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.
81
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
81 results for “Central Valley”
Fish Food on Floodplain Farm Fields, California Central Valley, Seasons 2019 and 2021
2019 Water Year (October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019) In the winter and spring of 2018-2019, 5,000 acres of agricultural land in Yolo County, California was intentionally flooded. These “dry-side” rice fields, although on the former floodplain of the Sacramento River, are separated from the fish-bearing Sacramento River (the “wet-side”) by high flood levees. Today, levees cut off 95% of the Central Valley’s floodplains from river channels so that Central Valley aquatic ecosystems no longer recruit floodplain the food web resources needed to support robust aquatic food webs, create fish biomass and sustain abundant fish populations. In this experiment we asked whether floodplain food web resources “grown” in intentionally inundated “dry-side” agricultural fields could be exported back to the river via flood drainage infrastructure. If so, we were interested to know whether those resources could improve juvenile salmon foraging success and increase growth rates. In order to test these questions, we caged fish in the floodplain drainage canal, at the location where the floodplain drainage water entered the river and at locations both up- and downstream. We hypothesized that zooplankton abundance and fish growth rates would be elevated at the managed floodplain outfall location, relative to the upstream location. We measured water quality parameters, zooplankton species assemblage and abundance, and juvenile Chinook salmon growth rates with PIT tagged, hatchery-origin fish confined to enclosures at the study locations. The 5,000 acres of managed floodplain was drained over the coarse of 5 weeks in February and March, 2019 at a maximum rate of 1,000 cfs. The Sacramento River flow during the experiment ranged from 20,000-30,000 cfs. Fish growth rates at the floodplain outfall location were up to five times greater than growth rates upstream of the outfall and enclosure fish experienced growth rate benefits at least up to a mile downstream from the managed floodplai
Central Valley Project, Genetic Determination of Population of Origin 2011-2024
Central Valley Chinook Salmon populations differ in their Endangered Species Act listing status. It is often difficult to distinguish individuals from the different Evolutionarily Significant Units. As such, many of the salmon monitoring and evaluation efforts in the Central Valley and San Francisco Bay-Delta are hampered by uncertainty about population (stock) identification and proportional effects of management actions (Dekar et al. 2013; IEP 2019). Studies have identified that the current identification method (length-at-date models) of juvenile Chinook salmon (Fisher 1992) captured in the watershed vary in their accuracy, particularly for spring-run (NMFS 2013; Harvey et al. 2014; Merz et al. 2014). The inaccuracy of the size-based methods is likely due to differences in fish distribution during early rearing, habitat-specific growth rates, and inter-annual variability in temperatures and food availability that lead to overlap in size ranges among stocks. The primary objective of this project was the genetic classification (to race; Evolutionary Significant Unit) of Chinook Salmon captured from State Water Project and Central Valley Project fish protection facilities and Interagency Ecological Program monitoring programs. The population-of-origin was determined for sampled fish by comparing their genotypes to reference genetic baselines. Genetic methods, having less statistical uncertainty that size-based models for population identification, were intended to directly target (and reduce) one source of uncertainty in the estimation of loss (take) from water diversions (operations) and develop the information necessary for understanding stock-specific distribution, habitat utilization, abundance, and life history variation. This project supports recommendations from the Interagency Ecological Program’s Salmon and Sturgeon Assessment of Indicators by Life Stage and Interagency Ecological Program Science Agenda efforts to improve Central Valley salmonid monitoring
California's Central Valley Project Improvement Act Predation Contact Point Study - 2022: Predator-prey interactions under low artificial lighting in a laboratory setting
The highest rates of piscivorous predation in the field have been recorded during crepuscular light levels associated with sunrise and sunset or artificial lighting at night (ALAN). We conducted a laboratory study where groups of predator-naïve, hatchery-raised juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were exposed to natural-origin piscivorous largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) under three light treatments representative of brighter crepuscular periods or direct ALAN illumination (“high” treatment), dimmer crepuscular periods or sky glow from ALAN (“medium” treatment), and night or no ALAN (“low” treatment). We then statistically evaluated potential associations between light treatment, prey group cohesion, and predator activity.
