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.

286

datasets available to search

ShareScore release 0.9.0

Reset

Dataset results

286 results for “forest composition”

Learn how ShareScore rates datasets ↗
dryad36/100

Pattern and driver of the compositional variations in a tropical cloud forest: Comparing vascular epiphytes with terrestrial woody plants

<p>β-diversity patterns (the compositional variations across sites) and their drivers are the major concerns of biodiversity research and conservation practices, whereas such information remains scarce for vascular epiphytes, especially in tropical forest communities. This study aimed to reveal the pattern and driving process of the compositional variations of vascular epiphytes in a tropical cloud forest on Hainan island, southern China, and their differences from those of terrestrial woody plants. To this end, we quantified their between-habitat compositional variations and distinguished the underlying components of β-diversity (nestedness and turnover). We then examined the relative roles of niche-based and neutral processes in driving the compositional variations by using a null model approach. Our results showed that the between-habitat compositional variations were significant for both plant assemblages and stronger in vascular epiphytes than in terrestrial woody plants. The turnover component of β-diversity was significantly stronger in terrestrial woody plants, accounting for 73.16%–80.08% of the variations. By contrast, the nestedness component was significantly stronger in vascular epiphytes and characterized 46.82%–67.5% of the variations. Besides, the compositional variations of both plant assemblages, especially terrestrial woody plants, were generally poorly fitted by the simulated niche-based scenarios but well fitted by the simulated neutral scenarios. Overall, the compositional variations of both plant assemblages were significant and mainly due to dispersal limitation, albeit to varying degrees. Hence, further studies of these plant assemblages at local scales should not be ideologically limited to the niche-based framework. Moreover, the stronger nestedness observed in vascular epiphytes suggests the greater importance of prioritizing conservation efforts in the species-rich habitats for these plants.</p>

opencc-zeroJan 2024View details →
zenodo36/100

Data from: Forest bees benefit from compositionally diverse broadleaf canopies

<p><strong>Data from:</strong></p> <p><strong>Forest bees benefit from compositionally diverse broadleaf canopies</strong></p> <p>2024. Forest Ecology and Management 566: 122051.&nbsp;<a title="Persistent link using digital object identifier" href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2024.122051" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><span>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2024.122051</span></a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Clayton R. Traylor<sup>1,2</sup>, Michael D. Ulyshen<sup>3</sup>, Don C. Bragg<sup>4</sup>, Joseph V. McHugh<sup>1</sup></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><sup>1</sup> Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA</p> <p><sup>2</sup> Department of Biology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA</p> <p><sup>3</sup> Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Athens, GA 30602, USA</p> <p><sup>4</sup> Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Monticello, AR, 71656, USA</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Corresponding author: Clayton R. Traylor ( <a href="mailto:clayton.r.traylor@gmail.com">clayton.r.traylor@gmail.com</a> )</p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>Forests provide critical habitats for pollinating insects, including forest-dependent and habitat generalist species, yet it is unknown how these assemblages are shaped by overstory tree composition. We sampled bees in closed canopy plots in the southeastern United States representing a continuum of forest age and tree composition, from younger conifer-dominated forests to older forests dominated by deciduous broadleaf trees. Species-specific responses of bees to forest composition, and the influence of their traits on responses, were estimated using a joint species distribution model. Additionally, we investigated species richness trends of nesting, sociality, and phenological trait groups. Forest composition greatly influenced bee species occurrence: 48 % of species had positive relationships with the diversity of insect-pollinated broadleaf trees and 46 % had negative relationships with the proportion of conifer basal area. Bee species with early phenological activity drove these responses and richness patterns supported these trends. Our results indicate that phenology is an important factor determining bee species&rsquo; forest dependency and sensitivity to forest composition in this region. We conclude that diverse broadleaf forests are crucial to maintaining bee diversity by providing floral resources that support forest-dependent species even in closed canopy conditions. Conifer forests can also provide valuable habitat to bee pollinators when restored to open canopy conditions. However, because no traits are indicative of conifer forest dependency and bee species respond to understory flora rather than tree attributes, open conifer forests may more strongly favor habitat generalists than forest specialists.</p>

