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.
38
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
38 results for “Comparison Tables”
Table S2. List of museum specimen material inspected for each of the 10 new taxa. Over 300 specimens were examined in total for plumage comparisons.
<p>Supplement to Rheindt, Frank E., Prawiradilaga, Dewi M., Ashari, Hidayat, Suparno, Gwee, Chyi Yin, Lee, Geraldine W. X., Wu, Meng Yue, Ng, Nathaniel S. R. (2020): A lost world in Wallacea: Description of a montane archipelagic avifauna. Science 367: 167-170, DOI: 10.1126/science.aax2146</p>
Figure. Comparison of longest primary feather, tail length, and chest circumference in male and female common snipe (* = p <0.05; **= p <0.01). Table 3. Weight of gut variables in male and female common snipe. in Revision of common snipe, Gallinago gallinago in morphometric analysis and building the standard reference haematological values for further studies
Figure. Comparison of longest primary feather, tail length, and chest circumference in male and female common snipe (* = p <0.05; **= p <0.01). Table 3. Weight of gut variables in male and female common snipe.
Table 3 in Delphinid brain development from neonate to adulthood with comparisons to other cetaceans and artiodactyls
<p><i>Table 3.</i> Gestation and brain size. The predicted gestation period was derived by applying the Sacher and Staffeldt formula and using our brain mass data. Sheep (<i>O. aries</i>), cows (<i>B. taurus</i>), giraffes (<i>G. camelopardalis</i>), and hippopotamuses (<i>H. amphibius</i>) were included in the table to compare cetaceans to other members of the Cetartiodactyla taxonomic order. Humans (<i>H. sapiens</i>) were also included for comparison. Cetaceans appear to have similar neonatal/adult brain mass ratios compared to other animals of the Cetartiodactlya order. Sources for the published gestation durations and cetacean brain masses can be found in Table S1.</p><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>Published</th><th>Predicted</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Taxonomic family</th><td>Neonatal</td><td>Adult brain</td><td>Neonate/</td><td>gestation</td><td>gestation</td></tr><tr><th>Genus species</th><td>brain mass (g)</td><td>mass (g)</td><td>adult (%)</td><td>(days)</td><td>(days)</td></tr><tr><th colspan="6">Delphinidae</th></tr><tr><th><i>C. commersonii</i></th><td>370</td><td>783</td><td>47.3</td><td>334</td><td>324</td></tr><tr><th><i>D. delphis</i></th><td>430</td><td>715</td><td>60.2</td><td>363</td><td>359</td></tr><tr><th><i>G. griseus</i></th><td>796</td><td>2,132</td><td>37.3</td><td>410</td><td>386</td></tr><tr><th><i>L. acutus</i></th><td>733</td><td>1,285</td><td>57</td><td>365</td><td>401</td></tr><tr><th><i>L. obliquidens</i></th><td>523</td><td>1,198</td><td>43.6</td><td>356</td><td>352</td></tr><tr><th><i>O. orca S. attenuata S. longirostris</i></th><td>3,006 353 247</td><td>6,642 711 541</td><td>45.3 49.6 45.6</td><td>553 — —</td><td>566 304a 286a</td></tr><tr><th><i>S. bredanensis</i></th><td>706</td><td>1,454</td><td>48.6</td><td>378</td><td>388</td></tr><tr><th><i>T. truncatus</i></th><td>685</td><td>1,550</td><td>44.2</td><td>376</td><td>377</td></tr><tr><th colspan="6">Monodontidae</th></tr><tr><th><i>D. leucas</i></th><td>938</td><td>2,087</td><td>44.9</td><td>456</td><td>414</td></tr><tr><th colspan="6">Phocoenidae</th></tr><tr><th><i>P. phocoena</i></th><td>242</td><td>506</td><td>47.7</td><td>316</td><td>266</td></tr><tr><th><i>P. dalli</i></th><td>270</td><td>803</td><td>33.6</td><td>334</td><td>282</td></tr><tr><th colspan="6">Physeteridae</th></tr><tr><th><i>P. macrocephalus</i></th><td>3,308</td><td>7,693</td><td>43</td><td>547</td><td>582</td></tr><tr><th