Find research datasets worth reusing

Figure 6 in Grooming behaviors and fouling of the spider crab Libinia dubia (Decapoda: Epialtidae)

Figure 6. Mean time (s), with standard error bars, spent grooming body regions in 30-min isolation observations (N=142), A. Mean time grooming body regions (H=291, df=14, p<0.001), with x-axis organized by anterior body regions on the left to posterior body regions on the right. Sensory and respiratory structures were designated by gray bars: A1, A2, E, G; decoration body regions were designated by a black bars: R, RG, M, P. White bars are body regions not associated with sensory, respiratory, or decorations. B. Mean time grooming of sensory/respiratory structures (gray bars) compared to body regions where decorations (black bars) are attached (N=598, t=9.48, p<0.001). A1, first antennae; A2, second antennae; ABD, abdomen; AM, all maxillipeds; E, eye; G, gills; M, dorsal mid-carapace; LC, left P1 cheliped; M1, first maxilliped; M2, second maxilliped; 3M, third maxilliped; P, pereiopods 2–5 (walking legs); R, rostrum; RC, right P1 cheliped; RG, lateral ridge. Note: Similar letters indicate no statistical significance (p>0.05) and different letters indicate a statistical significance (p<0.05).

Figure 8. Gills from the ablation experiment, with images A–D from the side with the 3M epipod ablated and images E–H from the side with all gill grooming appendages intact. A in Grooming behaviors and fouling of the spider crab Libinia dubia (Decapoda: Epialtidae)

Figure 8. Gills from the ablation experiment, with images A–D from the side with the 3M epipod ablated and images E–H from the side with all gill grooming appendages intact. A. Dorsal view of gill, with the central axis and lamellae both fouled; inset showing "shark teeth" nodules on lamellae with minimal fouling. B. Ventral view of gill, with minimal fouling between lamellae. C. Ventral view of gill, with heavily fouled lamellae mostly of sediment. D. Fouling by a gooseneck barnacle attached to lamellae, with minimal. E. Dorsal view of gill, with the central axis and lamellae both fouled; inset showing "shark teeth" nodules on lamellae with fouling. F. Ventral view of gill, with fouling in between lamellae. G. Ventral view of gill, with fouling on gill surface and simple setae along edge. H. Fouling by a gooseneck barnacle attached to lamellae, with minimal fouling.

Figure 5 in Grooming behaviors and fouling of the spider crab Libinia dubia (Decapoda: Epialtidae)

Figure 5. Mean frequency of grooming mechanism, with standard error bars, mechanisms in 30-min isolation observations (N=142; scrape/pick: z=1.16, p=0.246; flap/brush: z=2.18, p=0.029). Note: Similar letters indicate no statistical significance (p>0.05) and different letters indicate a statistical significance (p<0.05).

Figure 4 in Grooming behaviors and fouling of the spider crab Libinia dubia (Decapoda: Epialtidae)

Figure 4. Mean frequency of grooms, with standard error bars, by grooming appendages in 30-min isolation observations (N=142). A. Mean frequency of grooms for each of the grooming appendages, with genders combined (z=3.39, p<001). B. Mean frequency of grooms for each of the grooming appendages, with the genders separated; males groomed with their 3M more than P1 (z=3.23, p=0.001) whereas females groomed with the 3M and P1 appendages equally (z=1.40, p=0.140). 3M, third maxilliped; P1, pereiopod #1 (cheliped). Note: Similar letters indicate no statistical significance (p>0.05) and different letters indicate a statistical significance (p<0.05).

Figure 3 in Grooming behaviors and fouling of the spider crab Libinia dubia (Decapoda: Epialtidae)

Figure 3. Frequency of grooms, with standard error bars, per body region during 30-min isolation observations (N=142; N=89 males; N=53 females) for males and females. A. Mean frequency of grooms for males and females for body regions (males: H=248, p<0.001; females: H=101, p<0.001); x-axis organized by anterior body regions on the left to posterior body regions on the right. B. Grooming frequency of sensory and respiratory structures compared to body regions where decorations are attached for males and females (sensory/respiratory: N=568, df=540, t=- 2.67, p=0.008; decorating: N=568, df=523, t=-1.97, p=0.049). A1, first antennae; A2, second antennae; ABD, abdomen; AM, all maxillipeds; E, eye; G, gills; M, dorsal mid-carapace; LC, left P1 cheliped; M1, first maxilliped; M2, second maxilliped; 3M, third maxilliped; P (_), pereiopods 2–5 (walking legs); R, rostrum; RC, right P1 cheliped; RG, lateral ridge. Note: Sensory and respiratory body regions were A1, A2, E, G; decoration body regions were R, RG, M, P. Note: Similar letters indicate no statistical significance (p>0.05) and different letters indicate a statistical significance (p<0.05).