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

Data on Trait diversity and spider community composition are associated with lower herbivory in young forest plantations

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2024View details →
dryad36/100

Not all trees can make a forest: tree species composition and competition control forest encroachment in a tropical savanna

<p>Forest encroachment into savannas is a widespread phenomenon, the rate of which may depend on soil conditions, species composition, or changes in stand structure. As savanna specialist trees are replaced by generalist species, rates of stand development may increase. Because generalists can persist in forests, they are likely to grow more quickly and survive longer in dense stands, compared to savanna specialists. Furthermore, the faster growth rates of generalists may allow them to overtop and outcompete savanna specialists, causing rapid species turnover.</p> <p>We measured growth and survival of 6147 individuals of 112 species of savanna and generalist tree species over a period of 10 years in an ecological reserve in Assis, São Paulo State, Brazil. We modeled growth and mortality as a function of soil texture and nutrients, tree size, competitive neighborhood, and membership in savanna or generalist (species which can persist in forests and savannas) functional groups.</p> <p>Tree growth and survival was strongly influenced by competition, as estimated by the basal area of trees taller than a focal tree. At the stand level, savanna species are unable to contribute basal area growth in closed stands, while generalist species continue to increase in basal area even at high stand basal area. This phenomenon is driven by differences in growth and mortality. Generalists grew faster than savanna species, both in height and diameter. This difference in growth rates led to savanna species becoming suppressed more rapidly than generalists. When suppressed, savanna species were more than twice as likely to die than were generalists. Soils had inconsistent and mostly weak effects which were difficult to separate from gradients of stand structure.</p> <p>Synthesis: We demonstrate that the presence of generalist trees accelerates rates of basal area accumulation due to their greater growth rates and tolerance of shading. Generalists outcompete savanna trees by growing faster in the open and overtopping savanna specialists. Due to the slow growth and high mortality of savanna species in the shade, they are unable to form closed-canopy stands. Accounting for differences among functional types and development of vegetation structure is critical for modeling forest encroachment.</p>

opencc-zeroJan 2022View details →
zenodo36/100

Raw data for the manuscript entitled "Forest age and topographic position jointly shape the species richness and composition of vascular plants in karstic habitats"

<p>Doline surveys from the Mecsek Mountains, Hungary. Transects were established with north to south orientation across each doline, traversing their deepest point. Transects began and ended on doline rims, and consisted of 1 m &thinsp;&times;&thinsp;1 m plots spaced at 2 m intervals (94, 89, 90 and 99 plots in the different forest age classes, respectively; 372 plots in total). We recorded the presence/absence data of shrubs&nbsp;and herbs&nbsp;in each plot. Fieldwork was carried out between 2007 and 2019 from June to August, at the peak of the growing season.</p>

opencc-by-4.0Jul 2022View details →
dryad36/100

Relationship of woody species composition with edaphic characteristics in threatened riparian Atlantic Forest remnants in the upper Rio Doce basin, Brazil

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Studies on the composition, richness, and diversity of plant species in <span>tropical</span> communities are essential for understanding relevant ecological processes and for developing appropriate conservation policies. </span><span>Considering that areas subject to direct impacts due to dam breach may in the long-term present changes in species composition and in soil parameters, we evaluated the composition of the flora, described the current vegetation profile, and evaluated whether differences in species composition was influenced by soil variables of three areas along the Gualaxo River, in Minas Gerais State, Brazil. In addition, we identified important plant species through occurrence and phytosociological parameters for ecological restoration projects in the affected region, serving as reference areas. We sampled plant species with DBH ≥ 5 cm (diameter at breast height – measured 1.30 m above ground level) in 77 plots distributed in three riparian forest areas. We calculated phytosociological parameters and related them to edaphic factors. </span><span>A total of 1579 individual plants belonging to 53 botanical families and 227 species were sampled in the three areas. The Fabaceae family was the most representative with 46 species. </span><span>Species composition and diversity among the sampled areas was similar and was associated with edaphic factors. Furthermore, some species (e.g. <em>Xylopia sericea</em>, <em>Cupania emarginata</em> and <em>Ocotea pulchalla</em>) showed an important relation with soil variables. Some species of the genera (e.g., <em>Byrsonima</em>, <em>Xylopia</em>, <em>Ocotea</em>, and <em>Croton</em>) and families (e.g., Fabaceae and Myrtaceae) found here, can be important species in the restauration process for the local and regional maintenance of floristic identity in the Rio Doce river.</span></p>

