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.
136
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
136 results for “rangeland”
Supplementary material 5 from: Lee T, Alemseged Y, Mitchell A (2018) Dropping Hints: Estimating the diets of livestock in rangelands using DNA metabarcoding of faeces. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 2: e22467. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.2.22467
Family level taxa (BOLD Data) ('*' indicates that the column contains no taxa).
Supplementary material 4 from: Lee T, Alemseged Y, Mitchell A (2018) Dropping Hints: Estimating the diets of livestock in rangelands using DNA metabarcoding of faeces. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 2: e22467. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.2.22467
Number of paired-end reads for each sample resulting from Illumina Miseq Nano run.
Supplementary material 8 from: Lee T, Alemseged Y, Mitchell A (2018) Dropping Hints: Estimating the diets of livestock in rangelands using DNA metabarcoding of faeces. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 2: e22467. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.2.22467
Taxon accumulation curves for Merino specimens.
Supplementary material 9 from: Lee T, Alemseged Y, Mitchell A (2018) Dropping Hints: Estimating the diets of livestock in rangelands using DNA metabarcoding of faeces. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 2: e22467. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.2.22467
Taxon accumulation curves for goat samples.
Species co-occurrence shapes spatial variability in plant diversity–biomass relationships in natural rangelands under different grazing intensities
<p>Grazing can alter plant species interactions in natural rangelands, which in turn might influence the productivity of the ecosystem but we do not fully understand how spatial variability in plant diversity-biomass relationships are modulated by grazing intensity. Here, we hypothesized that plant species co-occurrence in rangelands is mainly driven by niche segregation due to grazing and heterogeneity in local resources, and that grazing therefore modulates diversity–biomass relationships.<b> </b>We tested our hypothesis across 35 rangeland sites in Iran, using a species co-occurrence index to assess plant spatial aggregation within each site. At each site, we measured aboveground biomass, plant diversity, topography, soil nutrients and three levels of grazing intensity. High spatial segregation of plant communities (low species co-occurrence) was found at heavily grazed sites, whereas greater spatial aggregation (high species co-occurrence) was found on low and moderate grazed sites, showing varied associational patterns of species with grazing intensity. Soil nutrients increased with grazing intensity and spatial segregation of plant communities was greater at sites with high soil nutrient concentrations, indicating that grazing intensity influences the spatial heterogeneity of plant communities via nutrients deposited in urine and faeces. Declining plant biomass with grazing intensity was related to a strong decline in graminoid species diversity, which suggests that the diversity-biomass relationship is influenced by selective grazing of palatable species. The relationships between species co-occurrence and biomass or plant diversity suggest non-random patterns in species co-occurrences with grazing intensity, which could be the result of competition driven by high livestock grazing intensity. We therefore suggest that rangeland stocking rates should be managed properly to maintain rangeland production while promoting plant diversity.</p>
Tradeoffs with utility-scale solar development and ungulates on western rangelands
<p>Utility scale solar energy (USSE) has become an efficient and cost-effective form of renewable energy, with an expanding footprint into rangelands that provide important habitat for many ungulate populations. Using GPS data collected before and after construction, we documented the potential impacts of USSE on pronghorn, including direct habitat loss, indirect habitat loss, and barrier effects to both resident and migratory population segments. Our case study highlights the challenges that USSE poses to ungulate conservation, including 1) impermeable security fencing that removes habitat and reduces connectivity, and 2) the lack of guidelines for minimizing solar impacts to ungulates. We encourage agencies and industry to work towards a unified siting process and develop ungulate-specific best management practices to minimize habitat loss and retain landscape connectivity. Ungulate biodiversity and ecosystem services (e.g., long-distance migrations) in arid rangelands are important considerations when balancing the global benefits of renewable energy with local wildlife impacts.</p>
Supplementary material 1 from: Gaskin JF, Chapagain N, Schwarzländer M, Tancos MA, West NM (2023) Genetic diversity and structure of Crupina vulgaris (common crupina): a noxious rangeland weed of the western United States. NeoBiota 82: 57-66. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.82.90229
Population Data and AFLP Data
Data from: Root traits are related to plant water-use among rangeland Mediterranean species
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Identifying relationships between multi-scale social-ecological factors to explore ungulate health in a Western Kazakhstan rangeland
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Tradeoffs with utility-scale solar development and ungulates on western rangelands
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Experimentally simulating warmer and wetter climate additively improves rangeland quality on the Tibetan Plateau
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Species co-occurrence shapes spatial variability in plant diversity–biomass relationships in natural rangelands under different grazing intensities
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1984
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1984</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1987
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1987</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1992
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1992</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1989
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1989</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1993
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1993</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1996
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1996</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1997
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1997</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
Rangeland Analysis Platform - vegetation cover 1985
<p>Rangeland Analysis Platform vegetation cover 1985</p> <p>These data represent rangeland cover estimates determined by Jones et al. (2018)<br> and as accessible on the Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app).<br> Values are percent aerial cover of the following rangeland functional groups:</p> <p>Band 1 - annual forbs and grasses<br> Band 2 - bare ground<br> Band 3 - litter<br> Band 4 - perennial forbs and grasses<br> Band 5 - shrubs<br> Band 6 - trees<br> No Data value = 255</p> <p>Although these data were produced across a broad region, they are primarily<br> intended for rangeland ecosystems. Cover estimates may not be suitable in other<br> ecosystems, e.g., forests, agricultural lands.</p> <p>Data are in WGS84 Geographic Coordinate System (EPSG:4326); spatial resolution<br> is approximately 30m.</p> <p>Please attribute these data to:<br> Jones, M. O., B. W. Allred, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, P. Donnelly, L. J.<br> Metz, J. Karl, R. Smith, B. Bestelmeyer, C. Boyd, J. D. Kerby, and J. D. McIver.<br> 2018. Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type<br> percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984-2017. Ecosphere 9:e02430.<br> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2430</p>
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.