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.
2,556
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
2,556 results for “assemblages”
Fig. 3 in Foraminiferal assemblages as palaeoenvironmental bioindicators in Late Jurassic epicontinental platforms: Relation with trophic conditions
Fig. 3. Explanatory legend of foraminiferal pie−diagram represented in Figs. 4 and 5.
Fig. 3 in Temporal dynamics of the geographic differentiation of Late Devonian Palmatolepis assemblages in the Prototethys
Fig. 3. Upper view of a Palmatolepis (Manticolepis) element.
FIGURE 1 in An assemblage of lizards from the Early Cretaceous of Japan
FIGURE 1. Map showing the location of the Kaseki-Kabe fossil site, Ishikawa Prefecture.
FIGURE 1 in Diversity of Loricariidae (Actinopterygii: Siluriformes) assemblages in two Conservation Areas of the Middle Xingu River, Brazilian Amazon, and their suitability for sustainable ornamental fisheries
FIGURE 1 | Map of the collection areas in the Xingu and Iriri River Extractive Reserves.
FIGURE 3 in Local effects of deforestation on stream fish assemblages in the Amazon-Savannah transitional area
FIGURE 3 | Box-and-whiskers plots of the five metrics comprising the Physical Integrity Index.
FIGURE 4 in Freshwater fishes of the Río de la Plata: current assemblage structure
FIGURE 4 | Figure caption on next page.
Table 2 in First Cretaceous teleostean otolith assemblage (Arkadelphia Formation, upper Maastrichtian) from Arkansas, USA, early Gadiformes, and the Western Interior Seaway
<p><b>Table 2.</b> Comparison of the otoliths (taxa and percentage of total) of the Fox Hills Formation (NDGS 5597 locality, near Burnstad, North Dakota, USA), Kemp Clay (South Sulphur River, near Commerce, Texas, USA), and Ripley Formation (near Blue Springs, Mississippi, USA) based on bulk samples. <b>1</b> includes specimens identified as <i>Pterothrissus</i> cf. <i>P. conchaeformis,</i> <b>2</b> includes specimens identified as <i>Ampheristus</i> cf. <i>A. americanus</i>. Order=FORMES, Family=idae</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Taxa in Fox Hill., Kemp Clay, and</b></th><th><b>Fox Hills Fm., North Dakota</b></th><th><b>Kemp Clay, Texas</b></th><th><b>Ripley Fm., Mississippi</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th><b>Ripley formation sites</b></th><td><b>No. of otoliths</b></td><td><b>% of total</b></td><td><b>No. of otoliths</b></td><td><b>% of total</b></td><td><b>No. of otoliths</b></td><td><b>% of total</b></td></tr><tr><th><b>Megalopidae</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Megalops</i>? <i>nolfi</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>0.40</td></tr><tr><th><b>Albulidae</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Albula</i> cf. <i>A. bashiana</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>7</td><td>0.58</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><i>Pollerspoeckia</i> sp.</th><td>4</td><td>1.50</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><i>Pterothrissus conchaeformis</i> <b>1</b></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>113</td><td>9.33</td><td>6</td><td>0.81</td></tr><tr><th><i>Pterothrissus</i> cf. <i>P. foreyi</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0.17</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><i>Albula</i> sp.</th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>7</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><th><i>Elopothrissus</i> sp.</th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><b>ORDER INDETERMINATE</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Genartina</i> sp.</th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>0.25</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><b>Osmeroididae</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Osmeroides mississippiensis</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>14</td><td>1.89</td></tr><tr><th><i>Osmeroides</i> sp.</th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>0.53</td></tr><tr><th><b>Anguillidae</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Anguilla chickasawae</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0.27</td></tr><tr><th><b>Ophichthidae</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Echiophis</i> aff. <i>E.semispaeroides</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0.17</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><b>Family Ind. (ANGUILLIFORMES)</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Muraenanguilla</i> cf. <i>M. unionensis</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>19</td><td>2.56</td></tr><tr><th><b>Heterenchelyidae</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Pythonichthys