Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0May 2014View details →

Figure 2 in Diceratocephala boschmai (Platyhelminthes: Temnocephalida) from crayfish farms in Thailand: investigation of the topographic surface and analysis of 18S ribosomal DNA sequences

Figure 2. Surface topography of D. boschmai. A–C) Unhatched and hatched eggs; D) ventral view of a specimen; E) mouth with protruding pharynx; F) thread-like filaments adhered to the pharynx; G, H) a higher magnification of write-dot boxes in 2E; I, J) a higher magnification of write-dot boxes in 2D; K) ventral view of a specimen at posterior end; L) dorsal view of a specimen; M) a higher magnification of write-dot box in Figure L. ad, adhesive disc; af, adhered filaments; ci, ciliated cell; ds, double spines; fi, filament; gr, groove; gv, gravel-like units; in, intertentacular flange; mo, mouth; op, opercular plate; pe, peduncle; pi, pit; sp, single spine; tb, trabecular meshwork; tc, tentacle; th, thread-like filaments; tr, trunk; vi, villi..

opencc-by-4.0May 2014View details →

Figure 1. A in Diceratocephala boschmai (Platyhelminthes: Temnocephalida) from crayfish farms in Thailand: investigation of the topographic surface and analysis of 18S ribosomal DNA sequences

Figure 1. A) C. destructor harboring adult D. boschmai and eggs of flatworm; B) dorsal view of an extending body; C) diagram of organ structures in dorsal view; D) diagram of reproductive complex; E, F) photomicrograph and diagram of penial stylet, respectively; G) unhatched and hatched eggs. ad, adhesive disc; at, atrium; cv, contractile vesicle; ds, dorsal side; es, ejaculatory sac; ey, eye; ev, excretory vesicle; fi, filament; in, intertentacular flange; ine, intestine; int, introvert; mo, mount; ov, ovary; pe, peduncle; pf, plane of fracture; ph, pharynx; pn, subepidermal pigment network; ps, penial stylet; rv, resorbens vesicle; s, stalk; se, seminal vesicle; sr, seminal receptacle; sp, sclerotized papillae; tc, tentacle; te, testis; tg, tentacular gland; ve, vasa efferentia; vg, vagina; vi, vitellaria; vs, ventral side.

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2017View details →

Figure 2 in High genetic distinctiveness of wild and farm fox (Vulpes vulpes L.) populations in Poland: evidence from mitochondrial DNA analysis

Figure 2. Neighbor-joining haplotype network based on frequencies showing relationships between concatenated MT-CO1 and MTATP6 sequences of fur farm and wild red foxes.

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2017View details →

Figure 1 in High genetic distinctiveness of wild and farm fox (Vulpes vulpes L.) populations in Poland: evidence from mitochondrial DNA analysis

Figure 1. Distribution of sampling sites of wild and fur-farm red foxes in Poland: light gray areas represent the provinces from which samples of wild foxes were taken; the darker gray area indicated with a black circle shows the location of investigated fox farms; the numbers represent fox fur-farms in particular voivodeships.

opencc-by-4.0Aug 2019View details →

Fig. 1. Pelomedusa galeata from the Ratelfontein farm near Calvinia observed directly after rainfall, 16 February 2019 in Mind the gap-Is the distribution range of Pelomedusa galeata really disjunct in western South Africa?

Fig. 1. Pelomedusa galeata from the Ratelfontein farm near Calvinia observed directly after rainfall, 16 February 2019. For the location of the farm, see Fig. 2 (locality 1). Photos: C.A. van Niekerk.

Fig. 3 in Call survey indicates rainbow trout farming alters glassfrog community composition in the Andes of Ecuador

Fig. 3. Map of the study area. Inset: Pichincha Province, Ecuador. Main: Blue points indicate non-trout farm sites whereas red points indicate trout farm sites. Yellow line represents the equator (latitude 0).

Fig. 2 in Call survey indicates rainbow trout farming alters glassfrog community composition in the Andes of Ecuador

Fig. 2. Glassfrog species found during surveys. (A) Centrolene heloderma, (B) Centrolene ballux, (C) Esparana prosoblepon, (D) Nymphargus lasgralarias, (E) Centrolene peristictum, (F) Nymphargus grandisonae, (G) Centrolene lynchi, (H) Egg mass from C. ballux. Nymphargus griffithsi was not encountered during the 2017 survey but has been documented at Kathy's creek in 2012 and 2013 (by Jane A. Lyons). Photographs by Dana G. Wessels (A–F) and Timothy J. Krynak (G–H).

Fig. 5 in Spatio-temporal distribution of Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) captures and their relationship with fruit infestation in farms with a diversity of hosts

Fig. 5. Fruit infestation and population fluctuation of Anastrepha fraterculus in (A) pears, (B) peaches, and (C) mandarins. Cn = Canelones, Py = Paysandú; FTD = flies per trap per d; Af = Anastrepha fraterculus.

Fig. 6 in Spatio-temporal distribution of Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) captures and their relationship with fruit infestation in farms with a diversity of hosts

Fig. 6. Population fluctuation of Ceratitis capitata males (M) in Jackson traps (Cc) and females (H) in McPhail traps. A, B, C, D = cultivars where fruit infestation was recorded (A, B = Canelones; C, D = Paysandú); E, F, G, H = cultivars where no fruit infestation was recorded (E, F = Paysandú; G, H = San José).

Fig. 4 in Spatio-temporal distribution of Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) captures and their relationship with fruit infestation in farms with a diversity of hosts

Fig. 4. Population fluctuation of Ceratitis capitata registered in McPhail traps in mandarins (A) with fruit infestation and (B) without fruit infestation. Py = Paysandú, SJ = San José, W = Washington; FTD: flies per trap per d; Cc = Ceratitis capitata.