opencc-zeroSep 2022View details →
dryad36/100

Chronic browsing by an introduced mammalian herbivore in a tropical island alters species composition and functional traits of forest understory plant communities

<p>Mammalian herbivores have large-scale impacts on vegetation, altering structure and species composition, especially in tropical grasslands and savannas. However, there is limited understanding of the potential impacts of mammalian herbivores in tropical wet forests, where they are typically less abundant. We investigated the effects of an introduced mammalian herbivore chital (<em>Axis axis</em>) on vegetation structure, composition and leaf functional traits of tropical evergreen forests of the Andaman Islands, India. Across seven islands, representing a gradient of herbivore densities, increasing chital presence was associated with decreased understory richness, understory density and adult tree richness, but was not related to adult tree density or size class distributions. We also found a significant decrease in community-level leaf palatability traits (specific leaf area decreased and leaf thickness increased) with increasing chital habitat use. This community-level shift in leaf trait values was better explained by intra-specific variation in leaf traits across islands rather than changes in species composition. In summary, we show persistent long-term impacts of an introduced mammalian herbivore on understory tropical tree communities although there is little impact on adult tree communities.  Our results also show that functional traits of species can be altered in response to novel herbivory, even at herbivore densities where there are no detectable impacts on adult forest structure or composition. Such altered functional traits may potentially alter ecosystem functioning in these forests even without changes in vegetation structure.</p>

opencc-zeroSep 2022View details →
zenodo36/100

Figure 3 in Composition and dynamics of mixed flocks of birds in a remnant of Submontane Atlantic Rain Forest in southern Brazil

Figure 3. Distribution of the three sampling sectors (I, II, and III) in the study area, in Parque Nacional Aparados da Serra, municipality of Praia Grande, southern Santa Catarina state, Brazil.

opencc-by-nc-4.0Apr 2022View details →
zenodo36/100

Figure 1 in Composition and dynamics of mixed flocks of birds in a remnant of Submontane Atlantic Rain Forest in southern Brazil

Figure 1. Location of the study area in Parque Nacional Aparados da Serra, municipality of Praia Grande, southern Santa Catarina state, Brazil.

opencc-by-nc-4.0Apr 2022View details →
zenodo36/100

Figure 7 in Composition and dynamics of mixed flocks of birds in a remnant of Submontane Atlantic Rain Forest in southern Brazil

Figure 7. Monthly variation of the average size (in the number of individuals) of the mixed flocks of birds, in Parque Nacional Aparados da Serra, municipality of Praia Grande, southern Santa Catarina, Brazil, between October 2016 and September 2017.

opencc-by-nc-4.0Apr 2022View details →
zenodo36/100

Figure 4 in Composition and dynamics of mixed flocks of birds in a remnant of Submontane Atlantic Rain Forest in southern Brazil

Figure 4. Simple linear regression of the relationship between species richness and the number of individuals from mixed flocks of birds, in Parque Nacional Aparados da Serra, municipality of Praia Grande, southern Santa Catarina state, Brazil, between October 2016 and September 2017.

opencc-by-nc-4.0Apr 2022View details →
zenodo36/100

Taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity peaks do not coincide along a compositional gradient in forest-grassland mosaics

