and abstract (Mazor et al. 2018). The set of system-specific words was determined by extracting the 250 most frequently used keywords from all considered articles and assigning each word to either system (articles could fall into just one of the four categories). Using this technique, we managed to classify 100% of the papers. To further enrich the dataset and make it a useful repository for science and policy, an additional sub-classification was performed, categorizing papers into the following categories: Coastal, Urban, Wetlands, Forest, Mountain, Freshwater, Agroecosystems, and Others that mainly represented multiple ecosystems (Table S1). This comprehensive classification approach enhances the dataset&rsquo;s utility for various scientific and policy-making applications.</p> <p>In the third step (Figure 1), applying the same technique, we classified the papers into four ES categories: habitat (supporting biodiversity related), provisioning, regulating, and cultural services (De Groot et al. 2010; MEA 2005; Sukhdev 2010; Wallace 2007). For the classification into ES categories, articles could fall into one or more of the four categories (see Table 1 for example the keywords used to classify ecosystems, ES categories, and countries). Applying this technique, we excluded 2149 papers that weren&rsquo;t classified in any of the ecosystem services types categories resulting in 3629 papers (see Figure 1).</p> <p>In the fourth step (Figure 1), an initial screening was conducted to identify papers that did not align with the review objectives of assessing ecosystem services trade-offs and synergies to inform policy and management decisions. We manually reviewed the titles of each paper in the dataset, excluding those that were from other fields or did not align with the review objectives. In this initial assessment, we excluded 347 papers, leaving a total of 3,286 papers for further review. A descriptive analysis of this 3286 article dataset was performed to examine the distribution of ES categories within each ecosystem type over the specified period. This analysis allowed us to conclude the prevalence of each ecosystem service category in different ecosystem types, identifying temporal trends and patterns. The number of occurrences was calculated for each ES category within each ecosystem type, expressed as counts. This allowed for the comparison of ecosystem service distributions across the selected ecosystem types.</p> <p>In the fifth step (Figure 1), we employed an approach to visually represent the geographical distribution and focus of ES studies across the world. With the classification of studies in ES categories and the types of ecosystems, the papers were coded according to the country where the study was performed. It was possible to assign a specific country to 2636 studies, removing 650 studies that did not specify the country of study. From these 2636 papers classified, a proportion were global studies that consider several countries under study (499 global studies).</p> <p>We developed global maps (Figure 1), each offering a unique perspective on the ES research landscape. The first map presents the total number of ES trade-off studies conducted worldwide, illustrating the geographical spread and concentration of research efforts to provide a clear overview of regions that have been extensively studied and those that may require more attention in future research. Additionally, we calculated two key metrics to assess research productivity more comprehensively: the number of research papers per capita and the number of research papers relative to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). For population and GDP, we used the most recent available data from the World Bank (https://data.worldbank.org). These alternative metrics normalize the data based on economic output and population size, providing a more balanced view of research activity across different countries (Figures S3).</p> <p>Detailed maps were created featuring pie charts that highlight the different categories of ES and ecosystem types addressed for each country. These charts offer an understanding of how various ES categories and ecosystems are represented in different parts of the world. Finally, we assessed ES trade-off studies to world regions (Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australasia, Europe, Latin America, and North America) looking at the relationships between the categories of ES. We considered papers that evaluated more than one category of ES and the papers that considered only one category of ES. This country-level analysis offers insights into regional research trends and priorities, contributing to a more localized understanding of ES studies.