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.
13
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
13 results for “Food sharing”
Food systems Emissions shares, 1990-2019
<p><strong>Greenhouse gas emissions from agri-food systems </strong></p> <p><strong>(1990-2019)</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Overview</strong></p> <p>We present results from the <a href="https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/EM">FAOSTAT emissions shares</a> database which disseminates emissions from all economic sectors and from agri-food systems by gases (CO<sub>2</sub>, CH4, N<sub>2</sub>O, F-gases and their total in CO<sub>2</sub>eq) relative to 236 countries and territories over the period 1990 – 2019.</p> <p>In 2019, global greenhouse gas emissions from all economic sectors totaled about 54 billion tonnes CO<sub>2</sub>eq (54 Gt CO<sub>2</sub>eq), emissions from agri-food systems totaled 16.5 billion tonnes (Gt CO<sub>2</sub>eq) representing 31 percent of the total anthropogenic emissions from all economic sectors.</p> <p>This dataset focuses on emissions from agri-food systems which includes data on emissions from the farm-gate, land use change and pre- and post-production. The sum of these three sectors comprises the agri-food system emissions (16.5 Gt CO<sub>2</sub>eq).</p> <p>Pre- and post-production include emissions from: fertilizers manufacturing, on-farm electricity use, food processing, food transport, food retail, food waste disposal, food household consumption and food packaging.</p> <p><strong>Data Structure</strong></p> <p>The data is structured as a tabular data with attributes: AreaName, ISO3, ItemName, ElementName, Year, Value, Unit.</p> <p><strong>Attributes (Columns)</strong></p> <p>Attributes in the data are defined as below:</p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Name</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>Descriptions</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>AreaName</strong></p> </td> <td> <p>characterizes all countries including world and regional aggregates</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>ISO3</strong></p> </td> <td> <p>represents three letter ISO3 country codes (not all regional aggregates have ISO3 country codes)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>ItemName</strong></p> </td> <td> <p>represents all items covered in the data</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>ElementName</strong></p> </td> <td> <p>represents all gases covered in the data</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Year</strong></p> </td> <td> <p>period covered by the data</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Value</strong></p> </td> <td> <p>represents the emissions value</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Unit</strong></p> </td> <td> <p>Unit of measurement (in this data emissions are measured in kilotonnes)</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Files included in the dataset</strong></p> <p>We have included two files available for downloaded. The csv file contains the data in .csv format and a excel file contains data in .xlsx format.</p> <p><strong>Global warming potential (GWP)</strong></p> <p>In this data, the emissions total (CO<sub>2</sub>eq) is computed by applying the GWP values from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) as given below:</p> <p> </p> <table align="center"> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p> </p> </td> <td> <p><strong>Greenhouse gas</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>GWPAR5 (IPCC, 2014)</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><em>Single</em></p> <p><em>gases</em></p> </td> <td> <p>N<sub>2</sub>O</p> </td> <td> <p>265</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>CO<sub>2</sub></p> </td> <td> <p>1</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>CH<sub>4</sub></p> </td> <td> <p>28</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><em>F-gases </em></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> </td> <td> <p>HFC-23</p> </td> <td> <p>12,400</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>HFC-32</p> </td> <td> <p>677</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>HFC-41</p> </td> <td> <p>116</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>HFC-125</p> </td> <td> <p>3,170</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>HFC-134</p> </td> <td> <p>1,120</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>HFC-134a</p> </td> <td> <p>1,300</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>HFC-143</p> </td> <td> <p>328</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>HFC-143a</p> </td> <td> <p>4,800</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>HFC-152</p> </td> <td> <p>16</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>HFC-152a</p> </td> <td> <p>138</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>HFC-161</p> </td> <td> <p>4</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>HFC-227ea</p> </td> <td> <p>3,350</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>HFC-236cb</p> </td> <td> <p>1,210</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>HFC-236ea</p> </td> <td> <p>1,330</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>HFC-236fa</p> </td> <td> <p>8,060</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>HFC-245ca</p> </td> <td> <p>716</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>HFC-245fa</p> </td> <td> <p>858</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>HFC-365mfc</p> </td> <td> <p>804</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>HFC-43-10mee</p> </td> <td> <p>1,650</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Sulfur