Genetic assignments for Spring Evolutionary Significant Unit reanalysis, Central Valley Chinook Salmon populations, CA, 2011-2024
Central Valley Chinook Salmon populations differ in their Endangered Species Act listing status. It is difficult to visually distinguish individuals from the different Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESU). As such, many of the salmon monitoring and evaluation efforts in the Central Valley and San Francisco Bay-Delta are hampered by uncertainty about population (stock) identification and proportional effects of management actions (Dekar et al. 2013; IEP 2019). Studies have identified that the current identification method (length-at-date models) of juvenile Chinook salmon (Fisher 1992) captured in the watershed vary in their accuracy, particularly for spring-run (NMFS 2013; Harvey et al. 2014; Merz et al. 2014). The inaccuracy of the size-based methods is likely due to differences in fish distribution during early rearing, habitat-specific growth rates, and inter-annual variability in temperatures and food availability that lead to overlap in size ranges among stocks. The primary objective of this project was the genetic classification (to genetic lineage; Evolutionary Significant Unit) of Chinook Salmon captured from State Water Project and Central Valley Project fish protection facilities and Interagency Ecological Program compliance monitoring programs. The genetic lineage was determined for sampled fish by comparing their genotypes to reference genetic baselines. Genetic methods, having less statistical uncertainty that size-based models for population identification, were intended to directly target (and reduce) one source of uncertainty in the estimation of loss (take) from water diversions (operations) and develop the information necessary for understanding stock-specific distribution, habitat utilization, abundance, and life history variation. This project supports recommendations from the Interagency Ecological Program’s Salmon and Sturgeon Assessment of Indicators by Life Stage and Interagency Ecological Program Science Agenda efforts to improve Central V
Central Valley Project, Genetic Determination of Population of Origin 2011-2021
Central Valley Chinook Salmon populations differ in their Endangered Species Act listing status. It is often difficult to distinguish individuals from the different Evolutionarily Significant Units. As such, many of the salmon monitoring and evaluation efforts in the Central Valley and San Francisco Bay-Delta are hampered by uncertainty about population (stock) identification and proportional effects of management actions (Dekar et al. 2013; IEP 2019). Studies have identified that the current identification method (length-at-date models) of juvenile Chinook salmon (Fisher 1992) captured in the watershed vary in their accuracy, particularly for spring-run (NMFS 2013; Harvey et al. 2014; Merz et al. 2014). The inaccuracy of the size-based methods is likely due to differences in fish distribution during early rearing, habitat-specific growth rates, and inter-annual variability in temperatures and food availability that lead to overlap in size ranges among stocks. The primary objective of this project was the genetic classification (to race; Evolutionary Significant Unit) of Chinook Salmon captured from State Water Project and Central Valley Project fish protection facilities and Interagency Ecological Program monitoring programs. The population-of-origin was determined for sampled fish by comparing their genotypes to reference genetic baselines. Genetic methods, having less statistical uncertainty that size-based models for population identification, were intended to directly target (and reduce) one source of uncertainty in the estimation of loss (take) from water diversions (operations) and develop the information necessary for understanding stock-specific distribution, habitat utilization, abundance, and life history variation. This project supports recommendations from the Interagency Ecological Program’s Salmon and Sturgeon Assessment of Indicators by Life Stage and Interagency Ecological Program Science Agenda efforts to improve Central Valley salmonid monitoring
Chinook Salmon genetic assignments for the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Projects (SWP), Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta Waters, CA, 2024-25