</p> <p>In the sixth step (Figure 1), each publication in this review was critically appraised to evaluate the quality of the papers included in the review. The foundation for our critical appraisal stems from the comprehensive and multidimensional approach of Belcher et al. (2016) that is framed to evaluate research quality, which aligns well with the interdisciplinary nature of our study. Belcher et al. (2016) developed a robust framework that incorporates essential principles and criteria for assessing the quality of transdisciplinary research. This is particularly relevant for ecosystem services science and our review that contributes to advancing current knowledge by systematically synthesizing evidence on relationships among various ES across these diverse systems.</p> <p>The Belcher et al. (2016) framework emphasizes four main principles: relevance, credibility (which we have adapted as methodological transparency), legitimacy (generalizability in our context), and effectiveness (significance). A continuous scoring system (ranging from 0 to 1) was applied for the four main criteria to maintain simplicity and consistency across the large number of studies. In this system, a value closer to 0 indicates that the criteria are not met, while a value closer to 1 indicates that the criteria are more closely met. This scoring method was a useful indicator of the overall quality of the paper and how well the article met the review's goals overall.</p> <p>Methodological Transparency was assessed based on the clarity and completeness of methodological descriptions, including data availability, the rigor of statistical analyses, methodological detail, and reproducibility of the findings. This criterion assesses the transparency and rigor of the study's methodology, including data collection, analysis, and reporting (Belcher et al. 2016). Relevance was evaluated by the study's alignment with the review's objectives, its importance to the field, and its practical applicability. This includes the extent to which the study addresses pertinent research questions of the study (Belcher et al. 2016). Significance was determined by the novelty of the study, its theoretical contributions, and practical implications. This includes evaluating whether the study presents new ideas, concepts, or frameworks that advance the field of ES relationships (Belcher et al. 2016). Generalizability was judged based on the contextual applicability and transferability of the study's findings to other settings. This includes assessing whether the study's results can be applied broadly and whether the context is sufficiently described to understand its applicability (Belcher et al. 2016).</p> <p>In the final seventh step (Figure 1) a detailed assessment was performed incorporating sub-categories within each main critical appraisal criteria to allow for a more comprehensive analysis (Table S2). To this end, a random sample of 20% of the studies was selected (574 papers) and a thorough revision by subcategories for each main criteria was performed (see Table S2). For the random selection of 20% of the studies from the dataset, we loaded the dataset into R and set a random seed to ensure reproducibility. We then calculated the sample size as 20% of the total dataset and used the sample function to select this subset of studies randomly. This method ensured an unbiased and representative sample. The selected subset was assessed for a further detailed critical appraisal adding sub-categories to each criterion (Table S2). A qualitative assessment sub-category was also inclded to explain the rationale behind each assigned score in the dataset.</p> <p>We finally created a heatmap to visualize average scores by continent across the four criteria. Utilizing R programming (R Core Team 2023) for data aggregation with the <em>dplyr </em>package, the study computed mean scores for each criterion by continent. The aggregated data was visualized using a heatmap created with the ggplot2 package, where the color intensity of each cell represented the mean scores, facilitating a visual comparison across continents. This analysis offers a quantitative foundation for identifying areas of strength, evaluating performance by continent and potential for improvement, and further elucidating the different quality and focus of research within the ES trade-offs research.</p> <p><strong>References:</strong></p> <p>Belcher, B. M., Rasmussen, K. E., Kemshaw, M. R., &amp; Zornes, D. A. (2016). Defining and assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context. Research Evaluation, 25(1), 1-17.</p> <p>De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., &amp; Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management, and decision-making. Ecological Complexity, 7, 260-272.</p> <p>Howe, C., Suich, H., Vira, B., Mace, G.M., 2014. Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: A meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Global Environmental Change 28, 263-275.</p> <p>Mazor, T.A.-O., Doropoulos, C.A.-O., Schwarzmueller, F.A.-O., Gladish, D.A.-O.X., Kumaran, N.A.-O., Merkel, K.A.-O.X., Di Marco, M., Gagic, V.A.-O. (2018). Global mismatch of policy and research on drivers of biodiversity loss. Nature Ecology &amp; Evolution 2, 1071-1074.</p> <p>Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA).(2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC.</p> <p>Pullin, A. S., &amp; Stewart, G. B. (2006). Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conservation biology, 20(6), 1647-1656.</p> <p>Sukhdev, P. (2010). The economics of ecosystems &amp; biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions, and recommendations of TEEB. UNEP.</p> <p>R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/</p> <p>Wallace K.J. (2007). Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions. Biological Conservation 139, 235-246.</p> <p><strong>Dataset</strong></p> <p>Name of the file: MMartinez-Harms-Dataset-ESTrade-offs_Zenodofinal.xlsx</p> <p>Description: Complete database of the 3286&nbsp; studies reviewed in this synthesis coded by:</p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>N</strong></td> <td>Number of papers</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>AU</strong></td> <td>Authors</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>TI</strong></td> <td>Title</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>SO</strong></td> <td>Publication name</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Included</strong></td> <td>identify papers that did alignd (yes) or did not (No) align with the review objectives.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>JI</strong></td> <td>Scientific Journal</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>AB</strong></td> <td>Abstract</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>DE</strong></td> <td>Authors&rsquo; Keywords</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>ID</strong></td> <td>Keywords associated by&nbsp; ISI database</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>LA</strong></td> <td>Language</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>DT</strong></td> <td>Document Type (article, review, editorial, book chapter, letter, meeting abstract)</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>TC</strong></td> <td>Times Cited</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>PY</strong></td> <td>Publication Year</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>SC</strong></td> <td>&nbsp;Subject Categories</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>WC</strong></td> <td>Web of Science categories</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>System</strong></td> <td>Freshwater, terrestrial, marine, and other</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Habitat</strong></td> <td>Habitat ES category</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Regulating</strong></td> <td>Regulating ES category</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Cultural</strong></td> <td>Cultural ES category</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Provisionning</strong></td> <td>Provisionning ES category</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Country_Classification</strong></td> <td>Country of study</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Continent</strong></td> <td>Continent of study</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Synergies_Trade-offs</strong></td> <td>The term trade-off involves losing one quality or aspect of something in return for gaining another quality or aspect. Synergy is a situation where the use of one ES directly increases the benefits supplied by another ES or a win-win situation</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Stakeholder_Participation</strong></td> <td>The study interacts with stakeholders at any moment of the study or policy&nbsp; decisions.&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Critical_Appraisal</strong></td> <td>Articles are appraised to ensure that they are adequate for answering the research question</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Relevance</strong></td> <td>Relevance to the review question (0 no relevance, 1 relevance)</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Methodological_Transparency</strong></td> <td>Assessed based on the clarity and completeness of methodological descriptions</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Significance</strong></td> <td>Significance of the contribution (are new ideas offered?)</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Generalizability</strong></td> <td>&nbsp;Is the context specified, and do the ideas apply in other contexts?</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Total_Score</strong></td> <td>The sum total score across all critical appraisal criteria&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Category</strong></td> <td>Coastal, Urban, Wetlands, Forest, Mountain, Freshwater, Agroecosystems, and Others mainly represented multiple ecosystems</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Uses_INVEST</strong></td> <td>This paper uses the InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs) tool from the Natural Capital Project to assess ecosystem services (Yes) or Not (No)</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

