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.
1,198
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
1,198 results for “Crustaceans”
FIGURE 2. A in Rogueus belgodereae, a new raninoid crab (Crustacea: Brachyura: Raninoidea) from the Upper Palaeocene (Thanetian) of Southern France, with comments on early palaeocene decapod crustacean faunules
FIGURE 2. A, General view of Lafarge quarry, Boussens, municipality of Martres Tolosane, Haute Garonne (France), in the background, the south, with the Pyrenees. B, crab-morphotype 5 in situ, from the upper Thanetian (T4) (star). C, close-up of the extraction front of the "gres à Micraster tercensis" level, before the abandonment and renaturation of the quarry. D, Litoricola macrodactyla (Van Straelen, 1924) in situ. E, G, Rogueus belgodereae sp. nov. in situ. F, crab-morphotype 7 in situ.
FIGURE 4 in Rogueus belgodereae, a new raninoid crab (Crustacea: Brachyura: Raninoidea) from the Upper Palaeocene (Thanetian) of Southern France, with comments on early palaeocene decapod crustacean faunules
FIGURE 4. Faunal composition of the known Palaeocene brachyurans, and its distribution in reefal and nonreefal environments.
FIGURE 1 in Internal anatomy of a brachyuran crab from a Late Cretaceous methane seep and an overview of internal soft tissues in fossil decapod crustaceans
FIGURE 1. Location of study area in South Dakota. A, paleobiogeographic map of most of North America during the Late Cretaceous (late Campanian) with the locality indicated by a red dot (modified from Sampson et al., 2010, figure 1). B, photo of the locality in Pennington County, South Dakota, USA, where the studied crab specimen was discovered. A massive limestone from the upper Campanian Didymoceras cheyennense ammonite Zone is located at the top of the hill on the right and many limestone pieces are found downslope.
FIGURE 2 in Internal anatomy of a brachyuran crab from a Late Cretaceous methane seep and an overview of internal soft tissues in fossil decapod crustaceans
FIGURE 2. The crab Secretanella sp. (ALMNH:Paleo:6522) from an upper Campanian methane seep limestone in Pennington County, South Dakota. A, carapace in dorsal view. B, closeups of the preserved gills in left branchial chamber. C, carapace in ventral view. D, carapace in frontal view.
FIGURE 3. A-C Rogueus belgodereae n in Rogueus belgodereae, a new raninoid crab (Crustacea: Brachyura: Raninoidea) from the Upper Palaeocene (Thanetian) of Southern France, with comments on early palaeocene decapod crustacean faunules
FIGURE 3. A-C Rogueus belgodereae n.sp, A: holotype MNHN.F.A88045. B, paratype MNHN.F.A88046, C, paratype MNHN.F.A88047. Scale bar equals 1 cm.
FIGURE S3 in Internal anatomy of a brachyuran crab from a Late Cretaceous methane seep and an overview of internal soft tissues in fossil decapod crustaceans
FIGURE S3. Rotating illustration of the microCT (µCT) scan results of the crab Secretanella sp. (ALMNH:Paleo:6522) from an upper Campanian methane seep limestone in Pennington County, South Dakota. Blue: cardiac stomach; yellow: esophagus; red: apodemes and mandibles; purple-pink: possible anterior gastric muscles. See online version for rotation (https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2023/3973- soft-tissues-in-fossil-crab).
FIGURE 5 in Internal anatomy of a brachyuran crab from a Late Cretaceous methane seep and an overview of internal soft tissues in fossil decapod crustaceans
FIGURE 5. Rotating illustration (spin around the dorsal and ventral sides) of the microCT (µCT) scan results of the crab Secretanella sp. (ALMNH:Paleo:6522) from an upper Campanian methane seep limestone in Pennington County, South Dakota. Blue: cardiac stomach; yellow: esophagus; red: apodemes and mandibles. See online version for rotation (https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2023/3973-soft-tissues-in-fossil-crab).