hexafluoride (SF<sub>6</sub>)</p> </td> <td> <p>23500</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Nitrogen trifluoride (NF<sub>3)</sub></p> </td> <td> <p>16,100</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>PFC-14</p> </td> <td> <p>6,630</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>PFC-116</p> </td> <td> <p>11,100</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>PFC-218</p> </td> <td> <p>8,900</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>PFC-318</p> </td> <td> <p>9,540</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>PFC-31-10</p> </td> <td> <p>9,200</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>PFC-41-12</p> </td> <td> <p>8,550</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>PFC-51-14</p> </td> <td> <p>7,910</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>PCF-91-18</p> </td> <td> <p>7,190</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>µGWP</p> </td> <td> <p>5,195</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p> </p> <p><strong>Data Sources</strong></p> <p>FAOSTAT climate change, emissions shares <a href="https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/EM">data</a>, <a href="https://fenixservices.fao.org/faostat/static/documents/EM/cb7514en.pdf">analytical brief</a>.</p> <p>The primap-hist national historical emissions timeseries <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/5494497#.Yf18Cy8w2ic">data</a>, <a href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/8/571/2016/essd-8-571-2016.html">paper</a>.</p> <p> </p>
Dataset for Male Eurasian jays flexibly alter their food sharing in line with partners' choices
<p>This is the raw data for Exp. 1 and Exp. 2 from "Investigating the flexibility of male Eurasian jays' food-sharing behavior' by Rachel C Crosby, Edward W Legg, Katharina F. Brecht, Michael T Mendl, Ljerka Ostojic and Nicola S. Clayton in a machine-readable format. It was previously pre-printed under the title of "Male Eurasian jays flexibly alter their food sharing in line with partners’ choices".</p> <p> </p>
Contribution of males to brood care can compensate for their food consumption from a shared resource
<p>The sharing of the same food source among parents and offspring can be a driver of the evolution of family life and parental care. However, if all family members desire the same meal, competitive situations can arise, especially if resource depletion is likely. When food is shared for reproduction and the raising of offspring, parents have to decide whether they should invest in self-maintenance or in their offspring and it is not entirely clear how these two strategies are balanced. In the burying beetle <i>Nicrophorus vespilloides</i>, parents care for their offspring either bi- or uniparentally at a vertebrate carcass as the sole food source. The question of whether biparental care in this species offers the offspring a better environment for development compared with uniparental care has been the subject of some debate. We tested the hypothesis that male contribution to biparental brood care has a beneficial effect on offspring fitness but that this effect can be masked because the male also feeds from the shared resource. We show that a mouse carcass prepared by two <i>Nicrophorus</i> beetles is lighter compared with a carcass prepared by a single female beetle at the start of larval hatching and provisioning. This difference in carcass mass can influence offspring fitness when food availability is limited, supporting our hypothesis. Our results provide new insights into the possible evolutionary pathway of biparental care in this species of burying beetles.</p>
Effects of enhanced productivity of resources shared by predators in a food-web module: Comparing results of a field experiment to predictions of mathematical models of intra-guild predation
<p>This dataset contains data from a field experiment described in the publication "Wise, D. H. & Farfan, M.A. (2021) Effects of enhanced productivity of resources shared by predators in a food-web module: Comparing results of a field experiment to predictions of mathematical models of intra-guild predation. Ecology and Evolution, 00: 1-11. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8375">https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8375</a>".</p> <p>The field experiment compared the response to increased input of nutrients and energy (artificial detritus) to an empirical model of intra-guild predation (IGP) to the predictions of published, simple mathematical models of asymmetric IGP (a generalist IG Predator that feeds both on a specialist IG Prey and a Resource that it shares with the IG Prey). The empirical model was a food-web module created by pooling species abundances across many families in a community of soil micro-arthropods into three response variables: IG Predator (large predatory mites), IG Prey (small predatory mites) and a shared Resource (fungivorous mites and springtails). The pattern of change over time in densities of the three response variables (IG Predator, IG Prey and Resource) was compared to the predictions of mathematical models of IGP to determine if the feeding relationships in this community of soil micro-arthropods could be abstracted into a simple IGP module. Thus, we were testing the hypothesis that IGP is a dominant organizing principle in this community.