Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 7 in Diet of four annual killifishes: an intra and interspecific comparison

Fig. 7. Correspondence analysis of diet items (%) and the studied killifish species (%): Cynopoecilus melanotaenia, Austrolebias luteoflammulatus, A. viarius and A. cheradophilus. The preys were classified in Basal items, Primary Consumers (PC: Zooplankton, Molluscs and Other), Predators (P: Adult and Larva), and Non Aquatic items.

Fig. 6 in Diet of four annual killifishes: an intra and interspecific comparison

Fig. 6. Rarefaction curves applied for the categorized diet items of Cynopoecilus melanotaenia, Austrolebias luteoflammulatus, A. viarius and A. cheradophilus. Dashed lines indicate the confident interval at 95%.

Fig. 4 in Diet of four annual killifishes: an intra and interspecific comparison

Fig. 4. Sampled fishes of A. cheradophilus and differences between demographic groups (F, J and M) in: (a) number of collected individuals, (b) body sizes measured as STL, (c) total number of prey recorded at gut analysis, and (d) prey richness at the taxonomic level detailed in Table 1. (e) Rarefaction curves for each class. Dashed lines indicate the confident interval at 95%.

Fig. 2 in Diet of four annual killifishes: an intra and interspecific comparison

Fig. 2. Sampled fishes of A. viarius and differences between demographic groups (F, J and M) in: (a) number of collected individuals, (b) body sizes measured as STL, (c) total number of prey recorded at gut analysis, and (d) prey richness at the taxonomic level detailed in Table 1. (e) Rarefaction curves for each class. Dashed lines indicate the confident interval at 95%.

Fig. 1 in Diet of four annual killifishes: an intra and interspecific comparison

Fig. 1. Map of the study site area. The sampled temporary pools are located in the Castillos Lagoon Basin, about 60 km from Brazilian border.

opencc-zeroDec 2018View details →

Data from: Does thermal plasticity align with local adaptation? – An interspecific comparison of wing morphology in sepsid flies

Although genetic and plastic responses are sometimes considered as unrelated processes, their phenotypic effects may often align because genetic adaptation is expected to mirror phenotypic plasticity if adaptive, but run counter to it when maladaptive. The magnitude and direction of this alignment has further consequences for both the tempo and mode of adaptation. To better understand the interplay between phenotypic plasticity and genetic change in mediating adaptive phenotypic variation to climate variability, we here quantified genetic latitudinal variation and thermal plasticity in wing loading and wing shape in two closely related and widespread sepsid flies. Common garden rearing of 16 geographical populations reared across multiple temperatures revealed that wing loading decreases with latitude in both species. This pattern could be driven by selection for increased dispersal capacity in the cold. However, although allometry, sexual dimorphism, thermal plasticity and latitudinal differentiation in wing shape all show similar patterns in the two species, the relationship between the plastic and genetic response differed between them. While latitudinal differentiation (south to north) mirrored thermal plasticity (hot to cold) in Sepsis punctum, there was no relationship in Sepsis fulgens. While this suggests that thermal plasticity may have helped to mediate local adaptation in S. punctum, it also demonstrates that genetic wing shape differentiation and its relation to thermal plasticity may be complex and idiosyncratic, even among ecologically similar and closely related species. Hence, genetic responses can, but do not necessarily, align with phenotypic plasticity induced by changing environmental selection pressures.

opencc-zeroDec 2018View details →

Data from: Tropical tree height and crown allometries for the Barro Colorado Nature Monument, Panama: a comparison of alternative hierarchical models incorporating interspecific variation in relation to life history traits

