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.
8
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
8 results for “Ctenopharyngodon idella”
Figure 2 in Assessing grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) occupancy and detection probability within Lake Erie from environmental DNA
Figure 2. Mean posterior estimates of the probability of capturing grass carp eDNA from a site in a sample among sites (θ) from the model with the lowest WAIC score [ψ(Site)Θ(Site)p(.)]. Error bars represent 95% credible intervals. DR = Detroit River, HP = Hot Ponds, MB = Maumee Bay. All sites are located in western Lake Erie.
Figure 1 in Assessing grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) occupancy and detection probability within Lake Erie from environmental DNA
Figure 1. Map denoting all monthly grass carp eDNA sampling events in 2018 (A–C) and 2019 (D–F) aggregated at each sampling location (Hot Ponds, Detroit River, and North Maumee Bay) and acoustic receiver locations (grey circles) in the western basin of Lake Erie. Positive and negative eDNA detections, defined as at least one positive qPCR detection on one replicate among all markers (GCTM10, GCTM22, GCTM32) are denoted by orange crosses and pink triangles, respectively. The 3 grass carp captured from conventional gear (total sampling events = 451) in the Detroit River (October 2018), Hot Pond (July 2019) and North Maumee Bay (July 2019) are denoted by a yellow hexagon.
Table 1 in Assessing grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) occupancy and detection probability within Lake Erie from environmental DNA
<p><b>Table 1.</b> Number of field samples (including controls) for each qPCR assay at each site sampled for eDNA in 2018 and 2019 in western Lake Erie. DR = Detroit River, HP = Hot Ponds, MB = Maumee Bay. Note that samples are site-specific.</p><table><tbody><tr><th>Site</th><th>Year</th></tr><tr><th>2018</th><th>2019</th></tr><tr><th>Assay</th><th>Samples</th><th>Assay</th><th>Samples</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>DR</th><td>GCTM10 GCTM22 GCTM32</td><td>78 78 78</td><td>GCTM10 GCTM22 GCTM32</td><td>81 81 81</td></tr><tr><th>HP</th><td>GCTM10 GCTM22 GCTM32</td><td>77 77 77</td><td>GCTM10 GCTM22 GCTM32</td><td>82 82 82</td></tr><tr><th>MB</th><td>GCTM10 GCTM22 GCTM32</td><td>78 78 78</td><td>GCTM10 GCTM22 GCTM32</td><td>80 80 80</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 4 in Assessing grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) occupancy and detection probability within Lake Erie from environmental DNA
<p><b>Table 4.</b> Percentage of positive eDNA replicate detections in each month and site in 2018 and 2019 in western Lake Erie (based on at least one positive detection on at least one marker and one replicate). All markers (GCTM10, GCTM 22, GCTM32) were used to calculate these proportions. Samples were collected monthly from June to November for each site. The number of telemetered grass carp detected within 7 days before sampling for eDNA is denoted in parentheses. Acoustic telemetry receivers in MB in 2018 were not available. DR = Detroit River, HP = Hot Ponds, and MB = Maumee Bay. NA denotes when acoustic telemetry receivers were not in operation.</p><table><tbody><tr><th>Year</th></tr><tr><th>Site</th><th>2018</th><th>2019</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>June</th><th>July</th><th>Aug</th><th>Sept</th><th>Oct</th><th>Nov</th><th>May</th><th>June</th><th>July</th><th>August</th><th>Oct</th><th>Nov</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>DR</th><td>0.0%</td><td>2.3%</td><td>2.3%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>4.5%</td><td>10.6</td><td>14.1</td><td>17.4%</td><td>14.1%</td><td>2.2%</td></tr><tr><td>(1)</td><td>(1)</td><td>(2)</td><td>(1)</td><td>(2)</td><td>(0)</td><td>(1)</td><