colspan="6">Pontoporiidae</th></tr><tr><th><i>P. blainvillei</i></th><td>154.9</td><td>223.9</td><td>69.2</td><td>319</td><td>271</td></tr><tr><th colspan="6">Ziphiidae</th></tr><tr><th><i>M. europaeus</i></th><td>971</td><td>1,680</td><td>57.8</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><th colspan="6">Balaenopteridae</th></tr><tr><th><i>B. physalus</i></th><td>2,640</td><td>6,718</td><td>39.3</td><td>342</td><td>537</td></tr><tr><th>Bovidae <i>B. taurus O. aries</i></th><td>199b 69</td><td>456b 130d</td><td>43.6 53</td><td>278c 150e</td><td>270 208</td></tr><tr><th>Giraffidae <i>G. camelopardalis</i></th><td>428f</td><td>537f</td><td>79.7</td><td>459c</td><td>363</td></tr><tr><th>Hippopotamidae <i>H. amphibius</i></th><td>195b</td><td>590b</td><td>33.1</td><td>240e</td><td>258</td></tr><tr><th>Hominidae <i>H. sapiens</i></th><td>380g</td><td>1,400b</td><td>27</td><td>280e</td><td>324</td></tr></tbody></table><p><sup>a</sup> Perrin <i>et al.</i> (1977).</p><p><sup>b</sup> Sacher and Staffeldt (1974).</p><p><sup>c</sup> Kiltie (1982).</p><p><sup>d</sup> Minervini <i>et al.</i> (2016).</p><p><sup>e</sup> Hayssen <i>et al.</i> (1993).</p><p><sup>f</sup> <i>Gra¨ıc et al.</i> (2017).</p><p><sup>g</sup> Blinkov and Glezer (1968).</p>
Table 2 in Delphinid brain development from neonate to adulthood with comparisons to other cetaceans and artiodactyls
<p><i>Table 2.</i> Comparison of seven terrestrial cetartiodactyls (and the African elephant) with eight aquatic cetartiodactyls on brain and body mass for neonates and adults. ABoM = adult body mass; ABrM = adult brain mass; NBoM = neonatal body mass; NBrM = neonatal brain mass. All brain and body mass data for the aquatic species come from Table S1.</p><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>ABoM</th><th>ABrM</th><th>NboM</th><th>NBrM</th><th>Aquatic</th><th></th><th>AboM</th><th>ABrM</th><th>NboM</th><th>NBrM</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Terrestrial species</th><td>Common name</td><td>(kg)</td><td>(g)</td><td>(kg)</td><td>(g)</td><td>species</td><td>Common name</td><td>(kg)</td><td>(g)</td><td>(kg)</td><td>(g)</td></tr><tr><th><i>D. dorcas phillipsi S. scrofa</i></th><td>Blesbok antelope Wild boar</td><td>60a 149b</td><td>155a 133b</td><td>— —</td><td>— —</td><td><i>D. delphis L. acutus</i></td><td>Common dolphin Atlantic white-sided</td><td>68 156</td><td>715 1,285</td><td>11 28</td><td>430 733</td></tr><tr><th><i>T. strepsiceros G. camelopardalis C. bactrianus</i></th><td>Greater kudu Giraffe Bactrian camel</td><td>218a 470c 594d</td><td>307a 537c 518d</td><td>— 150c —</td><td>— 428c —</td><td><i>T. truncatus G. griseus G. macrorhynchus</i></td><td>dolphin Bottlenose dolphin Risso’s dolphin Short-finned pilot</td><td>190 301 654</td><td>1,550 2,132 2,679</td><td>18 85 —</td><td>685 796 —</td></tr><tr><th><i>B. taurus H. amphibius</i></th><td>Cow Hippopotamus</td><td>598e 1,351f</td><td>492e 720f</td><td>25g 40g</td><td>199g 195g</td><td><i>D. leucas G. melas</i></td><td>whale Beluga Long-finned pilot</td><td>560 1,369</td><td>2,087 3,499</td><td>50 —</td><td>938 —</td></tr><tr><th><i>L. africana</i></th><td>African elephant</td><td>5,000a</td><td>4,619a</td><td>—</td><td>1,724h</td><td><i>O. orca</i></td><td>whale Killer whale</td><td>3,723</td><td>6,642</td><td>171</td><td>3,006</td></tr></tbody></table><p><sup>a</sup> Herculano-Houzel (2015).</p><p><sup>b</sup> Minervini <i>et al</i>. (2016).</p><p><sup>c</sup> <i>Gra¨ıc et al</i>. (2017).</p><p><sup>d</sup> Xie <i>et al.</i> (2011).</p><p><sup>e</sup> Ballarin <i>et al</i>. (2016).</p><p><sup>f</sup> Silva and Downing (1995).</p><p><sup>g</sup> Sacher and Staffeldt (1974).</p><p><sup>h</sup> Shoshani <i>et al.</i> (2006).</p>
Table 6. The average epithelialization time in the control, comparison, and 10% concentration respectively was day 10, day 8 and day 7