Tree allometric relationships are widely employed for estimating forest biomass and production and are basic building blocks of dynamic vegetation models. In tropical forests, allometric relationships are often modeled by fitting scale-invariant power functions to pooled data from multiple species, an approach that fails to capture changes in scaling during ontogeny and physical limits to maximum tree size and that ignores interspecific differences in allometry. Here, we analyzed allometric relationships of tree height (9884 individuals) and crown area (2425) with trunk diameter for 162 species from the Barro Colorado Nature Monument, Panama. We fit nonlinear, hierarchical models informed by species traits – wood density, mean sapling growth, or sapling mortality – and assessed the performance of three alternative functional forms: the scale-invariant power function and the saturating Weibull and generalized Michaelis–Menten (gMM) functions. The relationship of tree height with trunk diameter was best fit by a saturating gMM model in which variation in allometric parameters was related to interspecific differences in sapling growth rates, a measure of regeneration light demand. Light-demanding species attained taller heights at comparatively smaller diameters as juveniles and had shorter asymptotic heights at larger diameters as adults. The relationship of crown area with trunk diameter was best fit by a power function model incorporating a weak positive relationship between crown area and species-specific wood density. The use of saturating functional forms and the incorporation of functional traits in tree allometric models is a promising approach for improving estimates of forest biomass and productivity. Our results provide an improved basis for parameterizing tropical plant functional types in vegetation models.

Figs 110–122 in Comparison of interspecific differences in coloration, morphology, and male calling signal patterns in two genera of Idiocerini (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Eurymelinae)

Figs 110–122. Oscillograms of male calling signals of species of Idiocerus. 110–113 — I. lituratus; 114–118 — I. herrichii; 119– 122 — I. stigmaticalis. Faster oscillograms of the parts of signals indicated as "112–113", "116–118", and "121–122" are given under the same numbers. Рис. 110–122. Осциллограммы приЗывных сигналов самцов Idiocerus. 110–113 — I. lituratus; 114–118 — I. herrichii; 119– 122 — I. stigmaticalis. Фрагменты сигналов, обоЗначенные цифрами "112–113", "116–118" и "121–122", представлены на осциллограммах под такими же номерами.

Figs 65–82 in Comparison of interspecific differences in coloration, morphology, and male calling signal patterns in two genera of Idiocerini (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Eurymelinae)

Figs 65–82. Male abdominal apodemes and genitalia of species of Idiocerus. 65–67, 74–76 — I. lituratus; 68–70, 77–79 — I. herrichii; 71–73, 80–82 — I. stigmaticalis; 65, 68, 71 — apodemes of the 3rd tergum; 66, 69, 72 — same, 1st sternum; 67, 70, 73 — same, 2nd sternum; 74, 77, 80 — penis, back view; 75, 78, 81 — same, side view; 76, 79, 82 — style. Рис. 65–82. Аподемы брюШных сегментов и гениталии самцов Idiocerus. 65–67, 74–76 — I. lituratus; 68–70, 77–79 — I. herrichii; 71–73, 80–82 — I. stigmaticalis; 65, 68, 71 — аподемы III тергита; 66, 69, 72 — аподемы I стернита; 67, 70, 73 — аподемы II стернита; 74, 77, 80 — пенис, сЗади; 75, 78, 81 — то же, сбоку; 76, 79, 82 — стилус.

Figs 93–109 in Comparison of interspecific differences in coloration, morphology, and male calling signal patterns in two genera of Idiocerini (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Eurymelinae)

Figs 93–109. Oscillograms of male calling signals of species of Populicerus. 93–95 — P. confusus; 96–99 — P. albicans; 100–102 — P. populi; 103–104 — P. nitidissimus; 105–106 — P. laminatus; 107–109 — P. ambigenus. Scale mark at the bottom on the right is the same for all oscillograms. Рис. 93–109. Осциллограммы приЗывных сигналов самцов Populicerus. 93–95 — P. confusus; 96–99 — P. albicans; 100–102 — P. populi; 103–104 — P. nitidissimus; 105–106 — P. laminatus; 107–109 — P. ambigenus. Отметка времени вниЗу справа – обЩаЯ длЯ всех осциллограмм.