td>% (1)</td><td>% (1)</td><td>(2)</td><td>(2)</td><td>(0)</td></tr><tr><th>HP</th><td>0.0%</td><td>0.1%</td><td>4.1%</td><td>2.2%</td><td>15.8%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>9.0%</td><td>1.5%</td><td>34.8</td><td>1.5%</td><td>15.8%</td><td>22.7%</td></tr><tr><td>(1)</td><td>(1)</td><td>(2)</td><td>(2)</td><td>(3)</td><td>(NA)</td><td>(2)</td><td>(2)</td><td>% (2)</td><td>(3)</td><td>(2)</td><td>(2)</td></tr><tr><th>MB</th><td>12.0%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>6.1%</td><td>37.1</td><td>8.3%</td><td>8.3%</td><td>0.0%</td></tr><tr><td>(NA)</td><td>(NA)</td><td>(NA)</td><td>(NA)</td><td>(NA)</td><td>(NA)</td><td>(0)</td><td>(0)</td><td>% (0)</td><td>(0)</td><td>(0)</td><td>(0)</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 3 in Assessing grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) occupancy and detection probability within Lake Erie from environmental DNA
<p><b>Table 3.</b> Candidate set of hierarchical occupancy models used to estimate probability of grass carp eDNA occurrence among sites (ψ), the conditional probability of grass carp eDNA occurrence at a sampling locality within a site given that grass carp were present at the site (Θ), and the conditional probability of eDNA detection on replicate filters collected at a sampling locality given that the species is present at the sampling locality <i>(p</i>) from three sites in western Lake Erie sampled in 2018 and 2019. Covariates included location (site), time (Month) and probe type (GCTM10, GCTM22, GCTM32). Model comparison was evaluated with the Widely Applicable Information Criterion (WAIC).</p><table><tbody><tr><th>Model</th><th>WAIC</th><th>Δ WAIC</th><th>Lack of fit</th><th>Predicted Variance</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>ψ(Site)Θ(Site)p(.)</th><td>309.44</td><td>-</td><td>298.70</td><td>18.63</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(.)Θ(Site)p(.)</th><td>309.50</td><td>0.06</td><td>298.99</td><td>10.73</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(.)Θ(Month)p(.)</th><td>317.61</td><td>8.18</td><td>299.05</td><td>18.56</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(Season)Θ(.)p(.)</th><td>317.67</td><td>8.24</td><td>299.01</td><td>18.65</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(Month)Θ(.)p(.)</th><td>317.72</td><td>8.28</td><td>299.04</td><td>18.67</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(Season)Θ(Season)p(.)</th><td>317.84</td><td>8.40</td><td>299.04</td><td>18.79</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(.)Θ(Season)p(.)</th><td>317.74</td><td>8.31</td><td>299.07</td><td>18.66</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(Site)Θ(.)p(.)</th><td>317.94</td><td>8.51</td><td>299.04</td><td>18.90</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(.)Θ(.)p(.)</th><td>325.00</td><td>15.57</td><td>305.50</td><td>20.21</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(Season)Θ(Site)p(.)</th><td>325.41</td><td>15.98</td><td>305.49</td><td>19.91</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(Site + Season)Θ(.)p(.)</th><td>325.59</td><td>16.16</td><td>305.44</td><td>20.15</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(Site)Θ(Season)p(.)</th><td>325.72</td><td>16.29</td><td>305.48</td><td>20.23</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(Site + Season)Θ(Site + Season)p(.)</th><td>325.92</td><td>16.49</td><td>305.49</td><td>20.43</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(.)Θ(Site + Season)p(.)</th><td>326.37</td><td>16.94</td><td>305.52</td><td>20.84</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(Site)Θ(Month)p(.)</th><td>329.57</td><td>20.14</td><td>308.65</td><td>20.92</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(Month)Θ(Month)p(.)