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.
69
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
69 results for “Invasive species management”
A list of taxa currently and historically regulated under South Africa's National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, Alien & Invasive Species Regulations
<p>This information is lists of alien species regulated in South Africa under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act in an accessible form.</p> <p>The first worksheet is essentially metadata.</p> <p>The second worksheet is intended to be a link between any taxa listed or proposed for listing and various taxonomic backbones.</p> <p>The third worksheet is intended to provide a list of taxonomically verified names linked to the current lists.</p> <p>The other worksheets link to particular versions of the regulations (including version sent for public comment that were never published), the intention is for this to be an exact copy (including formatting), please report any inconsistencies between this and the published version to john.wilson2@gmail.com, but before doing so please double-check that what is presented here, is not how it is presented in the lists themselves.</p> <p>The data were extracted by John Wilson at various dates from pdfs in the government gazette, contact john.wilson2@gmail.com</p> <p>For further details please see: Wilson JRU, Kumschick S (2024). The regulation of alien species in South Africa. South African Journal of Science. vol. 120, issue 5/6, Art. #17002. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2024/17002 </p> <p>If only the database is to be cited, cite as Wilson, J. R. (2025) A list of taxa currently and historically regulated under South Africa's National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, Alien & Invasive Species Regulations. v1.1(20250325) doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15082537 (NOTE CHECK FOR LATEST VERSION )</p> <p>For a full description of metadata see: the latest species list available at iasreport.sanbi.org.za/ or http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8217211</p>
Figure 3 in America's Most Wanted Fishes: cataloging risk assessments to prioritize invasive species for management action
Figure 3. The proportion of risk statuses of fish families with four or more species assessed at the extent of Florida. Panel (A) shows the proportion of species with high, moderate, low, multiple, and undetermined risk statuses of assessed species (total number of species evaluated in a family). Panel (B) shows the ratio of assessed to unassessed species in a given family (total species in a family). Total species in a family were obtained from FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2023).
Figure 3 in Mowing inhibits the invasion of the alien species Solidago altissima and is an effective management strategy
Figure 3. (a) Aboveground biomass of S. altissima in September 2019. (b) Biomass of rhizomes of S. altissima in September 2019. Mowing 1: mowed once in July; Mowing 2: mowed twice in May and September; Mowing 3: mowed three times in May, July, and September. Data are presented as means ± standard errors of 14 replicates. Bars with different letters are significantly different at p <0.05 (ANOVA with post hoc Tukey's test).
Figure 1 in America's Most Wanted Fishes: cataloging risk assessments to prioritize invasive species for management action
Figure 1. The proportion of risk statuses of fish families with four or more species assessed at the extent of the conterminous U.S. Panel (A) shows the proportion of species with high, moderate, low, multiple, and undetermined risk statuses of assessed species (total number of species evaluated in a family). Panel (B) shows the ratio of assessed to unassessed species in a given family (total species in a family). Total species in a family were obtained from FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2023).
Figure 4 in Mowing inhibits the invasion of the alien species Solidago altissima and is an effective management strategy
Figure 4. Effects of control practices on flowering rates of S. altissima in October 2019. Mowing 1: mowed once in July; Mowing 2: mowed twice in May and September; Mowing 3: mowed three times in May, July, and September. Data are presented as means ± standard errors of 14 replicates. Bars with different letters are significantly different at p <0.05 (ANOVA with post hoc Tukey's test).
Figure 2 in America's Most Wanted Fishes: cataloging risk assessments to prioritize invasive species for management action
Figure 2. The proportion of risk statuses of fish families with four or more species assessed at the extent of the Great Lakes region. Panel (A) shows the proportion of species with high, moderate, low, multiple, and undetermined risk statuses of assessed species (total number of species evaluated in a family). Panel (B) shows the ratio of assessed to unassessed species in a given family (total species in a family). Total species in a family were obtained from FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2023).
Figure 1 in Mowing inhibits the invasion of the alien species Solidago altissima and is an effective management strategy
Figure 1. (a) Coverage of S. altissima and (b) the average number of species per quadrat in the S. altissima-dominant areas or uninvaded areas. Data are presented as means ± standard errors of 14 replicates. Bars with different letters are significantly different at p <0.05 (Student's t-test).
