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.
165
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
165 results for “interspecific variation”
FIGURE 5 in Osteological characterization of four putative species of the genus Adenomera (Anura: Leptodactylidae), with comments on intra- and interspecific variation
FIGURE 5. Vertebral column of OTU 1, QCAZ 6192 from Ecuador (dorsal view). a: atlas; d–r–u: dorsal ridge of urostyle; n–p: neural process; p–p: parasagital process; s: sesamoid; s–d: sacral diapophysis; t–p: transverse process; u: urostyle.
Temporal and interspecific dietary variation in wintering ducks in agricultural landscapes
<p class="MsoNormal">Farmlands are becoming more important as waterfowl foraging habitats, while natural wetlands are being lost globally. However, it is unclear how waterfowl coexist in agricultural landscapes by resource partitioning. We evaluated the diets of seven sympatric dabbling ducks foraging in rice paddy and lotus fields around Lake Kasumigaura, the second largest lake in Japan, during two wintering seasons (from November to February) by fecal DNA metabarcoding using chloroplast <em>trn</em>L and mitochondrial CO1 region sequences. We examined 42<span>0</span> fecal samples and found different patterns of dietary diversity and composition among the duck species. The pattern also differed between plant and invertebrate food. Dietary niche partitioning was clear in plant food. Large-bodied ducks intensively use crop plants, and other ducks might mediate competition by using terrestrial and aquatic plants that are suitable for their foraging behaviors or microhabitats. Dietary segregation among species was the most apparent in February, when the abundance of foraging ducks was the largest. This study <span>illustrated</span> the complex pattern of dietary niche partitioning of dabbling ducks in agricultural landscapes, which might be difficult to evaluate by conventional approaches. The availability of crop plants, as well as other plant food resources in <span>flooded areas</span> and farmland dikes, may enable ducks to coexist by spatial or behavioral resource partitioning.</p>
Supplementary data and files for: The importance of contact zones for distinguishing interspecific from intraspecific geographic variation
<p>With limited sampling, geographic variation within a single species can be difficult to distinguish from interspecific variation, confounding our ability to draw accurate species boundaries. We argue that thorough sampling and analysis of contact zones between putative taxa can determine if assortative mating or selection against hybrids exists (supporting the presence of two distinct species), or alternatively if mating is random among genotypes and admixture among adjacent populations is gradual and continuous (supporting geographic variation within a single species). Here, we test two alternative hypotheses for two pairs of named taxa at contact zones within the American milksnake (<em>Lampropeltis triangulum</em>) complex. A prior morphological analysis found areas of gradual intergradation among named taxa, and concluded that the taxa represented geographical races of a single polytypic species. In contrast, a subsequent analysis of gene sequence data, but with limited sampling near the contact zones, hypothesized distinct boundaries between species at the contact zones. At the contact zone between proposed species <em>L. triangulum </em>and <em>L. gentilis</em>, we examined a ~700 km-wide transect across the states of Kansas and Missouri, with thorough sampling and reduced-representation genomic-level sequencing, to test the two opposing taxonomic hypotheses. Our transect analyses included examinations of population structure, fixed differences, cline-fitting, and an admixture index analysis. These analyses all supported a gradual and continuous geographic cline across a broad intergrade zone between two geographic forms of <em>L. triangulum</em>, thus providing strong support for a single species in this region (and no support for the recognition of <em>L. gentilis </em>as a distinct species). At a second contact zone between proposed species <em>L. triangulum </em>and <em>L. elapsoides </em>(but variously treated as species or subspecies by different researchers) in Kentucky and Tennessee, we re-evaluated morphological data. In this case, the contact zone analysis indicated sympatry and reproductive isolation of the two taxa, and thus strongly supported <em>L. triangulum </em>and <em>L. elapsoides </em>as distinct species. We conclude that detailed studies of contact zones, based on either genetic or morphological data, are essential for distinguishing intraspecific from interspecific variation in the case of widely and continuously distributed taxa.</p>
Figure 14 in Intraspecific versus interspecific variation in Miocene Great Basin mylagaulids: implications for systematics and evolutionary history
Figure 14. Occlusal morphology of the fourth premolars of the Virgin Valley specimens of indeterminate mylagaulids. Numbers refer to wear stages described in the text. Anterior is to the left of the figure. A, UCMP 11572, left p4 (mirrored); B, UCMP 11662, right p4; C, UCMP 41026, right P4. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Figure 13 in Intraspecific versus interspecific variation in Miocene Great Basin mylagaulids: implications for systematics and evolutionary history
Figure 13. Occlusal morphology of the fourth premolars of Mylagaulidae species A. Numbers refer to wear stages described in the text. Anterior is to the left of the figure. A, UOMNH F-6166, right P4; B, UOMNH F-17681, right P4; C, UCMP 188927, left P4 (mirrored). Scale bar = 1 cm.
