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.
1,473
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
1,473 results for “Geographic distribution”
Figure 9 from: Seesamut T, Jirapatrasilp P, Chanabun R, Oba Y, Panha S (2019) Size variation and geographical distribution of the luminous earthworm Pontodrilus litoralis (Grube, 1855) (Clitellata, Megascolecidae) in Southeast Asia and Japan. ZooKeys 862: 23-43. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.862.35727
Figure 9 Photographs showing the habitats of P.litoralis in Thailand A Trat Province B Chonburi Province C Petchaburi Province D Chumphon Province E Songkhla Province F Satun Province G Petchaburi Province H Satun Province
Figure 8 from: Seesamut T, Jirapatrasilp P, Chanabun R, Oba Y, Panha S (2019) Size variation and geographical distribution of the luminous earthworm Pontodrilus litoralis (Grube, 1855) (Clitellata, Megascolecidae) in Southeast Asia and Japan. ZooKeys 862: 23-43. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.862.35727
Figure 8 ML phylogenetic tree of P.litoralis based on the mitochondrial COI gene (658 bp) with Pontodriluslongissimus as the outgroup. Only bootstrap values >70% are indicated at each node. Scale bar represents the number of nucleotide substitutions per site. The sample names correspond to those in Table 5. Photograph on the top left shows comparative size of the shortest and the longest samples in this molecular study. The longest population (JP2) is shown in red and the shortest population (VT2) is shown in blue.
Figure 7 from: Seesamut T, Jirapatrasilp P, Chanabun R, Oba Y, Panha S (2019) Size variation and geographical distribution of the luminous earthworm Pontodrilus litoralis (Grube, 1855) (Clitellata, Megascolecidae) in Southeast Asia and Japan. ZooKeys 862: 23-43. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.862.35727
Figure 7 PCA plot between PC1 and PC2 using the three morphometric variables (number of segments, body length, and diameter). Sampling sites codes are given in Table 1.
Figure 5 from: Seesamut T, Jirapatrasilp P, Chanabun R, Oba Y, Panha S (2019) Size variation and geographical distribution of the luminous earthworm Pontodrilus litoralis (Grube, 1855) (Clitellata, Megascolecidae) in Southeast Asia and Japan. ZooKeys 862: 23-43. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.862.35727
Figure 5 Mean (A, C) length and (B, D) diameter of P.litoralis samples within each (A, B) locality and (C, D) country sampled in this study. Sampling site codes are given in Table 1. Different letters above the bar indicate a significant difference (P < 0.05; one-way ANOVA).
Figure 4 from: Seesamut T, Jirapatrasilp P, Chanabun R, Oba Y, Panha S (2019) Size variation and geographical distribution of the luminous earthworm Pontodrilus litoralis (Grube, 1855) (Clitellata, Megascolecidae) in Southeast Asia and Japan. ZooKeys 862: 23-43. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.862.35727
Figure 4 Scatter plot between the length and number of segments of P.litoralis (212 samples, 14 locations).
Figure 6 from: Seesamut T, Jirapatrasilp P, Chanabun R, Oba Y, Panha S (2019) Size variation and geographical distribution of the luminous earthworm Pontodrilus litoralis (Grube, 1855) (Clitellata, Megascolecidae) in Southeast Asia and Japan. ZooKeys 862: 23-43. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.862.35727
Figure 6 Cluster analysis based on the Euclidean distances among the 14 populations of P.litoralis. Sampling sites codes are given in Table 1.
Figure 2 from: Seesamut T, Jirapatrasilp P, Chanabun R, Oba Y, Panha S (2019) Size variation and geographical distribution of the luminous earthworm Pontodrilus litoralis (Grube, 1855) (Clitellata, Megascolecidae) in Southeast Asia and Japan. ZooKeys 862: 23-43. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.862.35727
Figure 2 Location and distribution of P.litoralis habitats (sampling sites) in Japan (based on our field collections).