Central Valley Chinook Salmon populations differ in their Endangered Species Act listing status. It is difficult to visually distinguish individuals from the different Evolutionarily Significant Units. As such, many of the salmon monitoring and evaluation efforts in the Central Valley and San Francisco Bay-Delta are hampered by uncertainty about population (stock) identification and proportional effects of management actions (Dekar et al. 2013; IEP 2019). Studies have identified that the current identification method (length-at-date models) of juvenile Chinook salmon (Fisher 1992) captured in the watershed vary in their accuracy, particularly for spring-run (NMFS 2013; Harvey et al. 2014; Merz et al. 2014). The inaccuracy of the size-based methods is likely due to differences in fish distribution during early rearing, habitat-specific growth rates, and inter-annual variability in temperatures and food availability that lead to overlap in size ranges among stocks. The primary objective of this project was the genetic classification (to genetic lineage; Evolutionary Significant Unit) of Chinook Salmon captured from State Water Project and Central Valley Project fish protection facilities and Interagency Ecological Program compliance monitoring programs. The genetic lineage was determined for sampled fish by comparing their genotypes to reference genetic baselines. Genetic methods, having less statistical uncertainty that size-based models for population identification, were intended to directly target (and reduce) one source of uncertainty in the estimation of loss (take) from water diversions (operations) and develop the information necessary for understanding stock-specific distribution, habitat utilization, abundance, and life history variation. This project supports recommendations from the Interagency Ecological Program’s Salmon and Sturgeon Assessment of Indicators by Life Stage and Interagency Ecological Program Science Agenda efforts to improve Central Valley
InSAR data from 2016 to 2018 for the Tulare Basin in California's Central Valley
<p>This file contains InSAR range change observations for the Tulare basin in California's Central Valley. The values are cumulative range change from January 1, 2016 to January 1, 2018. The range change estimates were provided by Tom Farr of CalTech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.</p>
USGSG16AP00094: Developing a seismic velocity model of the central valley, northern California: model SSJD2016
<p>Seismic velocity model SSJD2016 uses earthquake travel-time, ambient noise group velocity and gravity data to update Thurber NC2009, for northern California.</p>
Figure 17 in Aras Valley (northwest Iran): high-resolution stratigraphy of a continuous central Tethyan Permian-Triassic boundary section
Figure 17. Selected representatives of nautiloids from the Aras Valley section. (a) Domatoceras parallelum (Abich, 1878), specimen MB.C.29346 from the lower Julfa Formation. (b) Pleuronautilus sp., specimen MB.C.29347 from the lower Julfa Formation. (c) Tainoceras (?) sp., specimen MB.C.29348 from the upper Julfa Formation. (d) Pleuronautilus sp., specimen MB.C.29349 from the Zal Member. (e) Liroceras sp., specimen MB.C.29350 from the lower Julfa Formation. (f) Permoceras abichi (Kruglov, 1928), specimen MB.C.29351 from the lower Julfa Formation. (g) Liroceras sp., specimen MB.C.29352 from the lower Julfa Formation.
Figure 18 in Aras Valley (northwest Iran): high-resolution stratigraphy of a continuous central Tethyan Permian-Triassic boundary section
Figure 18. Succession carbon isotopes (δ13 C) in the Aras Valley section and correlation with the conodont stratigraphy. Abbreviated carb conodont zones: (1) Clarkina bachmanni, (2) Clarkina abadehensis, (3) Clarkina hauschkei, (4) Merrillina ultima–Stepanovites mostleri.
Figure 15 in Aras Valley (northwest Iran): high-resolution stratigraphy of a continuous central Tethyan Permian-Triassic boundary section
Figure 15. Selected representatives of ammonoids from the Aras Valley section. (a) Prototoceras discoidale Ruzhencev, 1963, specimen MB.C.29343 from the lower Julfa Formation. (b) Vedioceras fusiforme Korn & Ghaderi, 2019, holotype MB.C.29132 from the upper Julfa Formation. (c) Iranites transcaucasius (Shevyrev, 1965), specimen MB.C.29148 from the Zal Member. (d) Pseudotoceras sp., specimen MB.C.29344 from the lower Julfa Formation. (e) Dzhulfoceras sp., specimen MB.C.29345 from the upper Julfa Formation. (f) Dzhulfites nodosus Shevyrev, 1965, specimen MB.C.29182 from the Zal Member at −9.50 m. (g) Araxoceltites cristatus Korn, Ghaderi and Ghanizadeh Tabrizi, 2019, holotype MB.C.22706 from the Zal Member. (h) Phisonites triangulus Shevyrev, 1965, specimen MB.C.22703 from the Zal Member at −12.90 m.
Figure 13 in Aras Valley (northwest Iran): high-resolution stratigraphy of a continuous central Tethyan Permian-Triassic boundary section
Figure 13. Succession of ostracod species in the Paratirolites Limestone, Aras Member, and Claraia Beds of the Aras Valley section .
Figure 7 in Aras Valley (northwest Iran): high-resolution stratigraphy of a continuous central Tethyan Permian-Triassic boundary section
Figure 7. Carbonate microfacies of samples from the Aras Member (a, b) and the Claraia Beds (c–e) of the Aras Valley section. (a) Burrowed mudstone with calcite fan structures; sample AJ202 (+1.65 m). (b) Burrowed mudstone with calcite fans; sample AJ203 (+2.00 m). (c) Gastropod mudstone and wackestone with microgastropods and sponge remains of possible keratose sponges; sample AJ204 (+2.35 m). (d) Laminated mudstone with irregularly shaped sparry calcite crystals; sample AJ210 (+3.80 m). (e) Laminated mudstone with subrounded sparry calcite crystals; sample AJ216 (+4.95 m). Scale bar units = 1 mm.