opencc-by-4.0Aug 2024View details →
zenodo36/100

Dataset (n=1671) of the publication "Small-scale private forest owners and the European Natura 2000 conservation network: Perceived ecosystem services, management practices, and nature conservation attitudes"

<p>The excel file contains the replies of small-scale private forest owners in Lower Saxony, Germany, to certain questions of a survey analyzed within the following publication: &quot;Small-scale private forest owners and the European Natura 2000 conservation network: Perceived ecosystem services, management practices, and nature conservation attitudes&rdquo;.<br> <br> The questions included in this dataset cover their objectives, management activities, attitudes and forest stand structures. Further details can be found in the second sheet of the file called &ldquo;Code explanation&rdquo;.<br> <br> More information about the methods of data collection can be found in the before-mentioned publication.</p>

opencc-by-4.0Sep 2021View details →
dryad36/100

Exploring changes in ecosystem service values in strongly human-impacted, contrasting agro-ecological environments

<p>Evaluating the impacts of land-use/land-cover (LULC) changes on ecosystem service values (ESVs) is essential for sustainable use and management of ecosystems. In this study, we evaluated the impact of LULC changes on ESVs over the period 1982–2016/17 in contrasting, strongly human-impacted agro-ecological environments: Guder (highland), Aba Gerima (midland), and Debatie (lowland) watersheds of the Upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. During the study period, the continuous expansion of cultivated land at the expense of natural vegetation (bushland, forest, and grazing land) severely reduced the total ESV by about US$58 thousand (35%) in Aba Gerima and US$31 thousand (29%) in Debatie watersheds. In contrast, the unprecedented expansion of plantations, mainly through the planting of Acacia decurrens, helped the total ESV rebound by about US$71 thousand (54%) in Guder watershed after 2006, after it had decreased by about US$61 thousand (32%) between 1982 and 2006. The reduction in natural forest area was the major contributor to the loss of total ESV in the study watersheds, ranging from a reduction of US$31 thousand (63%) in Debatie to US$96.9 thousand (70%) in Guder between 1982 and 2016/17. On an area-specific basis, LULC changes reduced the average ESV from US$560 ha–1 yr–1 (1982) in Guder to US$306 ha–1 yr–1 (2017) in Debatie watersheds. Specific ESVs such as provisioning (mainly as food production) and regulating services (mainly as erosion control and climate regulation) accounted for most of the total ESVs estimated for the study watersheds. In most cases the total and specific ESVs of the watersheds were negatively associated with the population growth, which in turn was positively associated with the expansion of cultivated land over the study period. In Guder watershed, however, ESVs were positively associated with population growth, especially after 2012. This resulted primarily from the conversion of cultivated land to plantations (predominantly with nitrogen-fixing Acacia decurrens trees) because of the farmers' growing desire to rehabilitate degraded cultivated land while simultaneously generating income through the sale of charcoal from this fast-growing tree. Our results suggest, therefore, that future policy measures and directions should focus on improving vegetation cover through planting multipurpose trees such as Acacia decurrens to prevent future loss of ESV in the midland and lowland regions of the Upper Blue Nile basin and beyond.</p>

opencc-zeroOct 2021View details →
dryad36/100

Fire recurrence and time since last fire interact to determine the supply of multiple ecosystem services by Mediterranean forests

<p>Wildfires shape the composition and functioning of Mediterranean ecosystems, but we do not know how these ecosystems respond to both the higher fire recurrence and shorter recovery times expected for future climatic scenarios.  We sampled 29 plots with different fire recurrences (from 0 to  4 fires over the past decades) and time since the last fire (up to 35 years; hereafter TSLF) in Southeast Spain, to assess the effect of fire recurrence and TSLF on 25 ecosystem attributes, five related ecosystem services (biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, disturbance regulation, food production,  and supporting services), plus the synergies and trade-offs between them. High fire recurrence (number of fires) and TSLF interacted to determine ecosystem services but did not affect the synergies and trade-offs between them. Fire recurrence reduced many ecosystem functions and ecosystem multifunctionality. However, this effect dampened, and even became positive, for biodiversity conservation and food production services provided enough (&gt; 20 years) time to recover. The combined effects of fire recurrence and TSLF, however, reduced carbon sequestration and had no overall effects on supporting services. Disturbance regulation, in turn, diminished drastically with the first fire, with no effect of further fires or their interaction with TSLF. Our results show which ecosystem services will suffer more from an increase in fire recurrence, and where restoration and management efforts should focus to maximize the provision of those services more demanded by stakeholders.</p>

opencc-zeroOct 2021View details →
dryad36/100

Multiple ecosystem service synergies and landscape-mediation of biodiversity within urban agroecosystems