</th><td>330.14</td><td>20.71</td><td>308.66</td><td>21.84</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(Site + Season)Θ(Site)p(Probe)</th><td>377.63</td><td>68.20</td><td>276.90</td><td>100.72</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(Site + Season)Θ(.)p(Probe)</th><td>378.35</td><td>68.92</td><td>277.00</td><td>101.34</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(Site + Season)Θ(Site + Season)p(Probe)</th><td>378.42</td><td>68.99</td><td>277.00</td><td>101.41</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(Site + Season)Θ(Season)p(Probe)</th><td>378.55</td><td>69.12</td><td>277.09</td><td>101.46</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(Season)Θ(Site + Season)p(Probe)</th><td>379.41</td><td>69.98</td><td>277.28</td><td>102.10</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(Site)Θ(Site + Season)p(Probe)</th><td>379.62</td><td>70.19</td><td>277.40</td><td>102.21</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(.)Θ(Site + Season)p(Probe)</th><td>379.88</td><td>70.45</td><td>277.31</td><td>102.57</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(Site + Month)Θ(.)p(.)</th><td>383.56</td><td>74.13</td><td>282.86</td><td>100.69</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(Site + Month)Θ(Site + Month)p(.)</th><td>385.47</td><td>76.04</td><td>283.38</td><td>102.09</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(Site + Month)Θ(Site + Month)p(Probe)</th><td>386.95</td><td>77.52</td><td>282.90</td><td>104.05</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(.)Θ(Site + Month)p(.)</th><td>396.44</td><td>87.01</td><td>292.14</td><td>104.29</td></tr><tr><th>ψ(.)Θ(.)p(Probe)</th><td>396.45</td><td>87.01</td><td>292.14</td><td>104.29</td></tr></tbody></table>
Table 2 in Assessing grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) occupancy and detection probability within Lake Erie from environmental DNA
<p><b>Table 2.</b> Gene region, primer, and probe sequences used to amplify GCTM10,GCTM22, and GCTM32 for grass carp.</p><table><tbody><tr><th>Gene</th><th>Primers and Probes</th><th>Sequence</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>ND2</th><td>Forward</td><td>5′- CCYTACGTACTCGCAATTCTAC -3′</td></tr><tr><th>ND2</th><td>Reverse</td><td>5′- GTGGTGGTGTTGGGCTATTA -3′</td></tr><tr><th>ND2</th><td>Probe</td><td>5′- VIC- ACCCTAACCTTTGCTAGCTCCCAC -MGBNFQ-3′</td></tr><tr><th>COII</th><td>Forward</td><td>5′- CCGACTCCTAGAAACAGATCAC -3′</td></tr><tr><th>COII</th><td>Reverse</td><td>5′- GGGACAGCTCAGGAATGTAATA -3′</td></tr><tr><th>COII</th><td>Probe</td><td>5′- 56-FAM- CCAGTTCGT/ZEN/GTCCTAGTATCTGCCGA -3IABkFQ -3′</td></tr><tr><th>COIII</th><td>Forward</td><td>5′- CCACGGACTACACGTCATTATT -3′</td></tr><tr><th>COIII</th><td>Reverse</td><td>5′-GATGTTCGGATGTAAAGTGGTATTG -3′</td></tr><tr><th>COIII</th><td>Probe</td><td>5′-NED- TTCCTAGCTGTTTGCCTTCTCCGT -MGBNFQ-3′</td></tr></tbody></table>
Fig. 19. Ctenopharyngodon idella, 83.7 in The non-native freshwater fishes of Singapore: an annotated compilation
Fig. 19. Ctenopharyngodon idella, 83.7 mm SL, trade material.
Text-fig. 7. Maxillary (labial view) with maxillary foramen (arrows) from A – Cyprinus carpio (Cyprininae) showing the schematic reconstruction of the nervus trigeminus and the rostral barbel, B – Ctenopharyngodon idella (Xenocyprininae), C – Tinca tinca (Tincinae), (images not to scale). in Revision Of The Cyprinids From The Early Oligocene Of The České Středohoří Mountains, And The Phylogenetic Relationships Of Protothymallus Laube, 1901 (Teleostei, Cyprinidae, Gobioninae)
Text-fig. 7. Maxillary (labial view) with maxillary foramen (arrows) from A – Cyprinus carpio (Cyprininae) showing the schematic reconstruction of the nervus trigeminus and the rostral barbel, B – Ctenopharyngodon idella (Xenocyprininae), C – Tinca tinca (Tincinae), (images not to scale).
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.