Figs 16–39 in Comparison of interspecific differences in coloration, morphology, and male calling signal patterns in two genera of Idiocerini (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Eurymelinae)

Figs 16–39. Male abdominal apodemes of species of Populicerus. 16–21 — P. confusus; 22–24 — P. populi; 25–27 — P. laminatus; 28–33 — P. albicans; 34–36 — P. nitidissimus; 37–39 — P. ambigenus; 16–17, 22, 25, 28–29, 34, 37 — apodemes of the 3rd tergum; 18, 20, 23, 26, 30, 32, 35, 38 — same, 1st sternum; 19, 21, 24, 27, 31, 33, 36, 39 — same, 2nd sternum. Рис. 16–39. Аподемы брюШных сегментов самцов Populicerus. 16–21 — P. confusus; 22–24 — P. populi; 25–27 — P. laminatus; 28–33 — P. albicans; 34–36 — P. nitidissimus; 37–39 — P. ambigenus; 16–17, 22, 25, 28–29, 34, 37 — аподемы III тергита; 18, 20, 23, 26, 30, 32, 35, 38 — аподемы I стернита; 19, 21, 24, 27, 31, 33, 36, 39 — аподемы II стернита.

Figs 83–92 in Comparison of interspecific differences in coloration, morphology, and male calling signal patterns in two genera of Idiocerini (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Eurymelinae)

Figs 83–92. Oscillograms of male calling signals of species of Populicerus. 83–84 — P. confusus; 85–86 — P. albicans; 87 — P. populi; 88–89 — P. nitidissimus; 90 — P. laminatus; 91–92 — P. ambigenus. Faster oscillograms of the parts of signals indicated as "94–95", "99", "101", "103–105", and "107–109" are given under the same numbers. Scale mark at the bottom on the right is the same for all oscillograms. Рис. 83–92. Осциллограммы приЗывных сигналов самцов Populicerus. 83–84 — P. confusus; 85–86 — P. albicans; 87 — P. populi; 88–89 — P. nitidissimus; 90 — P. laminatus; 91–92 — P. ambigenus. Фрагменты сигналов, обоЗначенные цифрами "94–95", "99", "101", "103–105" и "107–109", представлены на осциллограммах под такими же номерами. Отметка времени вниЗу справа – обЩаЯ длЯ всех осциллограмм.

Figs 40–64 in Comparison of interspecific differences in coloration, morphology, and male calling signal patterns in two genera of Idiocerini (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Eurymelinae)

Figs 40–64. Male genitalia of species of Populicerus. 40–45 — P. confusus; 46–52 — P. albicans; 53–55 — P. populi; 56–58 — P. nitidissimus; 59–61 — P. laminatus; 62–64 — P. ambigenus; 40–41, 46–48, 53, 56, 59, 62 — penis, back view; 42–43, 49–50, 54, 57, 60, 63 — same, side view; 44–45, 51–52, 55, 58, 61, 64 — style. Рис. 40–64. Гениталии самцов Populicerus. 40–45 — P. confusus; 46–52 — P. albicans; 53–55 — P. populi; 56–58 — P. nitidissimus; 59–61 — P. laminatus; 62–64 — P. ambigenus; 40–41, 46–48, 53, 56, 59, 62 — пенис, сЗади; 42–43, 49–50, 54, 57, 60, 63 — то же, сбоку; 44–45, 51–52, 55, 58, 61, 64 — стилус.

Figs 1–15. Idiocerini, dorsal view. 1–2 in Comparison of interspecific differences in coloration, morphology, and male calling signal patterns in two genera of Idiocerini (Homoptera: Cicadellidae: Eurymelinae)

Figs 1–15. Idiocerini, dorsal view. 1–2 — Populicerus confusus; 3–4 — P. albicans; 5–6 — P. populi; 7–8 — P. nitidissimus; 9–10 — P. laminatus; 11–12 — P. ambigenus; 13 — Idiocerus lituratus; 14 — I. herrichii; 15 — I. stigmaticalis. Рис. 1–15. Виды трибы Idiocerini, сверху. 1–2 — Populicerus confusus; 3–4 — P. albicans; 5–6 — P. populi; 7–8 — P. nitidissimus; 9–10 — P. laminatus; 11–12 — P. ambigenus; 13 — Idiocerus lituratus; 14 — I. herrichii; 15 — I. stigmaticalis.

publicMar 2019View details →

Data from: Does thermal plasticity align with local adaptation? – An interspecific comparison of wing morphology in sepsid flies

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicAug 2012View details →

Data from: Is dispersal guided by the environment? A comparison of interspecific gene flow estimates among differentiated regions of a newt hybrid zone.

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.