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.
50
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
50 results for “Forest Structure and Composition”
Figure 5 in Composition and structure of plant communities in the Moist Temperate Forest Ecosystem of the Hindukush Mountains, Pakistan
Figure 5. CCA plot Analysis of illustrating the influence of elevation on spreading pattern of plant communities in Lalkoo valley Swat.
Figure 4 in Composition and structure of plant communities in the Moist Temperate Forest Ecosystem of the Hindukush Mountains, Pakistan
Figure 4. Results of CCA joint biplot showing results for eleven plant communities' correlation with environmental variable. BAB-I: Berberis- Abies- Bergenia; PIP-II: Picea-Indigofera- Poa; APP-III: Abies- Parrotiopsis- Poa,QVP-IV:Quercus-Viburnum-Poa,PSP-V:PiceaSalix-Primula,AVP-VI:Abies-Viburnum -Poa; VTP-VII: ViburnumTaxus-Poa; PVL-VIII: Pinus-Viburnum-Lithospermum; ABC-IX: Abies-Berberis-Carex; PVP-X: Pinus-Viburnum-Poa; and PPP-XI: Parrotiopsis-Picea-Poa represents community types.
Figure 2 in Fire effects on Atlantic Forest sites from a composition, structure and functional perspective
Figure 2. Average of species richness (A), basal area (B), Shannon index (C), tree density (D), CWM Height (E), CWM Leaf length (F), CWM wood density (G), CWM Leaf deciduousness (H), CWM dispersal mode (I), CWM shade tolerance (J) for tree species inventoried in burned and unburned sites in Paraíba do Sul river basin, Southeast Atlantic Forest biome, Brazil.Same letters represent no statistical difference.
Fig. 3 in Composition and structure of the helminth community of rodents in matrix habitat areas of the Atlantic forest of southeastern Brazil
Fig. 3. Bipartite plot of the interactions between the mammal hosts and the helminth parasites identified in the present study.
Fig. 2 in Composition and structure of the helminth community of rodents in matrix habitat areas of the Atlantic forest of southeastern Brazil
Fig. 2. Species accumulation curve of the helminths recorded in each mammalian host: a. Akodon cursor b. Mus musculus c. Necromys lasiurus.
Fig. 1 in Composition and structure of the helminth community of rodents in matrix habitat areas of the Atlantic forest of southeastern Brazil
Fig. 1. Location of the sampling sites within the REBIO Poço das Antas and the APA-BRSJ in Rio de Janeiro state (RJ), southeastern Brazil, showing the distribution of the different vegetation types and the canals that separate the two reserves.
FATES projections of forest structure and composition (1830-2098) at a mixed conifer site in the southern Sierra Nevada
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Liana communities exhibit different species composition, diversity and community structure across forest types in the Congo Basin
<p>Lianas are poorly characterized for central African forests. We quantify variation in liana composition, diversity and community structure in different forest types in the Yangambi Man and Biosphere Reserve, Democratic Republic of Congo. These attributes of liana assemblages were examined in 12 1-ha plots, randomly demarcated within regrowth forest, old-growth monodominant forest, old-growth mixed forest and old-growth edge forest. Using a combination of multivariate and univariate community analyses, we visualize the patterns of these liana assemblage attributes and/or test for their significant differences across forest types. The combined 12 1-ha area contains 2,638 lianas (≥ 2 cm diameter) representing 105 species, 49 genera and 22 families. Liana species composition differed significantly across forest types. Taxonomic diversity was higher in old-growth mixed forests compared to old-growth monodominant and regrowth forests. Trait diversity was higher than expected in the regrowth forest as opposed to the rest of forest types. Similarly, the regrowth forest differed from the rest of forest types in the pattern of liana species ecological traits and diameter frequency distribution. The regrowth forest was also less densely populated in lianas, and had lower liana total basal area than the rest of forest types. We speculate that the mechanism of liana competitive exclusion by dominant tree species is mainly responsible for the lower liana species diversity in monodominant compared to mixed forests. We attribute variation in liana community structure between regrowth and old-growth forests mostly to short development time of size hierarchies.</p>
Dataset for paper "Interpreting the shifts in forest structure, plant community composition, diversity, and functional identity by using remote sensing-derived wildfire severity"
<p>Interpreting the shifts in forest structure, plant community composition, diversity, and functional identity by using remote sensing-derived wildfire severity . New collected data</p>
Forest structure and heterogeneity increase diversity and alter the composition of host-parasitoid networks