Figure 10 in Intraspecific versus interspecific variation in Miocene Great Basin mylagaulids: implications for systematics and evolutionary history
Figure 10. Mandibular morphology of the type specimen of Hesperogaulus shotwelli, UCMP 320004, from RV-8000. A, dorsal (occlusal) view; B, lateral view. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Figure 6 in Intraspecific versus interspecific variation in Miocene Great Basin mylagaulids: implications for systematics and evolutionary history
Figure 6. Postcranial morphology of UCMP 130250. A, partial distal humerus; B, caudal vertebra. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Figure 2 in Intraspecific versus interspecific variation in Miocene Great Basin mylagaulids: implications for systematics and evolutionary history
Figure 2. Revised range of the mylagaulid species present in the Great Basin. Stratigraphy after Tedford et al. (2004). Abbreviations: EBAR, early Barstovian; ECLA, early Clarendonian; EEHP, early early Hemphillian; EHMF, early Hemingfordian; ELHP, early late Hemphillian; LBAR, late Barstovian; LCLA, late Clarendonian; LEHP, late early Hemphillian; LHMF, late Hemingfordian; LLHP, late late Hemphillian; MCLA, middle Clarendonian.
Figure 15 in Intraspecific versus interspecific variation in Miocene Great Basin mylagaulids: implications for systematics and evolutionary history
Figure 15. Occlusal morphology of the dp4–m2 of an indeterminate mylagaulid from the Mascall Formation of Oregon. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Figure 11 in Intraspecific versus interspecific variation in Miocene Great Basin mylagaulids: implications for systematics and evolutionary history
Figure 11. Occlusal morphology of the fourth premolars of Hesperogaulus shotwelli. Numbers refer to wear stages described in the text. Anterior is to the left of the figure. A, UCMP 29637, left p4 (mirrored); B, UOMNH F-5771, right p4; C, UOMNH F-6115, left p4 (mirrored); D, UCMP 320004 (type), right p4; E, UOMNH F-15697, right p4; F, UCMP 38665, left p4 (mirrored); G, UOMNH F-6113, right p4; H, UOMNH F-5771 sawed, right p4; I, UCMP 11878, left P4 (mirrored); J, UOMNH F-5557, right P4; K, UOMNH F-5558, right P4; L, UOMNH F-17508, left P4 (mirrored); M, UOMNH F-5772, left P4 (mirrored); N, UCMP 320004 (type), left P4 (mirrored); O, UOMNH F-15691, right P4; P, UOMNH F-5772 sawed, left P4 (mirrored); Q, UOMNH F-5443, left P4 (mirrored); R, UOMNH F-5771 sawed, right P4; S, UOMNH F-5558 sawed, right P4; T, UOMNH F-10977, right P4. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Figure 1 in Intraspecific versus interspecific variation in Miocene Great Basin mylagaulids: implications for systematics and evolutionary history
Figure 1. Map of the area considered in this study with the localities and North American Land Mammal Ages.