arkansasensis</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>0.25</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><b>Congridae</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Rhynchoconger</i>? <i>piger</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>38</td><td>3.14</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><i>Rhynchoconger brettwoodwardi</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>25</td><td>2.06</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><i>Congrophichthys transterminus</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>0.25</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><b>Family ind. (OSTEOGLOSSIFORMES)</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Kokenichthys navis</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>7</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><th><i>Kokenichthys ripleyensis</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0.13</td></tr><tr><th><b>Family Ind. (CLUPEIFORMES)</b></th></tr><tr><th>Clupeiform indeterminate</th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><b>Ariidae</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Arius</i>? <i>danicus</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>67</td><td>5.53</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><i>Arius</i>? <i>subtilis</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>195</td><td>16.10</td><td>13</td><td>1.75</td></tr><tr><td><b>No. of otoliths</b></td><td><b>% of total</b></td><td><b>No. of otoliths</b></td><td><b>% of total</b></td><td><b>No. of otoliths</b></td><td><b>% of total</b></td></tr><tr><th><b>Family Ind. (SILURIFORMES)</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Vorhisia vulpes</i></th><td>78</td><td>29.32</td><td>423</td><td>34.93</td><td>2</td><td>0.27</td></tr><tr><th><b>Ichthyotringidae</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Apateodus crennelatus</i>?</th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>42</td><td>5.66</td></tr><tr><th><i>Thrax acutus</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0.13</td></tr><tr><th><i>Ichthyotringa</i>? <i>tavernei</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>0.53</td></tr><tr><th><b>Paraulopidae</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Paraulopus pseudoperca</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>0.33</td><td>190</td><td>25.61</td></tr><tr><th><b>Family Ind. (ORDER UNKNOWN)</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Choctawichthys ceploides</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0.27</td></tr><tr><th><b>Polymixiidae</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Cowetaichtys carnevalei</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>0.40</td></tr><tr><th><i>Cowetaichthys alabamae</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>9</td><td>1.21</td></tr><tr><th><b>Merlucciidae</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Paleogadus weltoni</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0.17</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><i>Palaeogadus belli</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><b>Gadidae?</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Dakotaichthys hogansoni</i></th><td>177</td><td>66.29</td><td>16</td><td>1.32</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><b>Family Ind. (GADIFORMES)</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Archaemacruroides bratishkoi</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>11</td><td>0.91</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><b>GADIFORMES Ind</b>.</th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><b>Family Ind. (HOLOCENTRIFORMES)</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Tippaha mythica</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0.13</td></tr><tr><th><i>Tippaha cavata</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0.13</td></tr><tr><th><b>Trachichthyidae</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Hoplopteryx oscitans</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>278</td><td>37.47</td></tr><tr><th><i>Hoplopteryx langfordi</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>11</td><td>1.48</td></tr><tr><th><i>Hoplostethus stringeri</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>52</td><td>4.29</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><b>Berycidae</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Centroberyx apogoniformis</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>42</td><td>3.47</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><b>Family