<p>This is a standard phytocoenological table with trait data for each species. Species are in rows and relev&eacute;s (plots) are in columns. Habitat codes are according to the caption of Fig. 3 in our paper. Numbers in the relev&eacute;s are percentage cover values.</p>

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2022View details →
zenodo36/100

Diversity and composition of macrofungi in different Types of Stands in planted forest Biyang County, central China

<p>Table S1:List and distribution statistics of macrofungi in Biyang County. Table S2: Species Scientific Names and Corresponding Abbreviations.</p>

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2024View details →
dryad36/100

Forest structure and heterogeneity increase diversity and alter the composition of host-parasitoid networks

<p>Antagonistic host-parasitoid interactions can be quantified using bipartite and meta networks, which have the potential to reveal how habitat structural elements relate to this important ecosystem function. Here, we analysed the host-parasitoid interactions of cavity-nesting bees and wasps, as well as their abundance, diversity, and species richness with forest structural elements from 127 forest research plots in southwestern Germany. We found that parasitoid abundance, diversity, and species richness all increase with host abundance, a potential mediator between parasitoids and forest structure. Both parasitoid abundance and diversity increased with stand structural complexity, possibly mediated by the abundance of hosts. Additionally, parasitoid abundance increased with increasing standing deadwood and herb cover. The bipartite networks of host-parasitoid interactions showed higher connectance with increasing standing deadwood, herb cover, and host abundance. Analyses of interactions within the host-parasitoid metanetwork revealed that increasing host abundance and decreasing canopy cover diversify the suites of interactions present at the plot level. These results demonstrate that forest structural elements can improve the stability and resilience of host-parasitoid networks by promoting parasitoids and diversifying interactions in ecological networks.</p>

opencc-zeroMay 2024View details →
dryad36/100

Data from: Environmental conditions differently shape leaf, seed and seedling trait composition between and within elevations of tropical montane forests

<p>The composition of plant functional traits varies in response to environmental conditions due to processes of community assembly and species sorting. However, there is a lack of understanding of how plant trait composition responds to environmental conditions at different spatial scales and across the plant life cycle. We investigated the trait composition of leaves (specific leaf area), seeds (seed mass) and seedlings (initial seedling height) across elevations and within elevations in relation to soil and light conditions in a tropical montane forest in southern Ecuador. We surveyed traits and communities of adult trees, seeds and seedlings on nine plots at three elevations (1000-3000 m a.s.l.) and calculated community-weighted mean trait values to analyse trait variation across and within elevations. In addition, we measured two environmental factors (soil C/N ratio and canopy openness) to quantify local-scale variation in environmental conditions within elevations. We found that community-weighted means of specific leaf area, seed mass and initial seedling height decreased consistently with increasing elevation. Within elevations, mean trait values of trees, seeds and seedlings responded differently to local-scale environmental conditions. Specific leaf area decreased with increasing soil C/N ratio, and initial seedling height decreased with increasing canopy openness. Seed mass was associated neither with soil nor with light conditions. Our findings show that broad-scale and local-scale processes differently shape the composition of leaf, seed and seedling traits in tropical forests, indicating a scale-dependence in trait-environment associations. Furthermore, plant traits corresponding to different life stages were related differently to environmental conditions within elevations. Community assembly processes may therefore lead to differences in species sorting at early and late plant life stages.</p>

opencc-zeroJun 2024View details →
zenodo36/100

Fig. 1 in Abundance and composition of coprophagous Scarabaeidae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) in the developmental cycle of pine stands in Człuchów Forest (NW Poland)

Fig. 1. Location of Człuchów Forest within the territory of Poland

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2012View details →
zenodo36/100

Figure 2. Species area curve obtained from 264 in Composition and structure of plant communities in the Moist Temperate Forest Ecosystem of the Hindukush Mountains, Pakistan

Figure 2. Species area curve obtained from 264 plant species in Lalkoo valley.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2022View details →
zenodo36/100