</p> <p>Simple mathematical models predict that increased input of nutrients and energy to the shared Resource will increase the equilibrium density of Resource and IG Predator, but will decrease that of IG Prey. By the experiment's end, densities of fungivores (Resource) had increased ~1.5x (ratio of pooled fungivore densities in the High treatment to plots with no addition of detritus (None treatment); and IG Predator densities had increased ~4x. Contrary to the prediction of mathematical models, IG Prey had not decreased, but instead had increased ~1.5x. We discuss possible reasons for the failure of the empirical model to agree with IGP theory.</p>
Effects of enhanced productivity of resources shared by predators in a food-web module: Comparing results of a field experiment to predictions of mathematical models of intra-guild predation
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Contribution of males to brood care can compensate for their food consumption from a shared resource
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Food-sharing vampire bats are more nepotistic under conditions of perceived risk
Cooperative behaviors exist along a spectrum of cost, from no-risk scenarios of mutual benefit to self-sacrificing altruism. Hamilton's rule predicts that as risk increases, cooperative decisions should become increasingly kin-biased (nepotistic). To manipulate the perceived risks of regurgitated food sharing in captive vampire bats, we created a novel "rescue" condition, which required that donors leave their preferred roosting location, descend to an illuminated spot on the cage floor, and regurgitate food across cage bars to a trapped hungry bat. Vampire bats adapted their food sharing to this novel context, but with a dramatic reduction in the probability and amount of food sharing. Sixteen of 29 bats were fed by groupmates when trapped. All 15 starved bats that were tested in both trapped and free conditions received less food when trapped. Donations to trapped bats came from kin and nonkin, but subjects received a greater proportion of their food from closer relatives when trapped than when free. This finding supports the prediction that nepotistic biases should be exaggerated under dangerous conditions.
Data from: Voluntary food sharing in pinyon jays: the role of reciprocity and dominance
Food sharing offers a clear example of prosocial behaviour, in which one individual's actions benefit another. Researchers have proposed a range of hypotheses that explain why food sharing may occur among unrelated individuals. Two such hypotheses, reciprocity and dominance, have been tested in many species, including fish, corvids, rats, bats and primates, showing that (1) recipients sometimes reciprocate sharing back to previous donors and (2) dominant individuals share more than subordinates. Although primates dominate the study of prosocial behaviour, active donation of food is actually quite rare in primates. In contrast, several corvid species spontaneously share food much more frequently. Here, we explored the role of reciprocity and dominance in spontaneous food sharing among male pinyon jays, Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus, a North American corvid species that exhibits high levels of social complexity. Unlike much of the previous work, we tested prosocial behaviour among unrelated, non-pair-bonded adults. We observed high levels of active sharing, and donors showed clear preferences with whom they shared. We found no evidence that pinyon jays reciprocated shares in either the short or long term. This was true for both sharing within dyads (direct reciprocity) and sharing irrespective of most recent partner identity (generalized reciprocity). However, dominance influenced sharing in one of our squads, with dominant individuals sharing more than subordinates. This study highlights corvids as a fruitful model for the study of the proximate mechanisms underlying naturally occurring prosocial behaviours.
Effect of shared information on food behaviour: a holistic approach in Dutch consumers
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Voluntary food sharing in pinyon jays: the role of reciprocity and dominance
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Food-sharing vampire bats are more nepotistic under conditions of perceived risk
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Food sharing in vampire bats: reciprocal help predicts donations more than relatedness or harassment
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Building Customer Loyalty on Online Food Platforms: Sharing Economy Practices in Indonesia
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
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.