Figure 1 in Grooming behaviors and fouling of the spider crab Libinia dubia (Decapoda: Epialtidae)

Figure 1. Relationship between grooming frequency and grooming time budget by carapace width (mm) for males and females in 30-min isolation observations (N=142). A. Mean grooming frequency by carapace width for males and females; no relationship between number of times individuals groomed and their body size (R2=0.003, y=.092x+10.3). B. Mean grooming time budget by carapace width for males and females; no relationship between time spent grooming and body size (R2=0.005, y=1.044x+48.2).

Figure 7 in Grooming behaviors and fouling of the spider crab Libinia dubia (Decapoda: Epialtidae)

Figure 7. Mean frequency and time (s), with standard error bars, of individuals behaviors in 30-min agonistic observations (N=45). A. Mean frequency of behaviors (H=82.6, df=4, p<0.001). B. Mean time budget spent performing behaviors (H=75.6, df=4, p<0.001). Note: Similar letters indicate no statistical significance (p>0.05) and different letters indicate a statistical significance (p<0.05).

Figure 2 in Grooming behaviors and fouling of the spider crab Libinia dubia (Decapoda: Epialtidae)

Figure 2. Grooming frequency and grooming time, with standard error bars, of males and females in 30-min isolation observations (N=142 total; N=89 males; N=53 females). A. Mean frequency of grooms by males and females (z=-10.3, p<0.001). B. Mean time spent grooming by males and females (z=1.95, p=0.0507). Note: Similar letters indicate no statistical significance (p>0.05) and different letters indicate a statistical significance (p<0.05).

opencc-zeroMar 2023View details →

Data for: Breeding honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) for low and high Varroa destructor population growth: gene expression of bees performing grooming behavior

Background Social organisms, including honey bees (Apis mellifera L.), have defense mechanisms to control the multiplication and transmission of parasites and pathogens within their colonies. Self-grooming, a mechanism of behavioral immunity, seems to contribute to restraining the population growth of the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor in honey bee colonies. Because V. destructor is the most damaging parasite of honey bees, breeding them for resistance against the mite is a high priority of the beekeeping industry. We conducted a bidirectional breeding program to select honey bee colonies with low and high varroa population growth (LVG and HVG, respectively). Having high and low lines of bees allowed the study of genetic mechanisms underlying self-grooming behavior between the extreme genotypes. Worker bees were classified into two categories: 'light groomers' and 'intense groomers'. The brains of bees from the different categories (LVG-intense, LVG-light, HVG-intense, and HVG-light) were used for gene expression and viral quantification analyses. Results Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) associated with the LVG and HVG lines were identified, including four odorant-binding proteins and a gustatory receptor. A functional enrichment analysis showed 19 enriched pathways from a list of 219 down-regulated DEGs in HVG bees, including the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) term of oxidative phosphorylation. Additionally, bees from the HVG line showed higher levels of Apis rhabdovirus 1 and 2, Varroa destructor virus -1 (VDV-1), and Deformed wing virus-A (DWV-A) compared to bees of the LVG line. Conclusions The difference in expression of odorant-binding protein genes and a gustatory receptor between bee lines suggests a possible link between them and the perception of irritants to trigger rapid self-grooming instances that require the activation of energy metabolic pathways. Therefore, our results provide new insights into the molecular mechanisms involved in honey bee grooming behavior. Differences in viral levels in the brains of LVG and HVG bees showed the importance of investigating the pathogenicity and potential impacts of neurotropic viruses on behavioral immunity. The results of this study advance the understanding of a trait used for selective breeding, self-grooming, and the potential of using genomic-assisted selection to improve breeding programs.

publicDec 2021View details →

Behavioral probabilities and sample videos for "Behavioral evidence for nested central pattern generator control of Drosophila grooming"

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicMar 2023View details →

Data for: Breeding honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) for low and high Varroa destructor population growth: gene expression of bees performing grooming behavior

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicOct 2025View details →

Self-grooming behavior of Aedes aegypti exposed to Metarhizium humberi formulation

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

Figure 13 from: VanMaurik LN, Wortham JL (2014) Grooming as a secondary behavior in the shrimp Macrobrachium rosenbergii (Crustacea, Decapoda, Caridea). In: Wehrtmann IS, Bauer RT (Eds) Proceedings of the Summer Meeting of the Crustacean Society and the Latin American Association of Carcinology, Costa Rica, July 2013. ZooKeys 457: 55-77. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.457.6292

Figure 13 - Mean time (sec) spent on behaviors during agonistic observations (N=20) of Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Note: different letters indicate significant differences among behaviors.