Ind. (BERYCIFORMES)</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Argyroberyx</i>? <i>dentatus</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0.08</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><i>Argyroberyx</i>? <i>dockeryi</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0.27</td></tr><tr><th><b>Ripley formation sites</b></th><td><b>No. of otoliths</b></td><td><b>% of total</b></td><td><b>No. of otoliths</b></td><td><b>% of total</b></td><td><b>No. of otoliths</b></td><td><b>% of total</b></td></tr><tr><th><b>Family Ind. (BERYCIFORMES)</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Eutawichthys</i> cf. <i>E. choctawae</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>7</td><td>0.58</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><i>Eutawichthys maastrichtiensis</i></th><td>8</td><td>3.00</td><td>2</td><td>0.17</td><td>15</td><td>2.02</td></tr><tr><th><i>Eutawichthys zideki</i> <b>2</b></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>24</td><td>3.23</td></tr><tr><th><i>Eutawichthys stringeri</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><b>Family Ind. (BERYCIFORMES)</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Ossulcus labiatus</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>0.40</td></tr><tr><th><b>Ophidiidae</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Ampheristus americanus</i> 2</th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>130</td><td>10.73</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><b>Bythitidae</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Bidenichthys? crepidatus</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0.17</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><i>Protobythites brzobohatyi</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0.08</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><b>Pempheridae</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Pempheris</i>? <i>huddlestoni</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>29</td><td>3.91</td></tr><tr><th><b>Serranidae</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Serranus</i>? <i>caribbaeus</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>12</td><td>0.99</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><i>Serranus</i>? <i>severnensis</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th><b>Incertae sedis</b></th></tr><tr><th><i>Otolithopsis cumatilis</i></th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>0.54</td></tr><tr><th>Percoid sp.</th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>0.40</td></tr><tr><th><b>ORDER/Family unknown</b></th></tr><tr><th>Lapillus type 1</th><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>7</td><td>0.94</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 5 in A late Eocene wood assemblage from the Crooked River Basin, Oregon, USA
<p><b>Table 5.</b> Comparison of the incidence of porosity and perforation plate types at the middle Eocene Clarno Nut Beds and the late Eocene Post Hammer (UF 279) and Dietz Hill (UF 278) localities.</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>POROSITY</b></th><th><b>Nut Beds n=65</b></th><th><b>UF 279 n=15</b></th><th><b>UF 278 n=16</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Ring-porous</th><td>1 %</td><td>13 %</td><td>13 %</td></tr><tr><th>Semi-ring-porous</th><td>28 %</td><td>37 %</td><td>22 %</td></tr><tr><th>Diffuse-porous</th><td>71 %</td><td>50 %</td><td>65.%</td></tr><tr><th><b>PERFORATION PLATES</b></th></tr><tr><th>Simple</th><td>78 %</td><td>69 %</td><td>76%</td></tr><tr><th>Scalariform</th><td>22 %</td><td>31 %</td><td>24%</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 4 in A late Eocene wood assemblage from the Crooked River Basin, Oregon, USA
<p><b>Table 4 (cont.).</b> Comparison of the composition of UF 278 and UF 279 wood assemblages.</p><table><tbody><tr><th>TAXA</th><th>UF 278 - Dietz Hill</th><th>UF 279 - Post Hammer</th></tr><tr><th><b>SAPINDALES</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Rutaceae?, Sapindaceae?</th><td><i>cf.</i> <i>Fagaroxylon</i> sp.</td><td>not found</td></tr><tr><th><b>MALVALES</b></th></tr><tr><th>Malvaceae</th><td>not found</td><td><i>Wataria kvacekii</i></td></tr><tr><th><b>APIALES</b></th></tr><tr><th>Araliaceae</th><td><i>Plerandreoxylon oskoslkii</i></td><td>not found</td></tr><tr><th><b>? MALPIGHIALES</b></th></tr><tr><th>Salicaceae?</th><td>Unnamed</td><td>not found</td></tr><tr><th><b>INCERTAE SEDIS</b></th></tr><tr><th>Theaceae?, Hamamelidaceae?</th><td><i>Hamamelidoxylon</i> sp.</td><td><i>Hamamelidoxylon suzukii</i></td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 4 in A late Eocene wood assemblage from the Crooked River Basin, Oregon, USA
