Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig 2 in Analysis of catch results per effort of catching red snapper (Lutjanus sp) in the waters of Lewalu village, Northwest Alor, Alor Regency

Fig 2: Number of Catches by Fishing Season

Fig 4 in Analysis of catch results per effort of catching red snapper (Lutjanus sp) in the waters of Lewalu village, Northwest Alor, Alor Regency

Fig 4: Graph of CPUE Relationship with Arrest Efforts

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2024View details →

Partitioning of water and CO2 fluxes at NEON sites into soil and plant components: a five-year dataset for spatial and temporal analysis

<p>This dataset includes estimates of transpiration, evaporation, soil respiration, and plant net photosynthesis obtained using five partitioning approaches. Flux components are available at 47 NEON sites over a period of five years. Additional meteorological inputs and water-use efficiency data are also included.</p>

Fig 1 in Water quality, yield and cost-benefit analysis of rain water ponds of Cuttack district: A comparison between Indian major carp and GIFT Tilapia

Fig 1: Location of the experimental side, Jodamu, Cuttack, Odisha

Figure 1 in Physicochemical, microbiological and parasitological analysis of water for human consumption in a quilombola community in Alagoas

Figure 1. Map of the quilombola community of Santa Luzia do Norte – AL. Source – Google Maps, 2019.

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2019View details →

2 experiments of water infiltration investigated with an image analysis method

<p>suplementary material for experiments described in the following article:</p> <p>B. Belfort, S. Weill, M. Fahs and F. Lehmann. 2019. Laboratory Experiments of Drainage, Imbibition and Infiltration under Artificial Rainfall Characterized by Image Analysis Method and Numerical Simulations. Water MDPI Journal.</p>

Analysis of the water-power nexus of the Balkan Peninsula power system - results

<p>Power generation sector worldwide accounts for high water withdrawal and consumption due to the hydropower generation and cooling of thermal power plants. Hence, the operation of the power generation sector is constrained by the availability of the water resources, as well as the addition of constrains on water resources used for other purposes, such as irrigation, flood control, water supply, agriculture, etc. The optimal utilization of water resources between the water and energy sector is defined under the term water-energy (or water-power) nexus. This study describes the implementation of hydrological LISFLOOD, Medium-Term Hydrothermal Coordination (DispaSET-MTHC) and Unit Commitment and Dispatch (DispaSET UCD) models for detailed analysis of impacts on the SEE regional power system for three different hydrological years. Results were validated based on the available ENTSO-E data for the average hydrological (2015) year. Moreover, calculations on water withdrawal and consumption for cooling of thermal power plants were added. Addition of water stress index (WSI) calculations can determine locations that could experience water scarcity.</p> <p>This dataset is composed of results of the latter described study.</p> <p>Results are divided into three sets, as results from the first model DispaSET MTHC (MTHC_results_Balkan), second model DispaSET UCD (UCD_results_Balkan) and additional calculations on water consumption and withdrawal for thermal power plant cooling (Water_relazed_results_Balkan).</p>

Figure2 in Comparative Study in Habitat Suitability Analysis of Wild Water Buffalo (Bubalus arnee) in Two Flood Plains of Chitwan National Park (CNP), Nepal

Figure2. Methodological Flow Diagram

Figure6 in Comparative Study in Habitat Suitability Analysis of Wild Water Buffalo (Bubalus arnee) in Two Flood Plains of Chitwan National Park (CNP), Nepal

Figure6. IVI of Tree Species in Western Sector

Figure5 in Comparative Study in Habitat Suitability Analysis of Wild Water Buffalo (Bubalus arnee) in Two Flood Plains of Chitwan National Park (CNP), Nepal

Figure5. IVI of Tree Species in Eastern Sector

Figure1 in Comparative Study in Habitat Suitability Analysis of Wild Water Buffalo (Bubalus arnee) in Two Flood Plains of Chitwan National Park (CNP), Nepal

Figure1. Study Area

Figure4 in Comparative Study in Habitat Suitability Analysis of Wild Water Buffalo (Bubalus arnee) in Two Flood Plains of Chitwan National Park (CNP), Nepal

Figure4. IVI of Grass Species in Western Sector

Figure3 in Comparative Study in Habitat Suitability Analysis of Wild Water Buffalo (Bubalus arnee) in Two Flood Plains of Chitwan National Park (CNP), Nepal

Figure3. IVI of Grass Species in Eastern Sector

Figure8 in Comparative Study in Habitat Suitability Analysis of Wild Water Buffalo (Bubalus arnee) in Two Flood Plains of Chitwan National Park (CNP), Nepal

Figure8. Habitat Suitability Map of Western Flood Plain

Figure7 in Comparative Study in Habitat Suitability Analysis of Wild Water Buffalo (Bubalus arnee) in Two Flood Plains of Chitwan National Park (CNP), Nepal