Figure 12 in Intraspecific versus interspecific variation in Miocene Great Basin mylagaulids: implications for systematics and evolutionary history
Figure 12. Occlusal morphology of the fourth premolars of Hesperogaulus wilsoni. Numbers refer to wear stages described in the text. Anterior is to the left of the figure. A, UOMNH F-10347, left p4 (mirrored); B, UOMNH F-10348, right p4; C, UOMNH F-10349, right P4. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Figure 9 in Intraspecific versus interspecific variation in Miocene Great Basin mylagaulids: implications for systematics and evolutionary history
Figure 9. Cranial morphology of the type specimen of Hesperogaulus shotwelli, UCMP 320004, from RV-8000. A, dorsal view; B, ventral view; C, lateral view. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Figure 4 in Intraspecific versus interspecific variation in Miocene Great Basin mylagaulids: implications for systematics and evolutionary history
Figure 4. Occlusal morphology of the fourth premolars of Alphagaulus vetus. Numbers refer to wear stages described in the text, and d to deciduous. Anterior is to the left of the figure. A, UCMP 318367 left deciduous p4 (mirrored); B, UCMP 11540, left p4 (mirrored); C, UCMP 61709, left p4 (mirrored); D, UCMP 316434, left p4 (mirrored); E, UCMP 316431, left p4 (mirrored); F, UCMP 11843, left p4 (mirrored); G, UCMP 315432, left p4 (mirrored); H, UCMP 316435, right p4; I, UCMP 316436, right p4; J, UCMP 316433, left p4 (mirrored); K, UCMP 11684, left p4 (mirrored); L, UCMP 315686, right p4; M, UCMP 316010, right p4; N, UCMP 316437, right deciduous P4; O, UCMP 316008, left P4 (mirrored); P, UCMP 315684, right P4; Q, UCMP 130244, left P4 (mirrored); R, UCMP 152495, left P4 (mirrored); S, UCMP 130240, right P4; T, UCMP 130247, right P4; U, UCMP 319237, right P4; V, UCMP 315431, left P4 (mirrored); W, UCMP 316007, right P4. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Figure 3 in Intraspecific versus interspecific variation in Miocene Great Basin mylagaulids: implications for systematics and evolutionary history
Figure 3. Summary of the dental morphology of mylagaulids (redrafted and modified from Hopkins, 2008). A, P4 of Alphagaulus vetus; B, p4 of Al. vetus.
Figure 7 in Intraspecific versus interspecific variation in Miocene Great Basin mylagaulids: implications for systematics and evolutionary history
Figure 7. Occlusal morphology of the fourth premolars of Hesperogaulus gazini. Numbers refer to wear stages described in the text. Anterior is to the left of the figure. A, CIT 521, left p4 (mirrored); B, CIT 525, right P4; C, JODA 3308, left P4 (mirrored); D, CIT 527, right P4; E, CIT 524, right P4. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Figure 8 in Intraspecific versus interspecific variation in Miocene Great Basin mylagaulids: implications for systematics and evolutionary history
Figure 8. Cranial morphology of Hesperogaulus gazini from the Mascall Formation (JODA 3308). A, dorsal view; B, ventral view; C, lateral view. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Fig. 1 in Interspecific Variation in Cranial Architecture and Mandibular Geometry in Two Agabine (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) Larval Co-Inhabitants of a Temporary Habitat
Fig. 1. Frequency distributions for intermandibular articulation distances (ID) for mature larval representatives of Bibb Co., Georgia populations of Agabus disintegratus (black bars) and Agabus punctatus (white bars) (n = 10 each) and a Baldwin Co., Georgia population of A. punctatus (striped bars) (n = 9).
Figure 20 in Intraspecific or interspecific variation: delimitation of species boundaries within the genus Gammarus (Crustacea, Amphipoda, Gammaridae), with description of four new species
Figure 20. Gammarus parvioculus sp. nov., male. A, gnathopod 1; B, gnathopod 2; C, propodus of gnathopod 1 (inner surface); D, propodus of gnathopod 2 (inner surface); E, propodus of gnathopod 2 (outer surface).
Figure 16 in Intraspecific or interspecific variation: delimitation of species boundaries within the genus Gammarus (Crustacea, Amphipoda, Gammaridae), with description of four new species
Figure 16. Gammarus hypolithicus sp. nov., male. A, pereopod 3; B, pereopod 4; C, pereopod 5; D, pereopod 6; E, pereopod 7; F, dactylus of pereopod 3; G, dactylus of pereopod 4; H, dactylus of pereopod 5; I, dactylus of pereopod 6; J, dactylus of pereopod 7.
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.