<p>Antagonistic host-parasitoid interactions can be quantified using bipartite and meta networks, which have the potential to reveal how habitat structural elements relate to this important ecosystem function. Here, we analysed the host-parasitoid interactions of cavity-nesting bees and wasps, as well as their abundance, diversity, and species richness with forest structural elements from 127 forest research plots in southwestern Germany. We found that parasitoid abundance, diversity, and species richness all increase with host abundance, a potential mediator between parasitoids and forest structure. Both parasitoid abundance and diversity increased with stand structural complexity, possibly mediated by the abundance of hosts. Additionally, parasitoid abundance increased with increasing standing deadwood and herb cover. The bipartite networks of host-parasitoid interactions showed higher connectance with increasing standing deadwood, herb cover, and host abundance. Analyses of interactions within the host-parasitoid metanetwork revealed that increasing host abundance and decreasing canopy cover diversify the suites of interactions present at the plot level. These results demonstrate that forest structural elements can improve the stability and resilience of host-parasitoid networks by promoting parasitoids and diversifying interactions in ecological networks.</p>
Figure 2. Species area curve obtained from 264 in Composition and structure of plant communities in the Moist Temperate Forest Ecosystem of the Hindukush Mountains, Pakistan
Figure 2. Species area curve obtained from 264 plant species in Lalkoo valley.
Figure 3. Cluster Dendrogram indicating 11 in Composition and structure of plant communities in the Moist Temperate Forest Ecosystem of the Hindukush Mountains, Pakistan
Figure 3. Cluster Dendrogram indicating 11 plant association types in the Lalkoo Valley.
Figure 1 in Composition and structure of plant communities in the Moist Temperate Forest Ecosystem of the Hindukush Mountains, Pakistan
Figure 1. Samping sites in Lalkoo valley.
The role of competition in structuring ant community composition across a tropical forest disturbance gradient
<b>Description: </b><p>Leaf litter ant community composition and competition</p><p><b>Project: </b>This dataset was collected as part of the following SAFE research project: <a href="https://www.safeproject.net/projects/project_view/34"><b>The role of competition in structuring ant community composition across a tropical forest disturbance gradient.</b></a></p><p><b>XML metadata: </b>GEMINI compliant metadata for this dataset is available <a href="https://www.safeproject.net/datasets/xml_metadata?id=1">here</a></p><p><b>Data worksheets: </b>There are 3 data worksheets in this dataset:</p><ol><li><p><b>Ant community composition</b> (Worksheet Composition)</p><p>Dimensions: 430 rows by 69 columns</p><p>Description: Site x species matrix of ant community composition</p><p>Fields: </p><ul><li><b>Forest Type</b>: Shows the two forest types used in the study (Field type: Categorical)</li><li><b>Site</b>: Represents the site/day sampled. 10 Sampling sites were used in each forest type (Field type: Location)</li><li><b>Time</b>: Represents the time in the day points were sampled (Field type: Time)</li><li><b>Point</b>: Represents the column of 3 sampling points for each time of day (Field type: Replicate)</li><li><b>ID</b>: Represents individual sampling point. Order is: Site(Day)/Time/Type/Sampling point no. Logged ID's also have LF at the start (Field type: ID)</li><li><b>Method</b>: Method used to record community (Field type: Categorical)</li><li><b>Diacamma</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Odontoponera</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Pheidole</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Leptogenys</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Pheidologeton</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Crematogaster</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Odontomachus</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Aphaenogaster</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Acanthomyrmex</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Nylanderia</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Camponotus</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Cardiocondyla</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Anochetus</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Technomyrmex</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Monomorium</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Recurvidris</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Polyrhachis</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Cladomyrma</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Lophomyrmex</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Harpegnathos</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Carebara</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Cataulacus</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Pachycondyla</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Lordomyrma</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Myrmecina</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Proatta</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Euprenolepis</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Rhytidoponera</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Paratrechina</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Paraparatrechina</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Tetramorium</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Paratopula</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Strumigenys</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Pyramica</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Ponera</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Hypoponera</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Tetraponera</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Emeryopone</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Centromyrmex</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Tapinoma</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Myrmicaria</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