Figure7. Habitat Suitability Map of Eastern Flood Plain

Table 4 in Water quality, yield and cost-benefit analysis of rain water ponds of Cuttack district: A comparison between Indian major carp and GIFT Tilapia

<p><b>Table 4:</b> Growth and production of IMC poly-culture & GIFT mono-sex tilapia in T1 & T2 (2018-19)</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Parameters</b></th><th><b>Growth-production data T1 T2</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Initial avg. weight (g)</th><td>19</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><th>Final avg. weight (g)</th><td>816</td><td>1333</td></tr><tr><th>Survival rate (%)</th><td>91</td><td>93.75</td></tr><tr><th>Production (kg/pond/9 months)</th><td>3383</td><td>8000</td></tr><tr><th>Total production (kg/ha/9 months)</th><td>8457.5</td><td>20000</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 2 in Water quality, yield and cost-benefit analysis of rain water ponds of Cuttack district: A comparison between Indian major carp and GIFT Tilapia

<p><b>Table 2:</b> Fish stocking & production data-IMC poly-culture & GIFT Tilapia mono-sex culture in T1 & T2 (2018-19)</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Tank Pond Area Stocking Date of No. (ha) (no) Stocking</b></th><th><b>Types of fish Stocking</b></th><th><b>Growth estimate during stocking (August-2018)</b></th><th><b>Growth estimate during final Total FCR harvest (May-June-2020) production (kg)</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th></th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td><b>Length in (cm) Weight (g) Length in (cm)</b></td><td><b>Weight (g)</b></td><td><b>Weight in (kg)</b></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>T1</th><td></td><td>4000</td><td></td><td><i>Catla</i></td><td>9-12 18-23</td><td>28.3-39.6</td><td>980-1070</td><td>1682</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td>0.4</td><td>05.09.2020 <i>Rohu</i></td><td>10-12 18-24</td><td>28.0-41.3</td><td>700-750</td><td>880</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><i>Mrigala</i></td><td>8-11 15-19</td><td>29.4-37.6</td><td>680-720</td><td>821</td></tr><tr><th>T2</th><td>0.4</td><td>6400</td><td>GIFT tilapia 15.09.2020 (<i>O. niloticus</i>)</td><td>6-7 8-9</td><td>28.3-32.1</td><td>1333</td><td>8000</td><td>1.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 3 in Water quality, yield and cost-benefit analysis of rain water ponds of Cuttack district: A comparison between Indian major carp and GIFT Tilapia