<p>Table 6. The average epithelialization time in the control, comparison, and 10% concentration respectively was day 10, day 8 and day 7</p>
Supplementary tables S1-S5. Comparison of two different host plant genera responding to grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3 infection
<p>Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3 (GLRaV-3) is one of the most important viruses of grapevine but, despite this, there remain several gaps in our understanding of its biology. Because of its narrow host range -limited to <em>Vitis</em> species - and because the virus is restricted to the phloem, most GLRaV-3 research has concentrated on epidemiology and the development of detection assays. The recent discovery that GLRaV-3 can infect <em>Nicotiana</em> <em>benthamiana, </em>a plant model organism, makes new opportunities available for research in this field. We used RNA-seq to compare both <em>V. vinifera </em>and <em>N. benthamiana</em> host responses to GLRaV-3 infection. This is the first analysis of gene expression profiles beyond <em>Vitis </em>to mealybug-transmitted GLRaV-3.</p>
Table 4 in A comparison of image and observer based aerial surveys of narwhal
<p><i>Table 4.</i> Summary statistics of survey results and narwhal abundance estimates from surveys conducted in Melville Bay, West Greenland from 25 to 30 August 2014. Off-effort sightings by the aerial observers were only included in modeling of the detection function. Strata without narwhal sightings were excluded from this table (<i>i.e.</i>, south and northwest). Abundance estimates are corrected for availability bias with <i>â</i> (0) being 0.257 for the aerial observer sightings and 0.22 for the image sightings. Aerial observer sightings were truncated at 1,300 m. CV values are given in parentheses. Ind. = individuals.</p><table><tbody><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>Uncorrected</th><th></th><th></th><th>Abundance</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th></th><td></td><td></td><td>Encounter</td><td>Mean</td><td>density</td><td>Uncorrected</td><td>Uncorrected</td><td>of individuals</td></tr><tr><th>Platform</th><td>Stratum</td><td>Encounter rate (groups/km)</td><td>rate (ind./km)</td><td>group size</td><td>of groups (groups/km2)</td><td>density of ind. (ind./km2)</td><td>abundance of individuals</td><td>corrected for availability bias</td></tr><tr><th>Aerial</th><td>Northeast</td><td>0.032 (0.86)</td><td>0.084 (0.78)</td><td>2.6 (0.20)</td><td>0.046 (0.93)</td><td>0.115 (0.90)</td><td>300.7 (0.89)</td><td>1,171.0 (0.90)</td></tr><tr><th>observers</th><td>Central</td><td>0.068 (0.50)</td><td>0.261(0.53)</td><td>3.8 (0.11)</td><td>0.046 (0.53)</td><td>0.177 (0.52)</td><td>366.5 (0.52)</td><td>1,426.1 (0.53)</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>All strata</td><td>0.053 (0.41)</td><td>0.187(0.44)</td><td>3.5 (0.10)</td><td>0.046 (0.58)</td><td>0.142 (0.50)</td><td>667.2 (0.50)</td><td>2,596.1 (0.51)</td></tr><tr><th>Images</th><td>Northeast</td><td>0.049 (0.94)</td><td>0.105(0.92)</td><td>2.1 (0.91)</td><td>0.049 (0.94)</td><td>0.105 (0.92)</td><td>217.8 (0.92)</td><td>990 (0.93)</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>Central</td><td>0.059 (0.70)</td><td>0.130(0.61)</td><td>2.2 (0.71)</td><td>0.059 (0.70)</td><td>0.130 (0.61)</td><td>340.0 (0.61)</td><td>1,545.5 (0.61)</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>All strata</td><td>0.055 (0.55)</td><td>0.119(0.50)</td><td>2.2 (0.78)</td><td>0.055 (0.55)</td><td>0.119 (0.50)</td><td>557.8 (0.50)</td><td>2,535.5 (0.51)</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 2 in A comparison of image and observer based aerial surveys of narwhal