Rotrastruma</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Prionopelta</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Gnamptogenys</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Eurhopalothrix</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Myrmoteras</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Oecophylla</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Myopias</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Pseudolasius</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Plagiolepis</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Dacetinops</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Mystrium</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Echinopla</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Philidris</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Vollenhovia</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Rhoptromyrmex</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Anillomyrma</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Cryptopone</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Aenictus</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Calyptomyrmex</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Amblyopone</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li><li><b>Prenolepis</b>: Number of individuals (Field type: Abundance)</li></ul><br></li><li><p><b>Morphometrics</b> (Worksheet Morpho)</p><p>Dimensions: 72 rows by 4 columns</p><p>Description: Size classes for the genera</p><p>Fields: </p><ul><li><b>Genera</b>: Genus ID (Field type: Taxa)</li><li><b>Size.Min</b>: Minimum body size (Field type: Categorical Trait)</li><li><b>Size.Max</b>: Maximum body size (Field type: Categorical Trait)</li></ul><br></li><li><p><b>Competition</b> (Worksheet Competition)</p><p>Dimensions: 866 rows by 15 columns</p><p>Description: Outcome of competitive interactions among individuals of different genera</p><p>Fields: </p><ul><li><b>Forest Type</b>: Shows the two forest types used in the study (Field type: Categorical)</li><li><b>Site</b>: Represents the site/day sampled. 10 Sampling sites were used in each forest type (Field type: Location)</li><li><b>Time</b>: Represents the time in the day points were sampled (Field type: Time)</li><li><b>ID</b>: Represents individual sampling point. Order is: Site(Day)/Time/Type/Sampling point no. Logged ID's also have LF at the start (Field type: ID)</li><li><b>Method</b>: Method used to record interaction (Field type: Categorical)</li><li><b>Genera1</b>: Genus ID of the first interacting individual (Field type: Taxa)</li><li><b>Genera2</b>: Genus ID of the second interacting individual (Field type: Taxa)</li><li><b>TimeG1</b>: The arrival time of the first genus in the interaction to the bait card in seconds (Field type: Numeric)</li><li><b>TimeG2</b>: The arrival time of the second genus in the interaction to the bait card in seconds (Field type: Numeric)</li><li><b>IntG1</b>: The competitive status of the first genus in the interaction (Field type: Categorical Interaction)</li><li><b>IntG2</b>: The competitive status of the second genus in the interaction (Field type: Categorical Interaction)</li><li><b>Interaction</b>: The type of interaction occuring between the two genera (Field type: Categorical Interaction)</li><li><b>GroupG1</b>: Whether or not the first genus was part of a group of individuals when interacting on the bait card (Field type: Categorical)</li><li><b>GroupG2</b>: Whether or not the second genus was part of a group of individuals when interacting on the bait card (Field type: Categorical)</li></ul><br></li></ol><p><b>Date range: </b>2016-02-02 to 2016-06-05</p><p><b>Latitudinal extent: </b>4.7273 to 4.7463</p><p><b>Longitudinal extent: </b>116.9669 to 117.5969</p><p><b>Taxonomic coverage: </b><br> All taxon names are validated against the GBIF backbone taxonomy. If a dataset uses a synonym, the accepted usage is shown followed by the dataset usage in brackets. Taxa that cannot be validated, including new species and other unknown taxa, morphospecies, functional groups and taxonomic levels not used in the GBIF backbone are shown in square brackets.</p><div>Animalia<br> - Arthropoda<br> -  - Insecta<br> -  -  - Hymenoptera<br> -  -  -  - Formicidae<br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Acanthomyrmex</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Aenictus</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Amblyopone</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Anillomyrma</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Anochetus</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Aphaenogaster</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Calyptomyrmex</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Camponotus</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Cardiocondyla</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Carebara</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Cataulacus</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Centromyrmex</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Cladomyrma</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Crematogaster</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Cryptopone</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Dacetinops</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Diacamma</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Echinopla</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Emeryopone</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Euprenolepis</