<p><b>Table 3:</b> Comparision of operational cost, production and economic profit of IMC polyculture & GIFT mono-sex tilapia culture during 2018-19 at Jodamu village of district Ciuttack, Odisha</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Parameters</b></th><th><b>T1-IMC culture (area-.4 ha)</b></th><th><b>T2-GIFT Tilapia culture (area-.4 ha)</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th><b>Operational Cost</b></th><td><b>Expenditure Expenditure (Rs/0.4ha/yr) (Rs/ha/yr)</b></td><td><b>Expenditure (Rs/0.4ha/yr)</b></td><td><b>Expenditure (Rs/ha/yr)</b></td></tr><tr><th><b>I. Expenditure</b></th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Watering/de-watering charges</th><td>3,000</td><td>7,500</td><td>3,000</td><td>7,500</td></tr><tr><th>Bleaching Powder 50kg@Rs30/kg</th><td>1,500</td><td>3,750</td><td>1,500</td><td>3,750</td></tr><tr><th>Organic Manure 1000kg@Rs 0.5/kg</th><td>500</td><td>1,250</td><td>500</td><td>1,250</td></tr><tr><th>DAP fertilizer 20kg@ 20/kg</th><td>400</td><td>1,000</td><td>400</td><td>1,000</td></tr><tr><th>Lime-800kg (IMC), 1000kg (GIFT tilapia) @ Rs 10/kg</th><td>8,000</td><td>20,000</td><td>10,000</td><td>25,000</td></tr><tr><th>GNOC-25kg (IMC), 42kg (GIFT tilapia) @ Rs 22/kg</th><td>550</td><td>1325</td><td>924</td><td>2310</td></tr><tr><th>Soyabin 21kg @Rs 30/kg</th><td>630</td><td>1,575</td><td>630</td><td>1,575</td></tr><tr><th>Curd 120 kg @ 40/kg</th><td>4800</td><td>12000</td><td>4800</td><td>12000</td></tr><tr><th>Yeast 5kg @ Rs 200/kg</th><td>1000</td><td>2500</td><td>1000</td><td>2500</td></tr><tr><th>Ricebran 80kg @ Rs 15.5/kg</th><td>1,240</td><td>3,100</td><td>1,240</td><td>3,100</td></tr><tr><th>Joggery-100kg (IMC), 208kg (GIFT tilapia) @ Rs 23/kg</th><td>2,300</td><td>5,750</td><td>4,784</td><td>11,960</td></tr><tr><th>IMC seed4000pc @ Rs 5/pc and GIFT seed cost 6400pc @ Rs 2/pc</th><td>20,000</td><td>50,000</td><td>12,800</td><td>32,000</td></tr><tr><th>IMC-F. Feed 5500kg @ Rs 40/kg and GIFT tilapia F. Feed 9800kg @ Rs 40/kg</th><td>2,20,000</td><td>5.50,000</td><td>3,92,000</td><td>9,80,000</td></tr><tr><th>Transport @ Rs10000/time</th><td>20,000</td><td>50,000</td><td>30,000</td><td>75,000</td></tr><tr><th>Man power for pond preparation, bio-security installation, Management, Feeding, 10,000 netting, watch and ward, marketing etc. @ 200/man day (IMC & GIFT)</th><td>25,000</td><td>30,000</td><td>75,000</td></tr><tr><th>Miscellaneous expenditure (medicine, aeration, transaction and coordination)</th><td>5,000</td><td>12,500</td><td>10,000</td><td>25,000</td></tr><tr><th>Total expenditure</th><td>2,98,920</td><td>7,47,300</td><td>5,03,578</td><td>15,22,070</td></tr><tr><th><b>IMC poly-culture & GIFT mono-sex tilapia Production and economic profit (2018-19)</b></th></tr><tr><th><b>II. Gross Income from GIFT tilapia</b></th><td>0.4 ha/yr</td><td>ha/yr</td><td>0.4 ha/yr</td><td>ha/yr</td></tr><tr><th>Total production (kg/yr)</th><td>3383</td><td>8457.5</td><td>8000</td><td>20000</td></tr><tr><th>IMC & GIFT Cost of fish @ Rs 160 & 140/kg (Rs)</th><td>5,41,280</td><td>13,53,300</td><td>11,20,000</td><td>28,00,000</td></tr><tr><th>Net income from fish (Gross income-expenditure) (Rs)</th><td>2,42,360</td><td>6,05,900</td><td>6,31,172</td><td>15,77,930</td></tr><tr><th>Return on expenditure (%)</th><td>81.07</td><td>0.81</td><td>125.33</td><td>103.67</td></tr><tr><th>Cost benefit ratio (C:B)</th><td>0.810</td><td>0.81</td><td>1.25</td><td>1.25</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 1 in Water quality, yield and cost-benefit analysis of rain water ponds of Cuttack district: A comparison between Indian major carp and GIFT Tilapia

<p><b>Table 1:</b> Ranges and mean values (± SD) of water parameters in T1 &T2</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Parameters</b></th><th><b>T1-IMC poly-culture</b></th><th><b>T2-GIFT tilapia mono-sex</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th></th><td><b>Min</b></td><td><b>Max</b></td><td><b>Mean ± SD</b></td><td><b>Min</b></td><td><b>Max</b></td><td><b>Mean ± SD</b></td></tr><tr><th>Temp (°C)</th><td>21.1</td><td>33</td><td>26.3±4.56</td><td>21.2</td><td>34.1</td><td>27.7±6.5</td></tr><tr><th>Transparency (cm)</th><td>24.33</td><td>35.67</td><td>27.71± 0.86</td><td>25.00</td><td>36.00</td><td>29.29± 0.81</td></tr><tr><th>DO (ppm)</th><td>4.3</td><td>7.5</td><td>6.07±1.35</td><td>4.5-</td><td>6.0</td><td>5.3±0.51</td></tr><tr><th>pH</th><td>7.0</td><td>8.4</td><td>7.5±0.55</td><td>6.0</td><td>8.0</td><td>7.5±0.35</td></tr><tr><th>Alkalinity mg/l</th><td>86.7</td><td>114.7</td><td>100.4±12.8</td><td>80.1</td><td>114.0</td><td>98.3±14.2</td></tr><tr><th>Ammonia mg/l</th><td>0.51</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.55±0.05</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.58±0.04</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 3 in Analysis of catch results per effort of catching red snapper (Lutjanus sp) in the waters of Lewalu village, Northwest Alor, Alor Regency

<p><b>Table 3:</b> T Tes</p><table><tbody><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th><b>Test Value = 0</b></th><th></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th></th><td><b>t</b></td><td><b>95% Confidence interval of the difference df Sig.(2 tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper</b></td></tr><tr><th>Catch</th><td>11.129</td><td>23</td><td>.000</td><td>144.275 117.46</td><td>171.09</td></tr><tr><th>Catching tool</th><td>14.387</td><td>23</td><td>.000</td><td>1.500 1.28</td><td>1.72</td></tr></tbody></table><p><b>Table 3:</b> T Tes</p>