Fig. 3 in Spatio-temporal distribution of Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) captures and their relationship with fruit infestation in farms with a diversity of hosts

Fig. 3. Fruit infestation and population fluctuation of Ceratitis capitata registered in McPhail traps in (A) pears and (B) peaches. Cn = Canelones, SJ = San José; FTD = flies per trap per d; Cc = Ceratitis capitata.

Fig. 2 in Spatio-temporal distribution of Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) captures and their relationship with fruit infestation in farms with a diversity of hosts

Fig. 2. Spatial distribution of accumulated captures and fruit infestation of Ceratitis capitata and Anastrepha fraterculus during the 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 seasons. Ap = Apple: ERO = Early Red One, RCh = Red Chief, RD = Red Delicious; Pch = Peach: JG = June Gold, EL = Elegant Lady, RM = Rey del Monte, PC = Pavía Canario, F = Forastero; Nc = Nectarine: L = Lara, F = Fantasía; Pr = Pear: W = William's; Mn = Mandarin: E = Elenadalle, O = Ortanique, S = Satsuma; Or = Orange: V = Valencia, WN = Washington Navel; Gf = Grapefruit: SR = Star Rubí. Cc = C. capitata, Af = A. fraterculus. The accumulated captures per season were calculated by adding captures from the date that traps were installed (1 Sep, 30 Oct, and 1 Nov 2014 in San José, Canelones, and Paysandú, respectively) until 30 Jun 2015, and for the same period from spring 2015 until Jun 2016.

Fig. 1 in Call survey indicates rainbow trout farming alters glassfrog community composition in the Andes of Ecuador

Fig. 1. Trout farming in the Mindo region of Ecuador utilizes a flow-through aquaculture technique. Stream water is diverted into tandem raceways/holding reservoirs and then flows through these reservoirs back into the natural stream system. This figure displays a panoramic view of Finca de Jaime's (FJ) set-up. Photograph by Katherine L. Krynak.

Fig. 1 in Spatio-temporal distribution of Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) captures and their relationship with fruit infestation in farms with a diversity of hosts

Fig. 1. Average number of fruit flies per McPhail trap per d (FTD) of Ceratitis capitata (Cc) and Anastrepha fraterculus (Af) in Paysandú (Py) and Canelones (Cn).

Fig. 4 in Call survey indicates rainbow trout farming alters glassfrog community composition in the Andes of Ecuador

Fig. 4. Two-dimensional NMDS ordination of survey sites and glassfrog species based upon presence of frogs audibly documented in 2017 survey conducted in the Mindo region of Ecuador (Stress = 3%). Red points and labels represent glassfrog species; grey points represent trout farms; and black points represent non-trout farms. RSR = Río Santa Rosa, LC = Lucy's Creek, Bcrk = Ballux Creek, KC = Kathy's Creek, M = Michelle's, C = tributary of the Chalguayacu Grande River, 5F = Five Frog Creek, LRSR = Lower Río Santa Rosa, ST = Santa Teresita, FJ = Finca de Jaime, LS = La Sierra, VC = Verdecocha, EP = El Paraíso del Pescador. Trout farms EP, LS, and VC are not included in the analysis because glassfrogs were not observed at these sites. A significant difference in glassfrog community composition between trout farm and non-trout farm sites was indicated by MRPP (delta = 0.59, A = 0.11, P = 0.03). NMDS1 correlated with elevation; NMDS2 correlated with: percent canopy openness, dissolved oxygen (mg/L), total dissolved solids (mg/L), and conductivity (µS).

Fig. 6 in Prevalence and gross pathology of liver fluke in macropods cohabiting livestock farms in north eastern NSW, Australia, and diagnosis using cELISA

Fig. 6. Livestock farms in the Northern Tablelands region of NSW, Australia, with Macropods harbouring liver fluke infections (December 2018–June 2021).

Fig. 5 in Prevalence and gross pathology of liver fluke in macropods cohabiting livestock farms in north eastern NSW, Australia, and diagnosis using cELISA

Fig. 5. Scatter plot of Fasciola hepatica coproantigen concentration (optical density, 450 nm) and total fluke count in Macropods.

Fig. 4. A in Prevalence and gross pathology of liver fluke in macropods cohabiting livestock farms in north eastern NSW, Australia, and diagnosis using cELISA

Fig. 4. A. Common wallaroo liver (visceral surface) with prominent fibrotic capsules. B. Liver cross-section of fibrous capsules. C. Eastern grey kangaroo liver (visceral surface) with irregular form, hepatomegaly, fibrotic lesions and bile duct hyperplasia. D. Necrotic tracks generated by immature fluke. E. Immature fluke (mm).

Fig. 3. Rainfall and temperature data throughout 2019–2020 in Prevalence and gross pathology of liver fluke in macropods cohabiting livestock farms in north eastern NSW, Australia, and diagnosis using cELISA

Fig. 3. Rainfall and temperature data throughout 2019–2020 recorded at the Armidale airport NSW, Australia (Australian Government of Bureau of Meteorology, 2019, 2020).

Fig. 1 in Prevalence and gross pathology of liver fluke in macropods cohabiting livestock farms in north eastern NSW, Australia, and diagnosis using cELISA

Fig. 1. Geographical location of livestock farms (A–G) surveyed in the Northern Tablelands region of NSW, Australia, to assess liver fluke prevalence in Macropods (ArcGIS 10.4.1 software, 2018).