<p><b>Table 4.</b> Comparison of the composition of UF 278 and UF 279 wood assemblages.</p><table><tbody><tr><th>TAXA</th><th>UF 278 - Dietz Hill</th><th>UF 279 - Post Hammer</th></tr><tr><th><b>PINALES</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Pinaceae</th><td><i>Keteleeria farionii</i></td><td>not found</td></tr><tr><th><b>CUPRESSALES</b></th></tr><tr><th>Cupressaceae CONIFER INCERTAE SEDIS</th><td><i>Taxodioxylon</i> sp. not found</td><td>not found Family indet.</td></tr><tr><th><b>MAGNOLIALES</b></th></tr><tr><th>Magnoliaceae Lauraceae Lauraceae</th><td><i>Magnolia hansnooteboomii</i> <i>Laurinoxylon</i> sp. A <i>Laurinoxylon</i> sp. B</td><td>not found not found not found</td></tr><tr><th><b>PROTEALES</b></th></tr><tr><th>Platanaceae Platanaceae</th><td>Platanoxylon haydenii not found</td><td><i>Platanoxylon haydenii</i> <i>Platanus</i> sp.</td></tr><tr><th><b>TROCHODENDRALES</b></th></tr><tr><th>Trochodendraceae</th><td>not found</td><td><i>Trochodendron beckii</i></td></tr><tr><th><b>SAXIFRAGALES</b></th></tr><tr><th>Hamamelidaceae Cercidiphyllaceae</th><td>Possibly present not found</td><td><i>Hamamelidoxylon crystalliferum</i> <i>Cercidiphyllum alalongum</i></td></tr><tr><th><b>FABALES</b></th></tr><tr><th>Fabaceae</th><td>cf. <i>Styphonolobium</i> sp.</td><td>not found</td></tr><tr><th><b>ROSALES</b></th></tr><tr><th>Ulmaceae Cannabaceae Uricalean Rosids Uricalean Rosids Uricalean Rosids Uricalean Rosids</th><td>Ulmus woodii Possibly present <i>Urticaleoxylon stevensii</i> <i>cf. Moroxylon</i> Cannabaceae/Moraceae Wood Type 1 Cannabaceae/Moraceae Wood Type 2</td><td><i>Ulmus danielii, U. woodii</i> <i>Celtis popsii</i> not found not found not found not found</td></tr><tr><th><b>FAGALES</b></th></tr><tr><th>Fagaceae Fagaceae Fagaceae Fagaceae Fagaceae Juglandaceae Juglandaceae</th><td>Fagus dodgei <i>Quercus</i> sp. (Red Oak type) not found not found not found <i>Carya leroyii</i> not found</td><td><i>Fagus dodgei</i> not found <i>Quercinium</i> sp. (evergreen oak) <i>Lithocarpoxylon ashwillii.</i> <i>Lithocarpoxyon</i> sp not found <i>Pterocaryoxylon</i> SP.</td></tr><tr><th>SAPINDALES</th></tr><tr><th>Anacardiaceae Sapindaceae Sapindaceae Sapindaceae</th><td>not found not found <i>Aesculus klaassenii</i> <i>Klaassenoxylon wilkinsonii</i></td><td><i>Pistacia terrazasae</i> <i>Acer</i> (2 spp.) not found not found</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 3 in A late Eocene wood assemblage from the Crooked River Basin, Oregon, USA
<p><b>Table 3.</b> Comparison of urticalean woods. <b>POR</b> =porosity, <b>DP</b> =diffuse-porous, <b>SRP</b> =semi-ring-porous, <b>RP</b> =ring-porous; <b>V Grp</b> =vessel grouping, <b>S</b> =solitary, <b>Rm</b> =radiatl multiples; <b>V Arr</b> =vessel arrangement, <b>Ran</b> =random, <b>Diag</b> =diagonal; <b>IVP</b> =horizontal diameter of intervessel pits in µm; <b>VRP</b> =vessel-ray parenchyma pits, <b>Sim</b> =similar to intervssel pitting, <b>Red</b> =reduced borders to simple; <b>RW</b> =ray width in cell number; <b>Rcp</b> =ray cellular comosition, <b>Ho</b> =homocellular, <b>He</b> =heterocellular rays, number of marginal rows of upright/square cells in parentheses; <b>ShC</b> =sheath cells, <b>Ab</b> =absent, <b>Occ</b> =occasional; <b>Ax Par</b> =axial parenchyma distribution, <b>Sc</b> =scanty paratracheal, <b>V</b> =vasicentric, <b>Al</b> =aliform, <b>Cf</b> =confluent, <b>Bnd</b> =banded, <b>M</b> =marginal; <b>Cry</b> =crystals, <b>AB</b> =absent, <b>RP</b> =present in ray parenchyma, <b>A</b> =present in axial parenchyma;<b>?</b> =no information; <b>*</b> =small axis.</p><table><tbody><tr><th>UF.278 WOODS</th><th>POR</th><th>V Grp</th><th>V Arr</th><th>IVP</th><th>VRP</th><th>RW</th><th>Rcp</th><th>ShC</th><th>Ax Par</th><th><b>Cry</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th><i>Urticaleoxylon stevensii</i> / UF 278-84893</th><td>SRP</td><td>S-Rm (2–3)</td><td>Ran</td><td>8–11</td><td>Sim/ Red</td><td>1–6</td><td>Ho, He (1)</td><td>Ab</td><td>Sc, V, Al, Cf, M</td><td>RP</td></tr><tr><th><i>Moroxylon</i>?/ UF 278-84899</th><td>RP</td><td>S-Rms (Cl)</td><td>Diag</td><td>8–11</td><td>Sim/ Red</td><td>1–3 (–4)</td><td>Ho, He (1–2)</td><td>Ab</td><td>Cf, M</td><td>Ab</td></tr><tr><th>Cannabaceae / Moraceae Wood Type 1 UF 278-84894</th><td>DP</td><td>S-Rm (2–3)</td><td>Ran</td><td>8 –12</td><td>Sim/ Red</td><td>1–6</td><td>Ho, He</td><td>Occ</td><td>Sc, V, M</td><td>Ab</td></tr><tr><th>Cannabaceae / Moraceae Wood Type 2 UF 278-84906 <b>NUT BEDS</b></th><td>? *</td><td>S-Rm (2–3)</td><td>Ran</td><td>8–13</td><td>Red</td><td>to 6</td><td>He</td><td>Occ</td><td>Vc, Cf?</td><td>RP</td></tr><tr><th><i>Scottoxylon eocenicum</i> Clarno Urticalean Wood I</th><td>DP DP</td><td>S-Rm S-Rm</td><td>Ran Ran</td><td>5 –12 8–12</td><td>Red Red</td><td>1–7 1–8</td><td>Ho, He Het</td><td>Occ Ab</td><td>V, Al, Cf, M Bnd</td><td>Ab RP</td></tr><tr><th>Clarno Urticalean Wood 2</th><td>DP</td><td>S-Rm</td><td>Ran</td><td>5–8</td><td>Sim/ Red</td><td>1–4</td><td>Het</td><td>Ab</td><td>V, Al, Cf</td><td>RP (A)</td></tr></tbody></table>