Figure 3. Cluster Dendrogram indicating 11 in Composition and structure of plant communities in the Moist Temperate Forest Ecosystem of the Hindukush Mountains, Pakistan

Figure 3. Cluster Dendrogram indicating 11 plant association types in the Lalkoo Valley.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2022View details →
zenodo36/100

Figure 1 in Composition and structure of plant communities in the Moist Temperate Forest Ecosystem of the Hindukush Mountains, Pakistan

Figure 1. Samping sites in Lalkoo valley.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2022View details →
zenodo36/100

The role of competition in structuring ant community composition across a tropical forest disturbance gradient

<b>Description: </b><p>Leaf litter ant community composition and competition</p><p><b>Project: </b>This dataset was collected as part of the following SAFE research project: <a href="https://www.safeproject.net/projects/project_view/34"><b>The role of competition in structuring ant community composition across a tropical forest disturbance gradient.</b></a></p><p><b>XML metadata: </b>GEMINI compliant metadata for this dataset is available <a href="https://www.safeproject.net/datasets/xml_metadata?id=1">here</a></p><p><b>Data worksheets: </b>There are 3 data worksheets in this dataset:</p><ol><li><p><b>Ant community composition</b> (Worksheet Composition)</p><p>Dimensions: 430 rows by 69 columns</p><p>Description: Site x species matrix of ant community composition</p><p>Fields: </p><ul><li><b>Forest Type</b>: Shows the two forest types used in the study (Field type: Categorical)</li><li><b>Site</b>: Represents the site/day sampled. 10 Sampling sites were used in each forest type (Field type: Location)</li><li><b>Time</b>: Represents the time in the day points were sampled (Field type: Time)</li><li><b>Point</b>: Represents the column of 3 sampling points for each time of day (Field type: Replicate)</li><li><b>ID</b>: Represents individual sampling point. Order is: Site(Day)/Time/Type/Sampling point no. Logged ID&#x27;s also have LF at the start (Field type: ID)</li><li><b>Method</b>: Method used to record community (Field type: Categorical)</li><li><b>Diacamma</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Odontoponera</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Pheidole</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Leptogenys</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Pheidologeton</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Crematogaster</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Odontomachus</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Aphaenogaster</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Acanthomyrmex</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Nylanderia</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Camponotus</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Cardiocondyla</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Anochetus</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Technomyrmex</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Monomorium</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Recurvidris</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Polyrhachis</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Cladomyrma</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Lophomyrmex</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Harpegnathos</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Carebara</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Cataulacus</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Pachycondyla</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Lordomyrma</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Myrmecina</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Proatta</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Euprenolepis</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Rhytidoponera</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Paratrechina</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Paraparatrechina</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Tetramorium</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Paratopula</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Strumigenys</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Pyramica</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Ponera</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Hypoponera</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Tetraponera</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Emeryopone</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Centromyrmex</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Tapinoma</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Myrmicaria</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Rotrastruma</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Prionopelta</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Gnamptogenys</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Eurhopalothrix</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Myrmoteras</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Oecophylla</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Myopias</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Pseudolasius</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Plagiolepis</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Dacetinops</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Mystrium</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Echinopla</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Philidris</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Vollenhovia</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Rhoptromyrmex</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Anillomyrma</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Cryptopone</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Aenictus</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Calyptomyrmex</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Amblyopone</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Prenolepis</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li></ul><br></li><li><p><b>Morphometrics</b> (Worksheet Morpho)</p><p>Dimensions: 72 rows by 4 columns</p><p>Description: Size classes for the genera</p><p>Fields: </p><ul><li><b>Genera</b>: Genus ID (Field type: Taxa)</li><li><b>Size.Min</b>: Minimum body size (Field type: Categorical Trait)</li><li><b>Size.Max</b>: Maximum body size (Field type: Categorical Trait)</li></ul><br></li><li><p><b>Competition</b> (Worksheet Competition)</p><p>Dimensions: 866 rows by 15 columns</p><p>Description: Outcome of competitive interactions among individuals of different genera</p><p>Fields: </p><ul><li><b>Forest Type</b>: Shows the two forest types used in the study (Field type: Categorical)</li><li><b>Site</b>: Represents the site/day sampled. 