Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2018View details →

Figure 4 in Comparison of feeding apparatus and feeding intensity of the European sardine (Sardina pilchardus) off Morocco in two Atlantic upwelling areas with different seasonal activity

Figure 4. – Box plots of mean gill raker number of young and adult of Sardina pilchardus in the Atlantic area B off Morocco.

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2018View details →

Figure 3 in Comparison of feeding apparatus and feeding intensity of the European sardine (Sardina pilchardus) off Morocco in two Atlantic upwelling areas with different seasonal activity

Figure 3. –Monthly variation of fullness index of Sardina pilchardus from the areas B and C during 2003.

Figure 5 in Genetic integrity of the European grayling (Thymallus thymallus) populations within the Vienne River drainage basin after five decades of stockings

Figure 5 - Results of the Structure analysis (Q-values) for 8 loci (A) and 10 loci (B). Colours represent the different "k" units chosen using the approach of Evanno et al. (2005). Population names are shown on the x-axis, and Q-values (contribution or assignment from each k partition) are shown on the Y-axis. For 8 loci, k = 8, and for 10 loci k = 11.

Figure 2 in Genetic integrity of the European grayling (Thymallus thymallus) populations within the Vienne River drainage basin after five decades of stockings

Figure 2. - Close-up of grayling distribution and four sampled sites (stars) within the upper Vienne district in 2012 (relief background from IGN-Geoportail).

Figure 4 in Genetic integrity of the European grayling (Thymallus thymallus) populations within the Vienne River drainage basin after five decades of stockings

Figure 4. - Factorial Correspondence Analyses (FCA) of individuals based on the presence and absence of microsatellite alleles. A: Bi-variate plot of the first two FCA factors (F1 & F2), graphically partitioned by population. B: Bi-variate plot of the third and fourth FCA factors (F3 & F4) partitioned by population. The percentage inertia for each factor is as follows: FC1 = 4.44%; FC2 = 4.03%; FC3 = 3.46%; FC4 = 2.82%.

Figure 1 in Genetic integrity of the European grayling (Thymallus thymallus) populations within the Vienne River drainage basin after five decades of stockings

Figure 1. - Distribution of grayling in Europe (green) and its former distribution in France around 1900 (red). Sample sites (white stars = wild populations, black stars = hatcheries) are numbered following table II.

Figure 3 in Genetic integrity of the European grayling (Thymallus thymallus) populations within the Vienne River drainage basin after five decades of stockings

Figure 3. - Median Joining network of haplotypes found in this study augmented by additional published haplotypes provided for reference. All new haplotypes use the simple abbreviation "Ht" with a serial number reflecting the order in which they were first found in our data. The small black dots indicate substitutional steps whereas the small red dots represent multifurcating nodes. The following haplotypes and corresponding clade names stem from Weiss et al. (2002). "Danube drainage (Northern Alps)": Da1, Da2, Da4, Da11; "Mixed Central Europe": Rh1, Rh4, Rh6 all first reported from the Rhone basin; "Mixed Central Europe": At14, At15 both frequent and widespread in the Rhine basin; "Scandinavia": At6 reported from Finland; and AT1 first reported from the Loire River.

Fig. 17 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 17. Open Access benefits, from Aston University Library Services (available from https://www.yearofopen.org/march-open-perspective-open-access/).

Fig. 15 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 15. Different routes for disseminating scientific publications (Cabut & Larousserie 2013, redrawn by Laurence Bénichou from Infographie du Monde).

Fig. 14 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 14. Scholar production costs. Four steps are needed to produce scholar papers, of which three are publicly-funded. In the first scenario, the library pays back the final product by subscription to the publisher while in the second, the publishing costs are supported by the publisher (commercial or institutional) and then the access is free for the reader.

Fig. 13 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 13. The authorships highlighted in yellow are cited nowhere else in the article and yet they are listed in the references section (Schott & Evans 2016).

Fig. 12 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 12. Here "Bleeker, 1857" is considered by the authors as a bibliographical reference and listed as such under the references section although it has not been cited elsewhere in the text (Tucker et al. 2016).

Fig. 6 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 6. Authorships formally presented as references, those in yellow are listed in the references section whereas those in orange are not considered as bibliographic references. A. Musavu Moussavou (2017). B. Mendoza-Garfias et al. (2017).

Fig. 2 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 2. Here, "Whalen (1989)" is cited in the taxonomic treatment but not listed in the references section (Knapp et al. 2017).

Fig. 11 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 11. Underlined in blue are the references linked to the bibliography (considered as such because they are cited in an unambiguous way elsewhere in the text) whereas those in black are not linked because they are not listed in the bibliography (Foley et al. 2017).

Fig. 1 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 1. The reference highlighted in yellow is listed under the references section, even though it has not been cited anywhere else in the article (Coritico et al. 2017).

Fig. 4 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 4. The references highlighted in orange are not listed in the References section whereas the reference in yellow, because it is recent, is listed (Ardenghi et al. 2016).

Fig. 3 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 3. Contrary to the example in Fig. 2, and despite it being published in the same journal, here "Cholnoky 1957" is cited only in the taxonomic treatment (and nowhere else in the text) and referenced under the bibliographic section (Jahn et al. 2017).

Fig. 7 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 7. In this article the reference highlighted in orange indicates a reference that is only cited under taxonomic treatment and listed under the references section; in yellow a reference that is cited elsewhere thus listed under the references section; in blue are the references that should have been listed but are not in the references section (Waite R. & Allmon W.D. 2016).

Fig. 9 in Consortium of European TaXonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taXonomy

Fig. 9. In this example the references in yellow are not provided in the bibliographic section, but the the one in green is, because it has been formally mentioned elsewhere in the article as a reference (Rakotondrainibe & Jouy 2016).