<p><i>Table 2.</i> Summary of sightings by image analysts and/or aerial observers, with and without truncation at 500 m. Where both aerial observer pairs had the same sighting with different group size or perpendicular distance estimates, an averaged value was used.</p><table><tbody><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>Only</th><th></th><th>Sighted by</th><th>Sighted by</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th></th><td>Sighted by</td><td></td><td>sight by</td><td>Only</td><td>image</td><td>image analyst</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>image</td><td>Sighted by</td><td>image</td><td>sighted by</td><td>analyst</td><td>and/or</td></tr><tr><th></th><td>analyst</td><td>observer</td><td>analyst</td><td>observer</td><td>and observer</td><td>observer</td></tr><tr><th>No truncation</th></tr><tr><th>No. of groups</th><td>62</td><td>63</td><td>34</td><td>35</td><td>28</td><td>97</td></tr><tr><th>No. of animals</th><td>135</td><td>227</td><td>62</td><td>124</td><td>88</td><td>274</td></tr><tr><th>Average group size</th><td>2.2</td><td>3.6</td><td>1.8</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.1</td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><th>Average distance</th><td>227</td><td>580</td><td>237</td><td>839</td><td>329</td><td>454</td></tr><tr><th>Truncation = 500 m</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>No. of groups</th><td>62</td><td>36</td><td>34</td><td>8</td><td>28</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><th>No. of animals</th><td>135</td><td>126</td><td>62</td><td>24</td><td>88</td><td>173</td></tr><tr><th>Average group size</th><td>2.2</td><td>3.5</td><td>1.8</td><td>3.0</td><td>3.1</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><th>Average distance</th><td>227</td><td>269</td><td>237</td><td>329</td><td>234</td><td>247</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 3 in A comparison of image and observer based aerial surveys of narwhal
<p><i>Table 3.</i> AIC values after fitting explanatory variables to the DS and MR models. The final model chosen, Model 1, is given in bold and ΔAIC indicates the difference between the chosen model and the specified model. HN indicates a half-normal form and HR indicates a hazard-rate form for the DS model. The explanatory variables are perpendicular distance (D), group size (S), group size as a factor with three classes (1, 2–5, and <i>≥</i> 6 narwhals) (S3), Beaufort (BF), side of airplane (SP), observer pair (O), and time to next observation <i>≤</i> 10 s (T). Appendix S3 provides an overview of all the models that were developed.</p><table><tbody><tr><th>Model</th><th>DS model</th><th>MR model</th><th>No. of parameters</th><th>AIC</th><th>ΔAIC</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th><b>1</b></th><td><b>HN: D + BF</b></td><td><b>D + O + S</b> <b>3</b></td><td><b>5</b></td><td><b>1,330.91</b></td><td><b>0</b></td></tr><tr><th>2</th><td>HN: D + BF</td><td>D + O + S</td><td>5</td><td>1,332.81</td><td>1.90</td></tr><tr><th>3</th><td>HN: D + BF + S3</td><td>D + O + T</td><td>6</td><td>1,333.10</td><td>2.19</td></tr><tr><th>4</th><td>HN: D + BF</td><td>D + O</td><td>4</td><td>1,333.50</td><td>2.59</td></tr><tr><th>5</th><td>HN: D + BF + S3</td><td>D + O</td><td>5</td><td>1,335.08</td><td>4.17</td></tr><tr><th>6</th><td>HR: D + BF</td><td>D + O + S3</td><td>5</td><td>1,336.97</td><td>6.06</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 1 in Delphinid brain development from neonate to adulthood with comparisons to other cetaceans and artiodactyls