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Eurhopalothrix</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Gnamptogenys</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Harpegnathos</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Hypoponera</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Leptogenys</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Lophomyrmex</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Lordomyrma</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Monomorium</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Myopias</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Myrmecina</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Myrmicaria</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Myrmoteras</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Mystrium</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Nylanderia</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Odontomachus</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Odontoponera</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Oecophylla</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Pachycondyla</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Paraparatrechina</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Paratopula</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Paratrechina</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Pheidole</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Pheidologeton</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Philidris</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Plagiolepis</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Polyrhachis</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Ponera</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Prenolepis</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Prionopelta</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Proatta</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Pseudolasius</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Pyramica</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Recurvidris</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Rhoptromyrmex</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Rhytidoponera</i><br> -  -  -  -  - [<i>Rotrastruma</i>]<br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Strumigenys</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Tapinoma</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Technomyrmex</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Tetramorium</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Tetraponera</i><br> -  -  -  -  - <i>Vollenhovia</i><br></div><p></p>
Floristic composition, structure and diversity of riparian forests in southwestern Nigeria: Conservation is inevitable
<p>The Nigerian riparian forest ecosystems had declined in extent and distribution and this had been attributed mainly to land use change. This study intended to provide an understanding of the links between plant diversity, composition, structures, and disturbances both anthropogenic and natural processes inducing the vegetation dynamics. Nine study sites were used for this study, within each site, five (5) plots (0.25 ha in size) were marked out and placed systematically at an interval of 10 m along the transect. A complete enumeration of plant species was carried out and identified at the species level. Diversity indices and structural parameters were determined and anthropogenic activities were ranked. A total number of 233 plant species were identified, belonging to 80 families; out of which, Euphorbiaceae and Apocynaceae were dominant families The density and basal area ranged from 2,200-6,000 ha<sup>-1</sup> and 2.59-17.58 m<sup>2</sup> ha<sup>-1</sup> respectively across the study sites. <em>Pterocarpus santalinoides</em>, <em>Alchornea cordiflora</em>, <em>Chassalia kolly</em>, <em>Tetracera</em> spp,<em> Fimbristylis</em>, <em>Bambusa vulgaris</em> and <em>Cyrtosperma senegalense</em> were the dominant species. The Shannon diversity index ranged from (1.38-3.49), Simpson (0.66-0.97), and Evenness diversity (0.43-0.84). Fisher alpha (10.03-30.21) and Whittaker beta diversity (0.36-0.89) values were highest in Ipetumodu (site VIII) and lowest in Ilesha (site II). Seventy-three (73%) of the species in this study had a low important value index (IVI). The dominance of some lianas and herbaceous species in the riparian forest sites showed disturbances, stages of ecological succession, and regeneration of the vegetation. Conservation is inevitable towards maintaining and protecting species diversity, ecosystem roles, and services of these forests in Nigeria.</p>
Forest structure and heterogeneity increase diversity and alter the composition of host-parasitoid networks
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Liana communities exhibit different species composition, diversity and community structure across forest types in the Congo Basin
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Edaphic effects on forest structure and tree species composition in three seasonally dry tropical forest types in Cambodia
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data on composition and structure of trees inside and outside of forests in Guanacaste, Costa Rica: comparisons among conservation areas, fencerows, and municipal parks
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Floristic composition, structure and diversity of riparian forests in southwestern Nigeria: Conservation is inevitable
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.