Figure 2 in Effects of dams on demographic structures of amphidromous fish and crustacean species in Caribbean rivers
Figure 2. – Individual number histograms of each species broken down by size classes (mm) (left chart) and cohort extraction (right chart) downstream of the Grand Carbet River in March. Right chart: red curves are each cohort extracted by the model; green curve is the cumulative individual number in the modelled age groups.
Figure 1 in Effects of dams on demographic structures of amphidromous fish and crustacean species in Caribbean rivers
Figure 1. – Map of Guadeloupe with the three sampled rivers (bold lines) and study sites: downstream and upstream the water intakes (●) and the first riffle from the mouth of the rivers (Ì).
Figure 7 in Effects of dams on demographic structures of amphidromous fish and crustacean species in Caribbean rivers
Figure 7. – Individual number histograms of each species broken down by size classes (mm) for the three stations (top chart) and porosity chart of the Moreau River water intake (bottom chart). Bottom chart: dotted black line indicates 50% crossing; dotted grey lines indicate the mean crossing rate for these size classes. The size of the downstream and upstream populations of Macrobrachium faustinum and M. heterochirus are too small and fragmented to be presented.
Figure 4 in Effects of dams on demographic structures of amphidromous fish and crustacean species in Caribbean rivers
Figure 4. – Individual number histograms of each species broken down by size classes (mm) (left chart) and cohort extraction (right chart) downstream of the Moreau River in June. Right chart: red curves are each cohort extracted by the model; green curve is the cumulative individuals' number in the modelled age groups. No Macrobrachium heterochirus were caught.
Figure 6 in Effects of dams on demographic structures of amphidromous fish and crustacean species in Caribbean rivers
Figure 6. – Individual number histograms of each species broken down by size classes (mm) for the three stations (top chart) and porosity chart of the Pérou River water intake (bottom chart). Bottom chart: arrow indicates the optimal size at crossing; dotted black line indicates 50% crossing; dotted grey lines indicate the mean crossing rate for these size classes. The size of the downstream and upstream population of Macrobrachium faustinum is too small and fragmented to be presented.
Fig. 3 - A in Decapod crustaceans from the late Pliocene (Piacenzian) nearby Faenza (Emilia-Romagna, N Italy)
Fig. 3 - A) Monodaeus bortolottii Delle Cave, 1988, MSF 2234 (x 2.6). B) Goneplax rhomboides (Linnaeus, 1758), MSF 2250 (x 3.4). C) Albaidaplax cf. A. ispalensis Garassino, Pasini & Castro, 2013, MSF 2226 (x 3.2).
Fig. 2 - A in Decapod crustaceans from the late Pliocene (Piacenzian) nearby Faenza (Emilia-Romagna, N Italy)
Fig. 2 - A) Lyreidus cf. L. paronae Crema, 1895, MSF 2240 (x 2). B) Retropluma craverii (Crema, 1895), MSF 2233 (x 2.6).
Fig. 3 in Global diversity of fish parasitic isopod crustaceans of the family Cymothoidae
Fig. 3. Representative cymothoid forms. Mothocya (A); Olencira (B); Norileca (C); Anilocra (D); Nerocila (E); Telotha (F); Cymothoa (G); Cinusa (H); Ceratothoa (I); Agarna (J, K). Scale bars = 5 mm.
Fig. 2 in Global diversity of fish parasitic isopod crustaceans of the family Cymothoidae
Fig. 2. Different attachment sites of cymothoids. External or scale attaching (A), flesh-burrowing (B) buccal dwelling (C, E, F) and gill attaching (D).
Fig. 4 in Global diversity of fish parasitic isopod crustaceans of the family Cymothoidae
Fig. 4. Number of marine Cymothoidae in biogeographic regions (Marine Ecoregions of the World). Data from Poore and Bruce (2012).
Fig. 1 in Global diversity of fish parasitic isopod crustaceans of the family Cymothoidae
Fig. 1. Absolute numbers and cumulative percentage of species of Cymothoidae (373) published per decade since Linnaeus (1758). Data from the World List of Marine, Freshwater and Terrestrial Isopod Crustaceans hosted by the Smithsonian and at the WoRMS database (Schotte et al., 1995 onwards).