<p>Ecosystem services are essential for human well-being, especially in urban areas where 60% of the global population will live by 2030. While urban habitats have the potential to support biodiversity and ecosystem services, few studies have quantified the impact of local and landscape management across a diverse suite of services. We leverage five years of data (&gt;5,000 observations) across a network of urban gardens to determine the drivers of biodiversity and ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies. We found multiple synergies and few trade-offs, contrasting previous assumptions that food production is at odds with biodiversity. Furthermore, we show that landscape-level natural habitat cover interacts with local management to mediate services provided by mobile animals, specifically pest control and pollination. By quantifying the factors that support a diverse suite of ecosystem services, we highlight the critical role of garden management and urban planning for optimizing biodiversity and human benefit.</p>

opencc-zeroDec 2022View details →
dryad36/100

Future supply of boreal forest ecosystem services is driven by management rather than by climate change

<p><span>Forests provide a wide variety of ecosystem services (ES) to society. The boreal biome is experiencing the highest rates of warming on the planet and increasing demand for forest products. To foresee how to maximize the adaptation of boreal forests to future warmer conditions and growing demands of forest products, we need a better understanding of the relative importance of forest management and climate change on the supply of ecosystem services. Here, using Finland as a boreal forest case study, we assessed the potential supply of a wide range of ES (timber, bilberry, cowberry, mushrooms, carbon storage, scenic beauty, species habitat availability and deadwood) given seven management regimes and four climate change scenarios. We used the forest simulator SIMO to project forest dynamics for 100 years into the future (2016–2116) and estimate the potential supply of each service using published models. Then, we tested the relative importance of management and climate change as drivers of the future supply of these services using generalized linear mixed models. Our results show that the effects of management on the future supply of these ES were, on average, eleven times higher than the effects of climate change across all services but greatly differed among them (from 0.53 to 24 times higher for timber and cowberry, respectively). Notably, the importance of these drivers substantially differed among biogeographical zones within the boreal biome. The effects of climate change were 1.6 times higher in northern Finland than in southern Finland, whereas the effects of management were the opposite – they were three times higher in the south compared to the north. We conclude that new guidelines for adapting forests to global change should account for regional differences and the variation in the effects of climate change and management on different forest ES.</span></p>

opencc-zeroDec 2022View details →
zenodo36/100

Stakeholder perceptions of the impacts of shrub encroachment on rangeland ecosystem services

<p>While the impacts of shrub encroachment on the ecosystem processes have been well-documented, little is known about the extent to which socio-cultural values and perceptions might influence actions undertaken to manage shrub proliferation. Understanding stakeholder values is important because the ecosystem&rsquo;s capacity to supply a given service or suite of services must be balanced against the value society places on them. Research to date has emphasized supply with little consideration of value, making it difficult to comprehensively or objectively evaluate trade-offs and set priorities, particularly when managing for one particular service or a suite of services may adversely affect another service or suite of services. To address this, we conducted a case study in southern Arizona and New Mexico (U.S.A.) to evaluate stakeholder perceptions of and preferences for various ecosystem services provided on semi-arid rangelands where shrub proliferation in grassland has impacted traditional livestock grazing. Perceptions of rangeland ecosystem services were elicited via a visually based landscape interpretation while preferences were quantified using best-worst scaling (BWS). Our findings suggest that stakeholders familiar with rangelands and their management generally perceive low shrub cover as providing a wider range of valued ecosystem services compared to rangelands with high shrub cover. Ecosystem service preferences in the context of shrub encroachment were generally uniform across all stakeholder groups (e.g. ranchers, state/federal governmental employees, non-governmental land managers, academicians, recreationists), with habitat for biodiversity and erosion control being identified as the most preferred. Our results suggest an opportunity for brush management to serve as a potential win-win management action if framed as a way to&nbsp;maintain or promote rangeland biodiversity and mitigate erosion.</p>

opencc-by-4.0Jan 2023View details →
zenodo36/100

Classification of pictures taken from Flickr and iNaturalist for cultural ecosystem services in Minho Region Portugal