10 Sampling sites were used in each forest type (Field type: Location)</li><li><b>Time</b>: Represents the time in the day points were sampled (Field type: Time)</li><li><b>ID</b>: Represents individual sampling point. Order is: Site(Day)/Time/Type/Sampling point no. Logged ID&#x27;s also have LF at the start (Field type: ID)</li><li><b>Method</b>: Method used to record interaction (Field type: Categorical)</li><li><b>Genera1</b>: Genus ID of the first interacting individual (Field type: Taxa)</li><li><b>Genera2</b>: Genus ID of the second interacting individual (Field type: Taxa)</li><li><b>TimeG1</b>: The arrival time of the first genus in the interaction to the bait card in seconds (Field type: Numeric)</li><li><b>TimeG2</b>: The arrival time of the second genus in the interaction to the bait card in seconds (Field type: Numeric)</li><li><b>IntG1</b>: The competitive status of the first genus in the interaction (Field type: Categorical Interaction)</li><li><b>IntG2</b>: The competitive status of the second genus in the interaction (Field type: Categorical Interaction)</li><li><b>Interaction</b>: The type of interaction occuring between the two genera (Field type: Categorical Interaction)</li><li><b>GroupG1</b>: Whether or not the first genus was part of a group of individuals when interacting on the bait card (Field type: Categorical)</li><li><b>GroupG2</b>: Whether or not the second genus was part of a group of individuals when interacting on the bait card (Field type: Categorical)</li></ul><br></li></ol><p><b>Date range: </b>2016-02-02 to 2016-06-05</p><p><b>Latitudinal extent: </b>4.7273 to 4.7463</p><p><b>Longitudinal extent: </b>116.9669 to 117.5969</p><p><b>Taxonomic coverage: </b><br> All taxon names are validated against the GBIF backbone taxonomy. If a dataset uses a synonym, the accepted usage is shown followed by the dataset usage in brackets. Taxa that cannot be validated, including new species and other unknown taxa, morphospecies, functional groups and taxonomic levels not used in the GBIF backbone are shown in square brackets.</p><div>Animalia<br>&ensp;-&ensp;Arthropoda<br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;Insecta<br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;Hymenoptera<br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;Formicidae<br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Acanthomyrmex</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Aenictus</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Amblyopone</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Anillomyrma</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Anochetus</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Aphaenogaster</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Calyptomyrmex</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Camponotus</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Cardiocondyla</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Carebara</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Cataulacus</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Centromyrmex</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Cladomyrma</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Crematogaster</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Cryptopone</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Dacetinops</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Diacamma</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Echinopla</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Emeryopone</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Euprenolepis</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Eurhopalothrix</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Gnamptogenys</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Harpegnathos</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Hypoponera</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Leptogenys</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Lophomyrmex</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Lordomyrma</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Monomorium</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Myopias</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Myrmecina</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Myrmicaria</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Myrmoteras</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Mystrium</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Nylanderia</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Odontomachus</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Odontoponera</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Oecophylla</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Pachycondyla</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Paraparatrechina</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Paratopula</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Paratrechina</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Pheidole</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Pheidologeton</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Philidris</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Plagiolepis</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Polyrhachis</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Ponera</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Prenolepis</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Prionopelta</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Proatta</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Pseudolasius</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Pyramica</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Recurvidris</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Rhoptromyrmex</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Rhytidoponera</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;[<i>Rotrastruma</i>]<br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Strumigenys</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Tapinoma</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Technomyrmex</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Tetramorium</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Tetraponera</i><br>&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;&ensp;-&ensp;<i>Vollenhovia</i><br></div><p></p>

opencc-by-4.0Mar 2018View 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