Vertical assemblage of the holoplanktonic mollusks (Pteropoda and Pterotracheoidea) in the Campeche Canyon, southern Gulf of Mexico, during a "Nortes" season
<p>Data: Vertical assemblage of the holoplanktonic mollusks (Pteropoda and<br>Pterotracheoidea) in the Campeche Canyon, southern Gulf of Mexico,<br>during a “Nortes” season</p>
Spatial and functional structure of an entire ant assemblage in a lowland Panamanian rainforest
<p>Ants are a major ecological group in tropical rainforests. Few studies in the Neotropics have documented the distribution of ants from the ground to the canopy, and none have included the understorey. A previous analysis of an intensive arthropod study in Panama, involving 11 sampling methods, showed that the factors influencing ant beta diversity (i.e., changes in assemblage composition) were, in decreasing order of importance, the vertical (height), temporal (season), and horizontal (geographic distance) dimensions. In the present study, we went one step further and aimed (1) to identify the best sampling methods to study the entire ant assemblage across the three strata, (2) to test if all strata show a similar horizontal beta diversity and (3) to analyze the functional structure of the entire ant assemblage. We identified 405 ant species from 11 subfamilies and 68 genera. Slightly more species were sampled in the canopy than on the ground; they belonged to distinct sub-assemblages. The understorey fauna was mainly a mixture of species found in the other two strata. The horizontal beta diversity between sites was similar for the three strata. About half of the ant species foraged in two (29%) or three (25%) strata. A single method, aerial flight interception traps placed alongside tree trunks, acting as arboreal pitfall traps, collected half of the species and reflected the vertical stratification. Using the functional traits approach, we observed that generalist species with mid-sized colonies were by far the most numerous (31%), followed by ground- or litter-dwelling species, either specialists (20%), or generalists (16%), and arboreal species, either generalists (19%) or territorially dominant (8%), and finally army ants (5%). Our results reinforce the idea that a proper understanding of the functioning of ant assemblages requires the inclusion of arboreal ants in survey programs.</p>
Source pool diversity and proximity shape the compositional uniqueness of insular mammal assemblages worldwide
<p>Islands have been the test bed of several theories in community ecology, biogeography, and evolutionary biology. Progress within these disciplines has given a more comprehensive and mechanistic understanding of the processes governing variation in species richness among islands. However, it remains unclear whether these same processes also explain variation in species and phylogenetic composition among islands. Integrating theory from ecology and biogeography, we infer the roles of dispersal, selection, and stochasticity on the composition of insular assemblages within archipelagos. We further assess the influence of source pool diversity and connectivity on the compositional uniqueness of insular assemblages. Island systems worldwide. We compiled data on species composition of non-volant mammals on ∼200 islands in nine archipelagos distributed worldwide from the literature. We used variation partitioning to quantify the relative influence of the environment (selection) and geographic distance (dispersal) relative to a null model (stochasticity, randomness) on taxonomic and phylogenetic compositional turnover within archipelagos. We then used a linear mixed model to gain further insight into the underlying mechanisms shaping variation in assemblage composition among islands at a global scale. Specifically, we assessed the influence of source pool diversity, isolation from the source pool, and island characteristics on compositional uniqueness. Our results suggest that within-archipelago variation in the composition of insular mammal assemblages is associated with stochastic or unmeasured processes rather than abiotic selection or dispersal limitation. The diversity and proximity of the source pool, as well as some island characteristics, explained variation in phylogenetic, but not taxonomic, compositional uniqueness globally. Within archipelagos, the largely unexplained variation in compositional turnover points to the overwhelming influence of extinction mediated by ecological drift or other stochastic processes, which obscures or overrides the signature of selection and/or dispersal. Globally, isolated islands associated with highly diverse source pools exhibit high phylogenetic uniqueness whereas well-connected islands associated with small source pools show the opposite trend. Phylogenetically unique assemblages also tend to occur on islands with a small elevational span and low annual temperature variation. Taken together, our results suggest that source pool diversity, along with the potential for colonization from those pools, plays an important role in shaping the composition of insular mammal assemblages worldwide. </p>