Figure 10 from: Seesamut T, Jirapatrasilp P, Chanabun R, Oba Y, Panha S (2019) Size variation and geographical distribution of the luminous earthworm Pontodrilus litoralis (Grube, 1855) (Clitellata, Megascolecidae) in Southeast Asia and Japan. ZooKeys 862: 23-43. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.862.35727
Figure 10 Photographs showing the habitats of P.litoralis in Japan A Miyagi Prefecture B Kanagawa Prefecture C Aichi Prefecture D Hiroshima Prefecture E Fukuoka Prefecture F Okinawa Prefecture G Kanagawa Prefecture H Aichi Prefecture
Figure 3 from: Seesamut T, Jirapatrasilp P, Chanabun R, Oba Y, Panha S (2019) Size variation and geographical distribution of the luminous earthworm Pontodrilus litoralis (Grube, 1855) (Clitellata, Megascolecidae) in Southeast Asia and Japan. ZooKeys 862: 23-43. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.862.35727
Figure 3 Histogram showing the length frequency distribution of the 212 P.litoralis samples from all 14 sampling sites.
Figure 1 from: Seesamut T, Jirapatrasilp P, Chanabun R, Oba Y, Panha S (2019) Size variation and geographical distribution of the luminous earthworm Pontodrilus litoralis (Grube, 1855) (Clitellata, Megascolecidae) in Southeast Asia and Japan. ZooKeys 862: 23-43. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.862.35727
Figure 1 Location and distribution of P.litoralis habitats (sampling sites) in Thailand, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Indonesia, and Vietnam (based on our field collections).
Figure 6 from: Correa C, Durán F (2019) Taxonomy, systematics and geographic distribution of ground frogs (Alsodidae, Eupsophus): a comprehensive synthesis of the last six decades of research. ZooKeys 863: 107-152. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.863.35484
Figure 6 Consensus phylogram (50% mayority-rule) of the Bayesian analysis of the mitochondrial fragments cytochrome c oxidase subunit I and cytochrome b. For simplicity, the outgroup (Alsodesnorae) is not shown. Colored branches indicate the specimens of the two putative species: Villarrica (green) and Tolhuaca (red). The values next to the nodes are the posterior probabilities (pp); asterisks represent maximum values (pp = 1). Note that all species currently recognized (Suárez-Villota et al. 2018b) are supported by high pp values (> 0.97), except for both of the vertebralis group, wich are not reciprocally monophyletic. The scale bar under the tree represents the expected substitutions per site.
Figure 4 from: Correa C, Durán F (2019) Taxonomy, systematics and geographic distribution of ground frogs (Alsodidae, Eupsophus): a comprehensive synthesis of the last six decades of research. ZooKeys 863: 107-152. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.863.35484
Figure 4 Cryptic coloration and variation of coloration patterns in two undetermined populations of the Eupsophusroseus group A adult females from Pidenco, showing cryptic coloration resembling the forest ground; insets show head profiles of the same individuals B adults and juveniles from Las Lianas exemplifying variation in coloration patterns. Both localities were included as Eupsophus sp. in the map of Fig. 3.
Figure 5 from: Correa C, Durán F (2019) Taxonomy, systematics and geographic distribution of ground frogs (Alsodidae, Eupsophus): a comprehensive synthesis of the last six decades of research. ZooKeys 863: 107-152. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.863.35484
Figure 5 Examples of intrapopulation external variation in adult specimens of the type localities of two species of the Eupsophusroseus group AEupsophusroseus from Valdivia BEupsophusmigueli from Mehuín. Both examples illustrate the variation in dorsal and ventral (B) coloration, iris color and snout shape.
Figure 1 from: Correa C, Durán F (2019) Taxonomy, systematics and geographic distribution of ground frogs (Alsodidae, Eupsophus): a comprehensive synthesis of the last six decades of research. ZooKeys 863: 107-152. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.863.35484
Figure 1 Composition of the genus Eupsophus between 1961 and 2018 according to several reviews and studies. Year of species description is provided in parentheses. Capurro (1958) and Cei (1958, 1960, 1962a, 1962b) recognized the same two species of Grandison (1961), but with different names (see comment in Cei 1962b). †Revalidated by Formas and Vera (1982) (removed from the synonymy of E.roseus). ‡Undescribed species from Isla Wellington (Chile), sister to E.calcaratus. §It appears as Eupsophus sp. 1 in Blotto et al. (2013). |Probable undescribed species from Tolhuaca (Chile), sister to E.roseus. ¶Putative species from Villarrica (Chile), sister to E.roseus.