<p><i>Table 1.</i> Comparison of adult and neonate index of encephalization (EQ) for 15 cetacean (1 mysticete, 14 odontocete) species. EQs were derived from brain and body masses in Table S1.</p><table><thead><tr><th>Family</th><th>Species</th><th>Adult EQ</th><th>Neonate EQ</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Balaenopteridae</th><td><i>B. physalus</i></td><td>0.495</td><td>2.297</td></tr><tr><th>Delphinidae</th><td><i>C. commersonii</i></td><td>5.149</td><td>7.234</td></tr><tr><th></th><td><i>D. delphis</i></td><td>3.962</td><td>7.801</td></tr><tr><th></th><td><i>G. griseus</i></td><td>4.055</td><td>5.807</td></tr><tr><th></th><td><i>L. acutus</i></td><td>3.805</td><td>6.632</td></tr><tr><th></th><td><i>L. obliquidens</i></td><td>4.635</td><td>8.315</td></tr><tr><th></th><td><i>O. orca</i></td><td>2.425</td><td>8.317</td></tr><tr><th></th><td><i>S. bredanensis</i></td><td>5.633</td><td>8.065</td></tr><tr><th></th><td><i>T. truncatus</i></td><td>3.972</td><td>8.328</td></tr><tr><th>Physeteridae</th><td><i>P. macrocephalus</i></td><td>0.681</td><td>4.402</td></tr><tr><th>Kogiidae</th><td><i>K. breviceps</i></td><td>1.703</td><td>4.767</td></tr><tr><th>Pontoporiidae</th><td><i>P. blainvillei</i></td><td>1.930</td><td>2.571</td></tr><tr><th>Monodontidae</th><td><i>D. leucas</i></td><td>2.643</td><td>5.764</td></tr><tr><th>Phocoenidae</th><td><i>P. phocoena</i></td><td>2.837</td><td>4.406</td></tr><tr><th></th><td><i>P. dalli</i></td><td>2.909</td><td>3.275</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 1 in A comparison of image and observer based aerial surveys of narwhal
<p><i>Table 1.</i> Summary of survey effort in the four strata during aerial surveys conducted in Melville Bay from 25 to 30 August 2014.</p><table><tbody><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>Aerial observers</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th></th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Image</td><td></td><td>Aerial observers</td><td>(truncated 500 m)</td></tr><tr><th></th><td></td><td>Planned/</td><td>Length of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th></th><td>Area</td><td>completed</td><td>surveyed</td><td>Analyzed</td><td>No. of</td><td>No.</td><td>Ave. group</td><td>No. of</td><td>No.</td><td>Ave. group</td><td>No. of</td><td>No.</td><td>Ave. group</td></tr><tr><th>Stratum</th><td>(km2)</td><td>transects (no.)</td><td>transects (km)</td><td>images a</td><td>sightings</td><td>of ind.b</td><td>size <i>n</i> (CV)</td><td>sightings</td><td>of ind.</td><td>size <i>n</i> (CV)</td><td>sightings</td><td>of ind.</td><td>size <i>n</i> (CV)</td></tr><tr><th>NW</th><td>6,376</td><td>5 / 4</td><td>226</td><td>2,066</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0 (0)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0 (0)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0 (0)</td></tr><tr><th>NE</th><td>2,076</td><td>11 / 12</td><td>468</td><td>6,572</td><td>23</td><td>49</td><td>2.1 (0.95)</td><td>15</td><td>39</td><td>2.6 (0.77)</td><td>13</td><td>32.5</td><td>2.5 (0.76)</td></tr><tr><th>C</th><td>2,621</td><td>9 / 18</td><td>663</td><td>8,193</td><td>39</td><td>86</td><td>2.2 (0.73)</td><td>48</td><td>188</td><td>3.9 (0.69)</td><td>23</td><td>93.5</td><td>4.1 (0.61)</td></tr><tr><th>S</th><td>3,748</td><td>13 / 10</td><td>575</td><td>4,105</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0 (0)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><th>All strata</th><td>14,821</td><td>38 / 44</td><td>1,932</td><td>20,936</td><td>62</td><td>135</td><td>2.2 (0.77)</td><td>63</td><td>227</td><td>3.6 (0.72)</td><td>36</td><td>126</td><td>3.5 (0.69)</td></tr></tbody></table><p><sup>a</sup> Including 180 off-effort images that were not used in the analysis. <sup>b</sup> Ind. = individuals.</p>
Table 4 in Water quality, yield and cost-benefit analysis of rain water ponds of Cuttack district: A comparison between Indian major carp and GIFT Tilapia