Figure 10 in Aras Valley (northwest Iran): high-resolution stratigraphy of a continuous central Tethyan Permian-Triassic boundary section
Figure 10. Characteristic conodonts from the Aras Valley section (scale bars equal to 100 µm); all specimens stored in the collection of the Ferdowsi University, Mashhad. (a) Clarkina leveni Kozur et al., 1975, FUM no. AJ122-1, lower Julfa Formation, upper view; (b) Clarkina guangyuanensis Dai and Zhang in (Li et al., 1989), FUM no. AJ131-7, upper Julfa Formation, upper view; (c) Clarkina liangshanensis (Wang, 1978), FUM no. AJ179-8, upper Julfa Formation, upper view; (d) Clarkina transcaucasica (Gullo and Kozur, 1992), FUM no. AJ151-5, upper Julfa Formation, upper view; (e) Clarkina orientalis (Barskov and Koroleva, 1970), FUM no. AJ157-9, upper Julfa Formation, upper view; (f) Clarkina changxingensis (Wang and Wang in Zhao et al., 1981b), FUM no. AJ173-1, Ali Bashi Formation, Zal Member, upper view; (g) Clarkina subcarinata (Sweet in Teichert et al., 1973), FUM no. AJ165-7, Ali Bashi Formation, Zal Member, upper view; (h) Clarkina deflecta (Wang and Wang, 1981a), FUM no. AJ177-14, Ali Bashi Formation, Paratirolites Limestone, upper view; (i) Clarkina bachmanni Kozur, 2004, FUM no. AJ185-23, Ali Bashi Formation, Paratirolites Limestone, upper view; (j) Clarkina nodosa Kozur, 2004, FUM no. AJ190-7, Ali Bashi Formation, Paratirolites Limestone, upper view; (k) Clarkina yini Mei, 1998b, FUM no. AJ192-5, Ali Bashi Formation, Paratirolites Limestone, upper view; (l) Clarkina tulongensis (Tian, 1982), FUM no. AJ198-4, Ali Bashi Formation, Paratirolites Limestone, upper view; (m) Clarkina abadehensis abadehensis Ghaderi, 2014, FUM no. AJ198-13, Ali Bashi Formation, Paratirolites Limestone, upper view; (n) Clarkina abadehensis iranica Ghaderi, 2014, FUM no. AJ198-9, Ali Bashi Formation, Paratirolites Limestone, upper view; (o) Clarkina hauschkei Kozur, 2004, FUM no. AJ200-77, Ali Bashi Formation, Paratirolites Limestone, upper view; (p) Clarkina taylorae (Orchard et al., 1994), FUM no. AJ198-21, Ali Bashi Formation, Paratirolites Limestone, upper view; (q) Clarkina cf. chengyuanensis, FUM no. AJI195-23, Ali Bashi Formation, Paratirolites Limestone, upper view.
Figure 11 in Aras Valley (northwest Iran): high-resolution stratigraphy of a continuous central Tethyan Permian-Triassic boundary section
Figure 11. Characteristic conodonts from the Aras Valley section (scale bars equal to 100 µm); all specimens stored in the collection of the Ferdowsi University, Mashhad. (a) Merrillina ultima Kozur, 2004, Pa element, FUM no. AJ204.13, Elikah Formation, Aras Member, lateral view; (b) Stepanovites sp., Sc element, FUM no. AJ205-1, Elikah Formation, Aras Member, lateral view; (c) Hindeodus typicalis (Sweet, 1970), FUM no. AJ200-27, Ali Bashi Formation, Paratirolites Limestone, lateral view; (d) Hindeodus julfensis (Sweet, in Teichert et al., 1973), FUM no. AJ183-8, Ali Bashi Formation, Paratirolites Limestone, lateral view; (e) Hindeodus julfensis (Sweet, in Teichert et al., 1973), FUM no. AJ183-5, Ali Bashi Formation, Paratirolites Limestone, lateral view; (f) Hindeodus bicuspidatus Kozur, 2004, FUM no. AJ200-32, Ali Bashi Formation, Paratirolites Limestone, lateral view; (g) Hindeodus praeparvus Kozur, 1996, FUM no. AJ201-4, Elikah Formation, Aras Member, lateral view; (h) Hindeodus eurypyge Nicoll et al., 2002, FUM no. AJ208-2, Elikah Formation, Aras Member, lateral view; (i) Hindeodus parvus (Kozur and Pjatakova, 1976), FUM no. AJ206-2, Elikah Formation, Aras Member, lateral view; (j) Hindeodus magnus Kozur, 2004, FUM no. AJ211-15, Elikah Formation, Claraia Beds, lateral view; (k) Hindeodus anterodentatus (Dai et al., 1989), FUM no. AJ208-7, Elikah Formation, Aras Member, lateral view; (l) Isarcicella staeschei Dai & Zhang, 1989, FUM no. AJ216-2, Elikah Formation, Claraia Beds, upper view; (m) Isarcicella isarcica (Huckriede, 1958), FUM no. AJ217-13, Elikah Formation, Claraia Beds, upper view.