Figure 5 from: VanMaurik LN, Wortham JL (2014) Grooming as a secondary behavior in the shrimp Macrobrachium rosenbergii (Crustacea, Decapoda, Caridea). In: Wehrtmann IS, Bauer RT (Eds) Proceedings of the Summer Meeting of the Crustacean Society and the Latin American Association of Carcinology, Costa Rica, July 2013. ZooKeys 457: 55-77. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.457.6292

Figure 5 - Mean frequency of body parts groomed of Macrobrachium rosenbergii (N=94) in a 30-min time period (mean ± SE). Body parts in graph labeled from anterior to posterior, left to right. Note: no significant differences between the two highest body parts, p>0.05.

Figure 6 from: VanMaurik LN, Wortham JL (2014) Grooming as a secondary behavior in the shrimp Macrobrachium rosenbergii (Crustacea, Decapoda, Caridea). In: Wehrtmann IS, Bauer RT (Eds) Proceedings of the Summer Meeting of the Crustacean Society and the Latin American Association of Carcinology, Costa Rica, July 2013. ZooKeys 457: 55-77. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.457.6292

Figure 6 - Mean frequency of body parts groomed of Macrobrachium rosenbergii females (N=21) and male morphotypes (SM: N=28, OC: N=25, BC: N=20) in a 30-min time period (mean ± SE). Body parts in graph labeled from anterior to posterior, left to right. Note: BC = blue-clawed males; F = females, OC = orange-clawed males; SM = small males.

Figure 9 from: VanMaurik LN, Wortham JL (2014) Grooming as a secondary behavior in the shrimp Macrobrachium rosenbergii (Crustacea, Decapoda, Caridea). In: Wehrtmann IS, Bauer RT (Eds) Proceedings of the Summer Meeting of the Crustacean Society and the Latin American Association of Carcinology, Costa Rica, July 2013. ZooKeys 457: 55-77. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.457.6292

Figure 9 - Mean time (sec) of body parts groomed of Macrobrachium rosenbergii females (N=21) and male morphotypes (SM: N=28, OC: N=25, BC: N=20) in a 30-min time period (mean ± SE). Body parts in graph labeled from anterior to posterior, left to right. Note: BC = blue-clawed males; F = females, OC = orange-clawed males; SM = small males. Different letters indicate significant differences among body parts (B is referring to the females and SM and OC males).

Figure 12 from: VanMaurik LN, Wortham JL (2014) Grooming as a secondary behavior in the shrimp Macrobrachium rosenbergii (Crustacea, Decapoda, Caridea). In: Wehrtmann IS, Bauer RT (Eds) Proceedings of the Summer Meeting of the Crustacean Society and the Latin American Association of Carcinology, Costa Rica, July 2013. ZooKeys 457: 55-77. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.457.6292

Figure 12 - Mean frequency of behaviors during agonistic observations (N=20) of Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Note: Different letters indicate significant differences among morphotypes. Note: different letters indicate significant differences among behaviors.

Figure 8 from: VanMaurik LN, Wortham JL (2014) Grooming as a secondary behavior in the shrimp Macrobrachium rosenbergii (Crustacea, Decapoda, Caridea). In: Wehrtmann IS, Bauer RT (Eds) Proceedings of the Summer Meeting of the Crustacean Society and the Latin American Association of Carcinology, Costa Rica, July 2013. ZooKeys 457: 55-77. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.457.6292

Figure 8 - Mean time (sec) of body parts groomed of Macrobrachium rosenbergii (N=94) in a 30-min time period (mean ± SE). Body parts in graph labeled from anterior to posterior, left to right. Note: no significant differences between the two highest body parts, p>0.05.

Figure 11 from: VanMaurik LN, Wortham JL (2014) Grooming as a secondary behavior in the shrimp Macrobrachium rosenbergii (Crustacea, Decapoda, Caridea). In: Wehrtmann IS, Bauer RT (Eds) Proceedings of the Summer Meeting of the Crustacean Society and the Latin American Association of Carcinology, Costa Rica, July 2013. ZooKeys 457: 55-77. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.457.6292

Figure 11 - Mean time budget for grooming of Macrobrachium rosenbergii morphotypes (F: N=21, SM: N=28, OC: N=25, BC: N=20) in 30-min time period. Overall mean time budget of species is 19.3%. Note: BC = blue-clawed males; F = females, OC = orange-clawed males; SM = small males. Different letters indicate significant differences among groups.

Figure 10 from: VanMaurik LN, Wortham JL (2014) Grooming as a secondary behavior in the shrimp Macrobrachium rosenbergii (Crustacea, Decapoda, Caridea). In: Wehrtmann IS, Bauer RT (Eds) Proceedings of the Summer Meeting of the Crustacean Society and the Latin American Association of Carcinology, Costa Rica, July 2013. ZooKeys 457: 55-77. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.457.6292

Figure 10 - Mean total time (sec) spent grooming of Macrobrachium rosenbergii females (N=21) and male morphotypes (SM: N=28, OC: N=25, BC: N=20) in 30-min time period (mean ± SE). Note: BC = blue-clawed males; F = females, OC = orange-clawed males; SM = small males. No significant differences between the groups, p>0.05.