<p><b>Table 4:</b> Growth and production of IMC poly-culture & GIFT mono-sex tilapia in T1 & T2 (2018-19)</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Parameters</b></th><th><b>Growth-production data T1 T2</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Initial avg. weight (g)</th><td>19</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><th>Final avg. weight (g)</th><td>816</td><td>1333</td></tr><tr><th>Survival rate (%)</th><td>91</td><td>93.75</td></tr><tr><th>Production (kg/pond/9 months)</th><td>3383</td><td>8000</td></tr><tr><th>Total production (kg/ha/9 months)</th><td>8457.5</td><td>20000</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 2 in Water quality, yield and cost-benefit analysis of rain water ponds of Cuttack district: A comparison between Indian major carp and GIFT Tilapia
<p><b>Table 2:</b> Fish stocking & production data-IMC poly-culture & GIFT Tilapia mono-sex culture in T1 & T2 (2018-19)</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Tank Pond Area Stocking Date of No. (ha) (no) Stocking</b></th><th><b>Types of fish Stocking</b></th><th><b>Growth estimate during stocking (August-2018)</b></th><th><b>Growth estimate during final Total FCR harvest (May-June-2020) production (kg)</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th></th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td><b>Length in (cm) Weight (g) Length in (cm)</b></td><td><b>Weight (g)</b></td><td><b>Weight in (kg)</b></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>T1</th><td></td><td>4000</td><td></td><td><i>Catla</i></td><td>9-12 18-23</td><td>28.3-39.6</td><td>980-1070</td><td>1682</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td>0.4</td><td>05.09.2020 <i>Rohu</i></td><td>10-12 18-24</td><td>28.0-41.3</td><td>700-750</td><td>880</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><i>Mrigala</i></td><td>8-11 15-19</td><td>29.4-37.6</td><td>680-720</td><td>821</td></tr><tr><th>T2</th><td>0.4</td><td>6400</td><td>GIFT tilapia 15.09.2020 (<i>O. niloticus</i>)</td><td>6-7 8-9</td><td>28.3-32.1</td><td>1333</td><td>8000</td><td>1.2</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 3 in Water quality, yield and cost-benefit analysis of rain water ponds of Cuttack district: A comparison between Indian major carp and GIFT Tilapia
<p><b>Table 3:</b> Comparision of operational cost, production and economic profit of IMC polyculture & GIFT mono-sex tilapia culture during 2018-19 at Jodamu village of district Ciuttack, Odisha</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Parameters</b></th><th><b>T1-IMC culture (area-.4 ha)</b></th><th><b>T2-GIFT Tilapia culture (area-.4 ha)</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th><b>Operational Cost</b></th><td><b>Expenditure Expenditure (Rs/0.4ha/yr) (Rs/ha/yr)</b></td><td><b>Expenditure (Rs/0.4ha/yr)</b></td><td><b>Expenditure (Rs/ha/yr)</b></td></tr><tr><th><b>I. Expenditure</b></th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Watering/de-watering charges</th><td>3,000</td><td>7,500</td><td>3,000</td><td>7,500</td></tr><tr><th>Bleaching Powder 50kg@Rs30/kg</th><td>1,500</td><td>3,750</td><td>1,500</td><td>3,750</td></tr><tr><th>Organic Manure 1000kg@Rs 0.5/kg</th><td>500</td><td>1,250</td><td>500</td><td>1,250</td></tr><tr><th>DAP fertilizer 20kg@ 20/kg</th><td>400</td><td>1,000</td><td>400</td><td>1,000</td></tr><tr><th>Lime-800kg (IMC), 1000kg (GIFT tilapia) @ Rs 10/kg</th><td>8,000</td><td>20,000</td><td>10,000</td><td>25,000</td></tr><tr><th>GNOC-25kg (IMC), 42kg (GIFT tilapia) @ Rs 22/kg</th><td>550</td><td>1325</td><td>924</td><td>2310</td></tr><tr><th>Soyabin 21kg @Rs 30/kg</th><td>630</td><td>1,575</td><td>630</td><td>1,575</td></tr><tr><th>Curd 120 kg @ 40/kg</th><td>4800</td><td>12000</td><td>4800</td><td>12000</td></tr><tr><th>Yeast 5kg @ Rs 200/kg</th><td>1000</td><td>2500</td><td>1000</td><td>2500</td></tr><tr><th>Ricebran 