Figure 3 in Aras Valley (northwest Iran): high-resolution stratigraphy of a continuous central Tethyan Permian-Triassic boundary section
Figure 3. Columnar section of the late Permian to Early Triassic succession in the Aras Valley section with colour indications and numbers of microfacies and conodont samples.
Figure 2 in Aras Valley (northwest Iran): high-resolution stratigraphy of a continuous central Tethyan Permian-Triassic boundary section
Figure 2. The Permian–Triassic boundary section near the Aras Valley, NW Iran. View towards the north, in the background, beyond the Aras Valley, mountains in Azerbaijan consisting of Triassic rocks.
Figure 12 in Aras Valley (northwest Iran): high-resolution stratigraphy of a continuous central Tethyan Permian-Triassic boundary section
Figure 12. Quantity of ostracod specimens per 500 g of rock material and species richness in the Paratirolites Limestone, the Aras Member, and the Claraia Beds of the Aras Valley section and important ostracod species in the lithological units. Scale bar for figured ostracods = 100 µm. Figured ostracods are as follows. (a) Bairdia kemerensis Crasquin-Soleau, 2004. (b) Bairdiacypris ottomanensis CrasquinSoleau, 2004. (c) Liuzhinia sp. 2. (d) Langdaia sp. (e) Cavellina sp. (f) Microcheilinella sp. (g) Cavellina sp. nov. (h) Kempfina qinglaii (Crasquin), 2008. (i) Fabalicypris sp. nov. (j) Carinaknightina sp. nov. (k) Iranokirkbya brandneri Kozur and Mette, 2006. (l) Fabalicypris obunca Belousova, 1965. (m) Fabalicypris blumenstengeli Crasquin, 2008. (n) Orthobairdia sp. nov. (o) Hungaroleberis sp. nov. (p) gen. nov. sp. nov.
Figure 6 in Aras Valley (northwest Iran): high-resolution stratigraphy of a continuous central Tethyan Permian-Triassic boundary section
Figure 6. Carbonate microfacies of samples from the upper Julfa Formation and the Paratirolites Limestone of the Aras Valley section. (a) Peloidal–foraminiferal packstone; sample AJ144 (−18.00 m). (b) Peloidal–foraminiferal packstone with algae; sample AJ190 (−2.20 m). (c) Microfacies sample from the topmost 4 cm of the Paratirolites Limestone (sample AJ200; = 0.00 to −0.04 m). Lower part: burrowed bioclastic–intraclastic wackestone with ammonoids, bivalves and ostracods, lithoclasts, and micrite clasts. Upper part: sponge packstone with ammonoids, bellerophontids, and ostracods; uppermost 10 mm with a densely packed sponge meshwork of possible keratose sponges. Scale bar units = 1 mm.
Figure 5 in Aras Valley (northwest Iran): high-resolution stratigraphy of a continuous central Tethyan Permian-Triassic boundary section
Figure 5. Carbonate microfacies of samples from the Paratirolites Limestone of the Aras Valley section. (a) Burrowed bioclastic mudstone with ammonoids and micritic intraclasts; sample AJ182 (−3.65 m). (b) Burrowed bioclastic wackestone with ammonoids and echinoderms (E); sample AJ186 (−2.95 m). (c) Burrowed bioclastic–intraclastic mudstone with Fe-encrusted ammonoid; sample AJ188 (−2.70 m). (d) Burrowed bioclastic–intraclastic wackestone with shell debris and echinoderms, micrite clasts, and intense brecciation; sample AJ197 (−0.45 m). Scale bar units = 1 mm.
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.