<p>This is classification dataset of photographs&nbsp;from&nbsp;Flirck and iNaturalist applied&nbsp;to buffer 500 meters of main cours rivers&nbsp;Minho, Lima and C&aacute;vado in Minho Region (NW Portugal), in between the years 2018- 2019 for cultural ecosystem services&nbsp;studies. Four categories&nbsp;assigned as follows: i) landscape; ii) historical heritage; iii) recreation and river beaches; iv) biodiversity.</p>

opencc-by-4.0Jan 2023View details →
dryad36/100

Data from: More future synergies and less trade‐offs between forest ecosystem services with natural climate solutions instead of bioeconomy solutions

<p>To reach the Paris Agreement, societies need to increase the global terrestrial carbon sink. There are many climate change mitigation solutions (CCMS) for forests, including increasing bioenergy, bioeconomy and protection. Bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions use climate-smart, intensive management to generate high quantities of bioenergy and bioproducts. Protection of (semi-)natural forests is a major component of 'natural climate solution' (NCS) since forests store carbon in standing biomass and soil. Furthermore, protected forests provide more habitat for biodiversity and non-wood ecosystem services (ES). We investigated the impacts of different CCMS and climate scenarios, jointly or in isolation, on future wood ES, non-wood ES, and regulating ES for a major wood provider for the international market. Specifically, we projected future ES given by three CCMS scenarios for Sweden 2020-2100. In the long term, fulfilling the increasing wood demand through bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions will decrease ES multifunctionality, but the increased stand age and wood stocks induced by rising greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations will partially offset these negative effects. Adopting bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions will have a greater negative impact on ES supply than adopting NCS. Bioenergy or bioeconomy solutions, as well as increasing GHG emissions, will reduce synergies and increase trade-offs in ES. NCS, by contrast, increases the supply of multiple ES in synergy, even transforming current ES trade-offs into future synergies. Moreover, NCS can be considered an adaptation measure to offset negative climate change effects on the future supplies of non-wood ES. In boreal countries around the world, forestry strategies that integrate NCS more deeply are crucial to ensure a synergistic supply of multiple ES.</p>

opencc-zeroFeb 2023View details →
zenodo36/100

Tampere - Awareness of citizens regarding urban nature and ecosystem services

<p>Results of the awareness of citizens regarding urban nature and ecosystem services survey among residents of Vuores neighbourhood in Tampere.</p>

opencc-by-4.0Feb 2023View details →
zenodo36/100

Possible but Rare: Safe and Just Satisfaction of National Human Needs in Terms of Ecosystem Services - Supplemental Data

<p>This supplemental datasheet provides the country-level data used for calculation in the manuscript &quot;Possible but Rare: Safe and Just Satisfaction of National Human Needs in Terms of Ecosystem Services.&quot; For a summary of the results and insights, check the main text. Please check the supplemental&nbsp;information to follow the detailed calculations using this data.&nbsp;</p>

opencc-by-4.0Mar 2023View details →
dryad36/100

Afforestation and abandonment of semi-natural grasslands lead to biodiversity loss and a decline in ecosystem services and functions