Fig. 2 in Impacts of crustacean invasions on parasite dynamics in aquatic ecosystems: A plea for parasite-focused studies
Fig. 2. Introduced hosts ‾ native parasites: hypothetical examples of the potential effects of invasive crustaceans on native parasites. Note that only a subsample of nonexclusive scenarios from a number of potential outcomes of biological invasion on native parasite dynamics is represented here. The hypothetical native parasite considered here has a two-host life cycle involving a definitive host predator and an intermediate host prey, transmission from the intermediate host to the definitive host requiring consumption of infected intermediate host prey. The variable sizes of squares, circles and diamonds represent relative intermediate and definitive hosts, and parasite abundances, respectively. During transmission, some parasites are unsuccessful and therefore lost from the system (parasite loss); the thickness of the arrows indicates the relative numbers that are either lost or successfully transmitted. The life cycle at the top represents the situation prior to the invasion, providing a benchmark for comparisons. (A) The invader is a suitable alternative intermediate host in which native parasite larvae can survive. However, the introduced host is also a poor transmission vector, due to low predation rate from the definitive host and/or failed host manipulation by the parasite, for example. Introduced hosts are thus more infected than their congeneric, native hosts only because of the accumulation of native parasite larvae that fail to get transmitted to the definitive host. This may in turn negatively affect parasite dynamics in native hosts as shown here. (B) The invader is again a suitable alternative intermediate host but also a good transmission vector to the definitive host, leading to greater infection risk for native definitive hosts. In this case, the invader positively influences parasite dynamics and may increase infection levels in definitive hosts, as shown here. In extreme cases, invasive hosts may be more efficient vectors for the parasite than native hosts and become key hosts. (C) The invader is not a suitable host but directly impacts native intermediate hosts, the transmission vector for the parasite, through predation and thus indirectly reduces native parasite abundance in native definitive hosts.
Fig. 1 in Impacts of crustacean invasions on parasite dynamics in aquatic ecosystems: A plea for parasite-focused studies
Fig. 1. Hypothetical examples of enemy release (A), dilution effect (B), parasite spillback (C) and spillover (D) following introduction of a non-native host in a recipient ecosystem, illustrating the fundamental differences among the different processes. The theoretical recipient ecosystem is here composed of a native host infected by a parasite with a simple life cycle and direct transmission, invaded by a congeneric non-native host infected with a co-introduced parasite with a similar life cycle, to simplify representation. The variable sizes of squares and diamonds represent relative host and parasite abundances, respectively. The thickness of the arrows represents transmission dynamics of the parasite and account for parasite loss during transmission. Enemy release (A) happens when the introduced species benefits from a reduction, or total loss as represented here, in parasitism as a result of invasion. This may in turn have drastic effects on invasion success and both native and invasive host abundances. Dilution effect (B) results from the failure of native parasites to use invasive hosts for successful reproduction and transmission. Native parasites may be unable to infect or be killed (as represented here) by the invasive host. Dilution may in turn decrease parasite transmission among native hosts and negatively affect parasite population dynamics. Parasite spillback (C) happens when invasive hosts acquire a native parasite that is already present in the native host population. Infected invasive hosts can then act as reservoirs of native parasites, potentially increasing infection levels in native hosts as represented here. Increased infection levels in the native host may in turn reduce native host abundance, compared to pre-invasion levels (not represented here). Parasite spillover (D) follows the co-introduction of non-native parasites with their invasive hosts and infection of native hosts by the introduced parasite. Infection of the native host can be maintained by the invasive host, which acts as a reservoir of infection, self-sustained if the parasite can reproduce in its novel host, or both as represented here. Infection of the native host by the introduced parasite can in turn influence host abundances, compared to pre-invasion levels. Note that in scenario D, the native host may or may not possess native parasites.
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.