80kg @ Rs 15.5/kg</th><td>1,240</td><td>3,100</td><td>1,240</td><td>3,100</td></tr><tr><th>Joggery-100kg (IMC), 208kg (GIFT tilapia) @ Rs 23/kg</th><td>2,300</td><td>5,750</td><td>4,784</td><td>11,960</td></tr><tr><th>IMC seed4000pc @ Rs 5/pc and GIFT seed cost 6400pc @ Rs 2/pc</th><td>20,000</td><td>50,000</td><td>12,800</td><td>32,000</td></tr><tr><th>IMC-F. Feed 5500kg @ Rs 40/kg and GIFT tilapia F. Feed 9800kg @ Rs 40/kg</th><td>2,20,000</td><td>5.50,000</td><td>3,92,000</td><td>9,80,000</td></tr><tr><th>Transport @ Rs10000/time</th><td>20,000</td><td>50,000</td><td>30,000</td><td>75,000</td></tr><tr><th>Man power for pond preparation, bio-security installation, Management, Feeding, 10,000 netting, watch and ward, marketing etc. @ 200/man day (IMC & GIFT)</th><td>25,000</td><td>30,000</td><td>75,000</td></tr><tr><th>Miscellaneous expenditure (medicine, aeration, transaction and coordination)</th><td>5,000</td><td>12,500</td><td>10,000</td><td>25,000</td></tr><tr><th>Total expenditure</th><td>2,98,920</td><td>7,47,300</td><td>5,03,578</td><td>15,22,070</td></tr><tr><th><b>IMC poly-culture & GIFT mono-sex tilapia Production and economic profit (2018-19)</b></th></tr><tr><th><b>II. Gross Income from GIFT tilapia</b></th><td>0.4 ha/yr</td><td>ha/yr</td><td>0.4 ha/yr</td><td>ha/yr</td></tr><tr><th>Total production (kg/yr)</th><td>3383</td><td>8457.5</td><td>8000</td><td>20000</td></tr><tr><th>IMC & GIFT Cost of fish @ Rs 160 & 140/kg (Rs)</th><td>5,41,280</td><td>13,53,300</td><td>11,20,000</td><td>28,00,000</td></tr><tr><th>Net income from fish (Gross income-expenditure) (Rs)</th><td>2,42,360</td><td>6,05,900</td><td>6,31,172</td><td>15,77,930</td></tr><tr><th>Return on expenditure (%)</th><td>81.07</td><td>0.81</td><td>125.33</td><td>103.67</td></tr><tr><th>Cost benefit ratio (C:B)</th><td>0.810</td><td>0.81</td><td>1.25</td><td>1.25</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 1 in Water quality, yield and cost-benefit analysis of rain water ponds of Cuttack district: A comparison between Indian major carp and GIFT Tilapia
<p><b>Table 1:</b> Ranges and mean values (± SD) of water parameters in T1 &T2</p><table><tbody><tr><th><b>Parameters</b></th><th><b>T1-IMC poly-culture</b></th><th><b>T2-GIFT tilapia mono-sex</b></th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th></th><td><b>Min</b></td><td><b>Max</b></td><td><b>Mean ± SD</b></td><td><b>Min</b></td><td><b>Max</b></td><td><b>Mean ± SD</b></td></tr><tr><th>Temp (°C)</th><td>21.1</td><td>33</td><td>26.3±4.56</td><td>21.2</td><td>34.1</td><td>27.7±6.5</td></tr><tr><th>Transparency (cm)</th><td>24.33</td><td>35.67</td><td>27.71± 0.86</td><td>25.00</td><td>36.00</td><td>29.29± 0.81</td></tr><tr><th>DO (ppm)</th><td>4.3</td><td>7.5</td><td>6.07±1.35</td><td>4.5-</td><td>6.0</td><td>5.3±0.51</td></tr><tr><th>pH</th><td>7.0</td><td>8.4</td><td>7.5±0.55</td><td>6.0</td><td>8.0</td><td>7.5±0.35</td></tr><tr><th>Alkalinity mg/l</th><td>86.7</td><td>114.7</td><td>100.4±12.8</td><td>80.1</td><td>114.0</td><td>98.3±14.2</td></tr><tr><th>Ammonia mg/l</th><td>0.51</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.55±0.05</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.58±0.04</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 4. The average percentage of wound healing on day 5, 10 And 15 of the control, comparison and 10% of subfraction ethyl acetate ointment from Meniran leaves
<p>Table 4. The average percentage of wound healing on day 5, 10 And 15 of the control, comparison and 10% of subfraction ethyl acetate ointment from Meniran leaves</p>
Data used to create figures and tables in the GMD manuscript "Inter-comparison of multiple two-way coupled meteorology and air quality models (WRF v4.1.1-CMAQ v5.3.1, WRF-Chem v4.1.1 and WRF v3.7.1-CHIMERE v2020r1) in eastern China"
