Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 9 in Biodiversity of museum and bulk field samples compared: The Chiampo sponge fauna (Eocene, Lessini Mountains, Italy)

Fig. 9. Comparison between species frequency of museum collections (data from Frisone et al. 2016) and bulk sampling (this study). Error bars denote binomial standard errors of percentages.

Fig. 8 in Biodiversity of museum and bulk field samples compared: The Chiampo sponge fauna (Eocene, Lessini Mountains, Italy)

Fig. 8. Distribution of sponge genera from museum collections (data from Frisone et al. 2016) and bulk sampling (this study). Error bars denote binomial standard errors of percentages.

Fig. 7 in Biodiversity of museum and bulk field samples compared: The Chiampo sponge fauna (Eocene, Lessini Mountains, Italy)

Fig. 7. Families and relative abundances frequencies from museum collections (data from Frisone et al. 2016) and bulk sampling (this study). Error bars denote binomial standard errors of percentages.

Fig. 6 in Biodiversity of museum and bulk field samples compared: The Chiampo sponge fauna (Eocene, Lessini Mountains, Italy)

Fig. 6. Comparison between frequency of museum collections (data from Frisone et al. 2016) and bulk field sampling (this study) at the ordinal level. Error bars denote binomial standard errors of percentages.

Fig. 5 in Biodiversity of museum and bulk field samples compared: The Chiampo sponge fauna (Eocene, Lessini Mountains, Italy)

Fig. 5. Distribution of species richness (number of taxa) and species abundance (number of individuals per taxon) among classes.

Fig. 11 in Biodiversity of museum and bulk field samples compared: The Chiampo sponge fauna (Eocene, Lessini Mountains, Italy)

Fig. 11. Rank-abundance distribution of bulk samples (A) and museum collection (Whittaker plots) (B). Y axis shows species abundance; X axis ranks each species in order from most to least abundant. Black dots represent species.

Fig. 2 in Biodiversity of museum and bulk field samples compared: The Chiampo sponge fauna (Eocene, Lessini Mountains, Italy)

Fig. 2. Location (B) and geological map (A) of the study area (Verona and Vicenza provinces, Northern Italy), modified from http://gisgeologia.regione. veneto.it/, author: Regione Veneto, Sezione Geologia e Georisorse, and released under the Italian Open Data License 2.0 (https://www.dati.gov.it/content/ italian-open-data-license-v20). Outline of the Lessini Shelf during the Eocene modified from Bosellini (1989). The sponge-bearing outcrop is indicated by the white star near Chiampo. Cf, Castelvero fault; SVf, Schio-Vicenza fault; Pf, Pedemontana thrust fault.

Fig. 4 in Biodiversity of museum and bulk field samples compared: The Chiampo sponge fauna (Eocene, Lessini Mountains, Italy)

Fig. 4. Rarefaction curve (line in the middle) of the Chiampo sponge fauna at Lovara. Grey area demarcate 95% confidence intervals of diversity estimates.

Fig. 12 in Biodiversity of museum and bulk field samples compared: The Chiampo sponge fauna (Eocene, Lessini Mountains, Italy)

Fig. 12. In situ Eocene specimen of Laocoetis patula from Lovara Quarry, Italy; showing its characteristic morphology with canal openings in quadrate arrangement, indicated by the white arrow. Coin for scale is 22 mm in diameter.

Fig. 10 in Biodiversity of museum and bulk field samples compared: The Chiampo sponge fauna (Eocene, Lessini Mountains, Italy)

Fig. 10. Percent similarity (A) and Jaccard similarity (B) measurements between bulk and museum collection material at different taxonomic levels.

Fig. 3 in Biodiversity of museum and bulk field samples compared: The Chiampo sponge fauna (Eocene, Lessini Mountains, Italy)

Fig. 3. Bulk collection of Eocene sponges at Lovara Quarry. Some of the sponge specimens are indicated by white arrows.

Fig. 1 in Biodiversity of museum and bulk field samples compared: The Chiampo sponge fauna (Eocene, Lessini Mountains, Italy)

Fig. 1. Sponge fossils from the Eocene of Chiampo. A. The lyssacinosid Stauractinella eocenica Frisone, Pisera, and Preto, 2016. B. The lychniscosid Callicylix eocenicus Pisera and Busquets, 2002. C. The lithistid demosponge Platychonia sp. D. The hexactinosid Laocoetis patula Pomel, 1872. Scale bars 10 mm. Photos S. Castelli.

Figure 4. A in Avian biodiversity assessment studies in a Neotropical wetland - the combination of sampling methods makes the difference

Figure 4. A Song Meter (acoustic recorder, upper left, marked yellow) and a camera trap (photo and video recorder, lower left, marked green) were jointly applied to study the avian occurrence and behavior of ground-dwelling species, e.g., cracids and tinamous.

Figure 1 in Avian biodiversity assessment studies in a Neotropical wetland - the combination of sampling methods makes the difference

Figure 1. Number of individuals and species detected by three methodologies over the dry period of 2014 in areas of forest and savanna in the northeastern Pantanal, Mato Grosso, Brazil. MN = mist nets; PC = point counts; ARU = autonomous acoustic recording.

Figure 3 in Avian biodiversity assessment studies in a Neotropical wetland - the combination of sampling methods makes the difference

Figure 3. Local contribution to beta diversity (LCBD) of avian taxa in the northeastern Pantanal, Mato Grosso, Brazil, in the dry period of 2014. The geographic positions of the savanna sites (orange) and forest sites (green) are shown. The relationship between the LCBD values and species richness is shown in A. The site contributions to beta diversity (i.e., the LCBD values) determined by each methodology were divided into two components: replacement B and nestedness C.

Figure 2 in Avian biodiversity assessment studies in a Neotropical wetland - the combination of sampling methods makes the difference

Figure 2. Number of species detected in each of the eight sampling sites using three methodologies over the dry period of 2014 in one region of the northeastern Pantanal, Mato Grosso, Brazil. MN = mist nets; PC = point counts; ARU = autonomous acoustic recording.