<p>1. During the past century, semi-natural grasslands, once widespread throughout Europe, have largely been converted into intensively managed agricultural areas, abandoned or afforested. These large-scale land-use changes have already resulted in considerable biodiversity loss but can also lead to a decline in ecosystem service provision and ecosystem multifunctionality.</p> <p>2. We assessed the impact of afforestation and abandonment of semi-natural grasslands on the supply of ecosystem services in Western Estonia. We compared a wide array of services provided by open grasslands, abandoned grasslands, and afforested grasslands. Additionally, we analysed the impact of land-use change and species richness on ecosystem multifunctionality.</p> <p>3. Significant declines in the supply of pollination service, natural pest regulation, forage production, soil quality, wild food, and cultural appreciation of landscape were detected as a result of overgrowing or afforestation.</p> <p>4. There was a significant positive relationship between species richness and ecosystem multifunctionality, i.e. more biodiverse grasslands were able to support more services at a higher capacity.</p> <p>5. Results show that both grassland degradation due to abandonment, as well as grassland afforestation, have significant negative impacts on biodiversity, on the supply of multiple important ecosystem services and on the ecosystem multifunctionality.</p> <p>6. Synthesis and applications. Temperate semi-natural grasslands have high biodiversity and capacity to deliver multiple important ecosystem services simultaneously. Conservation and restoration of grassland habitats must be considered as an important part of sustainable landscape planning.</p>

opencc-zeroMar 2023View details →
dryad36/100

The natural capital of seagrass beds in the Caribbean: evaluating their ecosystem services and blue carbon trade potential

<p class="MsoNormal">Seagrass beds provide tremendous services to society, including the storage of carbon, with important implications for climate change mitigation. Prioritizing conservation of this valuable natural capital is of global significance, and including seagrass beds in global carbon markets through projects that minimize loss, increase area, or restore degraded areas represents a mechanism towards this end. Using newly available Caribbean seagrass distribution data, we estimated carbon storage in the region and calculated economic valuations of total ecosystem services and carbon storage. We estimated the 88,170 km<sup>2</sup> of seagrass in the Caribbean stores 1,337.8 (360.5–2335.0, minimum and maximum estimates, respectively) Tg carbon. The value of these seagrass ecosystems in terms of total ecosystem services and carbon alone was estimated to be $255 billion yr<sup>-1</sup> and $88.3 billion, respectively, highlighting their potential monetary importance for the region. Our results show that Caribbean seagrass beds are globally substantial pools of carbon, and our findings underscore the importance of such evaluation schemes to promote urgently needed conservation of these highly threatened and globally important ecosystems.</p>

opencc-zeroMay 2023View details →
dryad36/100

Seminatural habitat surrounding farms promotes multifunctionality in avian ecosystem services

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicMar 2022View details →
dryad36/100

Land use and ecosystem service value spatiotemporal dynamics, topographic gradient effect and their driving factors in typical alpine ecosystems of the east Qinghai-Tibet Plateau: Implications for conservation and development

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicFeb 2025View details →
dryad36/100

Data from: Quantifying coextinctions and ecosystem service vulnerability in coastal ecosystems experiencing climate warming

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicJul 2024View details →
dryad36/100

Data from: Perceived and actual ecosystem services by fruit bats, birds, and primates in litchi orchards agroecosystems

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicAug 2025View details →
dryad36/100

Data from: Landscape context shifts the balance of costs and benefits from wildflower borders on multiple ecosystem services

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicJul 2018View details →
dryad36/100

Data from: A place-based participatory mapping approach for assessing cultural ecosystem services in urban green space

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicDec 2019View details →

ScienceDex guides

Understand access before you commit

These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.

Compare curated 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.

allen-brain-atlas
neuroscienceopenDocumentation, web resources, and API references are available online.
Last verified 2026-04-30Open record

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.

abode-home-cage
behavioral-neuroscienceopenThe DataShare record exposes download links for annotations, documentation, license text, and the zipped per-snippet data directory.
Last verified 2026-04-30Open record

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.

dandi-nwb
electrophysiologyopenPublished Dandiset metadata and archive endpoints are available through the production DANDI API.
Last verified 2026-04-30Open record

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.

ibl
behavioral-neuroscienceopenPublic sessions can be searched and loaded from the IBL public data server through ONE.
Last verified 2026-04-29Open record

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.

openneuro
neuroscienceopenPublished datasets are available on demand over the internet.
Last verified 2026-04-29Open record