<p>This dataset contains all simulation output and observational data of ground-based/satellite-retrieved meteorological and air quality for computing statistical metrics in the GMD manuscript "Inter-comparison of multiple two-way coupled meteorology and air quality models (WRF v4.1.1-CMAQ v5.3.1, WRF-Chem v4.1.1 and WRF v3.7.1-CHIMERE v2020r1) in eastern China", as follows:</p> <p>1. Simulation and observational results of meteorological and air quality including four folders:</p> <p> Day_PBLH: Daily PBLH data</p> <p> Hour_air: Hourly air quality data regarding PM2.5, O3, SO2, NO2 and CO</p> <p> Hour_met: Hourly meteorological data regarding T2, Q2, RH2, WS10 and precipitation</p> <p> Hour_radiation: Hourly surface radiation data</p> <p>2. Simulation and satellite-retrieved results of meteorological and air quality including nine folders:</p> <p> AOD: Yearly and seasonal AOD data</p> <p> CF: Yearly and seasonal CF data</p> <p> CO: Yearly and seasonal CO data</p> <p> LWP: Yearly and seasonal LWP data</p> <p> NO2: Yearly and seasonal NO2 data</p> <p> O3: Yearly and seasonal O3 data</p> <p> Precipitation: Yearly and seasonal precipitation data</p> <p> Radiation: Yearly and seasonal radiation data</p> <p> SO2: Yearly and seasonal SO2 data</p>
Comparison tables for evaluating FAIR Digital Object and Linked Data
<p>RO-Crate and tables from the paper "<em>Evaluating FAIR Digital Object and Linked Data as distributed object systems</em>" <a href="https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.07436">https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.07436</a></p> <p>We systematically evaluate FDO and its implementations as a global distributed object system, by using five different conceptual frameworks that cover interoperability, middleware, FAIR principles, EOSC requirements and FDO guidelines themself.</p> <ul> <li>table1.html<br> Considering FDO and Web according to the quality levels of the Interoperability Framework for Fast Data (Delgado 2016)</li> <li> <p>table2.html<br> Mapping the Metamodel concepts from the Interoperability Framework for Fast Data (Delgado 2016) to equivalent concepts for FDO and Web.</p> </li> <li> <p>table3.html<br> Checking FDO guidelines (Bonino et al. 2019; Anders et al. 2023) against its current implementations as DOIP (DONA 2018) and Linked Data Platform (LDP) (Bonino da Silva Santos, Guizzardi, and Sales 2022), with suggestions for required additions</p> </li> <li> <p>table4.html<br> Comparing FAIR Digital Object (with the DOIP 2.0 protocol (DONA 2018)) and Web technologies (using Linked Data) as middleware infrastructures (Zarras 2004)</p> </li> <li> <p>table5.html</p> <p>Assessing RDA’s FAIR Data Maturity Model (FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group 2020; Bahim et al. 2020) (first 2 columns) against the FDO guidelines (Bonino et al. 2019), FDO implemented with the protocol DOIPv2 (DONA 2018), Linked Data Platform (LDP) (Bonino da Silva Santos, Guizzardi, and Sales 2022) and examples from Linked Data practices in general. (— indicates Unspecified, may be possible with additional conventions)</p> </li> </ul> <p>A web rendering of this RO-Crate is available at <a href="https://w3id.org/ro/doi/10.5281/zenodo.8075229">https://w3id.org/ro/doi/10.5281/zenodo.8075229</a></p>
Comparison table of betweenness centrality and electrical grid centrality values for Ural main power lines
<p>Comparison table of betweenness centrality and electrical grid centrality values for Ural united power system (lines with voltage 220-500 kV), calculated with ArcGIS and Networkx tools.</p>
Table 6: Pairwise comparison matrix – driver perceptions
<p>Pairwise comparison matrix for driver perception</p>
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.