Data from: Urban street lighting differentially affects community attributes of airborne and ground-dwelling invertebrate assemblages
<p><span>The introduction of artificial light at night (ALAN) into natural and urbanised landscapes is a known and highly pervasive disruptor of invertebrate communities. However, the effect of variation in intensity and spectra of ALAN on invertebrate communities inhabiting different spatial niches is little understood. Further, the remarkable ability of ALAN to continue to disrupt biodiversity even in chronically-illuminated urban landscapes is not often acknowledged. </span></p> <p><span>Here, we simultaneously sampled airborne and ground-dwelling invertebrate assemblages under and between urban streetlights to explore the effects on community composition and abundance of a) proximity to decadal (i.e long-illuminated) nocturnal street lighting and b) variation in the spectral output of light. </span></p> <p><span>The two assemblages responded differently. For airborne invertebrates, night-time abundance doubled, and night-time assemblage composition was significantly different for traps under, compared with between, streetlights. These differences in abundance were not affected by streetlight intensity, and were absent in day samples, suggesting that even weak ALAN may be causing short-term redistribution of nocturnal invertebrates. Further, the abundance (but not composition) effects of ALAN on airborne invertebrates increased when the streetlights emitted a higher proportion of short-wavelength light. </span></p> <p><span>In contrast, for ground-dwelling invertebrates, we found only marginal effects of proximity and spectrum of lighting on abundance and no effect on assemblage composition. However, more intense streetlighting reduced abundance and altered composition at traps both under and between lights. </span></p> <p><span><i>Synthesis and Applications: </i>Public lighting managers must consider ALAN impacts on invertebrate communities not only when introducing ALAN to naïve environments, but also when changing lighting in areas that are highly urbanised and exposed to decades of artificial light at night. Further, lighting proposals and environmental monitoring of invertebrate communities must take into account effects on both ground-dwelling and airborne assemblages, as these may respond very differently to the presence, intensity and spectrum of ALAN. </span></p>
FIG 10. – Animal bone assemblage from inhumation grave 9 in Roman graves and rural rubbish. Animal remains from the Roman cemetery of Halbturn, Austria
FIG 10. – Animal bone assemblage from inhumation grave 9.
Inverted microscopy image dataset -- Carbon biomass of microplankton assemblages in southern Patagonian fjords and channels
<p>Images of main microplanktonic items (folders) obtained under inverted (mostly) and electronic microscope used to estimate biovolume and carbon biomass. Scale bar is shown on each picture and label of each image indicate the station ID (St.) and sampling depth (m). A table is provided with biovolume and equivalent spherical diameter calculations for each planktonic item. </p>
FIG. 2 in Le site paléontologique du Grand Morier (Pont-Boutard, Indre-et-Loire, France): contexte géologique et détail biostratigraphique des formations cénozoïques à partir des assemblages de vertébrés fossiles
FIG. 2. — Carte géologique de Pont-Boutard (Indre-et-Loire, France).
Figure 3 in Variation in dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) assemblages in a tropical forest remnant from a Mexican National Park
Figure 3. Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) constructed from the Bray-Curtis index to establish the similarities between (A) seasons, (B) baits, and (C) daily activity of the dung beetle assemblages in the Cañón del Sumidero National Park, Chiapas.
Figure 1 in Variation in dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) assemblages in a tropical forest remnant from a Mexican National Park
Figure 1. Location of the two sampling areas in a tropical forest remnant in the core zone of the Cañón del Sumidero National Park, Chiapas.
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.