Figure 3 from: Correa C, Durán F (2019) Taxonomy, systematics and geographic distribution of ground frogs (Alsodidae, Eupsophus): a comprehensive synthesis of the last six decades of research. ZooKeys 863: 107-152. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.863.35484
Figure 3 Compilation of localities of Eupsophus species gathered from the literature (see the complete list of localities in Appendix 1). Multicolored circles and the star indicate localities where two or three species of the same group have been reported in the same or different sources. White circles indicate the localities where two undescribed species have been identified (Villarrica and Tolhuaca), two undetermined populations included in this study (Fig. 4) and several ones considered by Correa et al. (2017) as E.roseus, whose taxonomic status is uncertain according to the current taxonomy (Suárez-Villota et al. 2018b). Thin gray lines within Chile represent boundaries of Administrative Regions.
Figure 2 from: Correa C, Durán F (2019) Taxonomy, systematics and geographic distribution of ground frogs (Alsodidae, Eupsophus): a comprehensive synthesis of the last six decades of research. ZooKeys 863: 107-152. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.863.35484
Figure 2 Phylogenetic hypotheses of Eupsophus obtained with DNA sequences. In some of these studies several phylogenetic analyses were made but here we show the hypotheses preferred by the authors. The trees were simplified by merging the terminal nodes by species or other relevant groupings and uniforming the branch lengths, but maintaining the original topologies. The numbers next to the nodes indicate the bootstrap or jackknife support values for the maximum parsimony (MP) analyses or posterior probability for those of Bayesian inference (BI). Black circles over the nodes indicate maximum support. The number of specimens included for each taxon or population is indicated in parentheses (omitted when only one was included). When relevant, the localities of origin of some specimens are indicated in parentheses. For simplicity, some names were abbreviated (for example, Esep = E.septentrionalis; Esp = Eupsophus sp.). Below the trees are indicated the gene fragments used, whether they are mitochondrial (mt) or nuclear (nuc), the analysis strategy (concatenated: ctd; species tree: st) and the phylogenetic reconstruction method used. ANuñez (2003); this is the only tree of those shown where morphological characters (15) were included to build it BNuñez et al. (2011); the only one of these studies where not all species of the genus were included; lineages A-F were considered a priori as E.calcaratusCBlotto et al. (2013); the alternative position of E.septentrionalis (with its respective support value) obtained with a Bayesian analysis of the same data set is shown in red; the method used was MP with direct optimization (do); the support values correspond to jackknife absolute frequencies DCorrea et al. (2017); note that several undescribed populations (Eupsophus sp. = Esp) appear intermixed with some nominal species of the roseus group; in this analysis E.contulmoensis (Econ) and E.nahuelbutensis (Enah) make up a clade but they are not reciprocally monophyletic ESuárez-Villota et al. (2018a); in this analysis E.vertebralis (Ever) and E.emiliopugini (Eemi) are not reciprocally monophyletic FSuárez-Villota et al. (2018b); they obtained a different topology within the roseus group in maximum likelihood and BI analyses of the same concatenated data set (not shown).
Supplementary material 1 from: Li Y, Li H, Motokawa M, Wu Y, Harada M, Sun H, Mo X, Wang J, Li Y (2019) A revision of the geographical distributions of the shrews Crocidura tanakae and C. attenuata based on genetic species identification in the mainland of China. ZooKeys 869: 147-160. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.869.33858
: Data type: species data
FIGURE 17 in Systematic list, geographic distribution and ecological significance of lady beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) from the West Bank (Central Palestine)
FIGURE 17. Localities where Stethorus gilvifrons was collected during the course of this study.
FIGURE 9 in Systematic list, geographic distribution and ecological significance of lady beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) from the West Bank (Central Palestine)
FIGURE 9. Localities where Chilocorus bipustulatus was collected during the course of this study.
FIGURE 7 in Systematic list, geographic distribution and ecological significance of lady beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) from the West Bank (Central Palestine)
FIGURE 7. Localities where Oenopia conglobata was collected during the course of this study.
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.