Figure 2 in Mowing inhibits the invasion of the alien species Solidago altissima and is an effective management strategy
Figure 2. Number of shoots of S. altissima in March 2018 and April 2019. Mowing 1: mowed once in July; Mowing 2: mowed twice in May and September; Mowing 3: mowed three times in May, July, and September; Eco 200: 30% of shoots in the quadrats were cut near the ground, and the cut surfaces were covered with Eco 200 block. Data are presented as means ± standard errors of 14 replicates. Bars with different letters are significantly different at p <0.05 (ANOVA with post hoc Tukey's test).
Data from: RapidRat: development, validation and application of a genotyping-by-sequencing panel for rapid biosecurity and invasive species management
<p>Invasive alien species (IAS) are among the main causes of global biodiversity loss. Invasive brown (Rattus norvegicus) and black (R. rattus) rats, in particular, are leading drivers of extinction on islands, especially in the case of seabirds where >50% of all extinctions have been attributed to rat predation. Eradication is the primary form of invasive rat management, yet this strategy has resulted in a ~10-38% failure rate on islands globally. Genetic tools can help inform IAS management, but such applications to date have been largely reactive, time-consuming, and costly. Here, we developed a Genotyping-in-Thousands by sequencing (GT-seq) panel for rapid species identification and population assignment of invasive brown and black rats (RapidRat) in Haida Gwaii, an archipelago comprising ~150 islands off the central coast of British Columbia, Canada. We constructed an optimized panel of 443 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) using previously generated double-digest restriction-site associated DNA (ddRAD) genotypic data (27,686 SNPs) from brown (n=295) and black rats (n=241) sampled throughout Haida Gwaii. The informativeness of this panel for identifying individuals to species and island of origin was validated relative to the ddRAD results; in all comparisons, admixture coefficients and population assignments estimated using RapidRat were consistent. To demonstrate application, 20 individuals from novel invasions of three islands (Agglomerate, Hotspring, Ramsay) were genotyped using RapidRat, all of which were confidently assigned (>98.5% probability) to Faraday and Murchison Islands as putative source populations. These results indicated that a previous eradication on Hotspring Island was conducted at an inappropriate geographic scale; future management should expand the eradication unit to include neighboring islands to prevent re-invasion. Overall, we demonstrated that RapidRat is an effective tool for managing invasive rat populations in Haida Gwaii and provided a clear framework for GT-seq panel development for informing biodiversity conservation in other systems.</p>
Appendix 4 to "The Status of Biological Invasions and their Management in South Africa in 2019"—Species list change tracker
<p>For more details see: http://iasreport.sanbi.org.za</p> <p>SANBI and CIB 2020. Appendix 4 to "The Status of Biological Invasions and their Management in South Africa in 2019"—Species list change tracker. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3947778</p>
IPBES Invasive Alien Species Assessment: Chapter 2. Figures, tables, captions and data management reports
<p>This folder contains the figures and tables included in Chapter 2 of the IPBES Invasive Alien Species and their Control Assessment Report. Each figure is provided in pdf and svg format. In addition, the R scripts and the data sets required to generate the figures are provided as well.</p><p>The figures and tables showing information about alien species numbers or distributions are all based on two data sets, which are stored on Zenodo folders. One data set contains the records of alien species per region worldwide (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7554428) and the workflow including R scripts have been published (https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.59.53578). This data set is called the 'chapter database'. Version 2.4.1 of this data set was used to extract the numbers shown in figures and tables of this chapter. The second data set (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6458083) contains coordinates of alien species occurrences worldwide and the workflow including R scripts have also been published elsewhere (https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.74.81082). Version 1.0.1 of this data set was used here.</p><p>The folder also contains the data management reports for the generation of the chapter database and figures.</p>
Appendix 1 to "The Status of Biological Invasions and their Management in South Africa in 2022"—Species level pathway data
<p>SANBI and CIB 2023. Appendix 1 to "The Status of Biological Invasions and their Management in South Africa in 2022"—Species level pathway data. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8217192</p> <p>For more details see: http://iasreport.sanbi.org.za</p> <p>For the report itself see: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8217182</p>
Appendix 7 to "The Status of Biological Invasions and their Management in South Africa in 2022"—The Species List for the Prince Edward Islands
<p>SANBI and CIB 2023. Appendix 7 to "The Status of Biological Invasions and their Management in South Africa in 2022"—The Species List for the Prince Edward Islands. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8217229</p> <p> </p> <p>For more details see: http://iasreport.sanbi.org.za<br> For the report itself see: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8217182</p>
Table 3 in Mowing inhibits the invasion of the alien species Solidago altissima and is an effective management strategy
<p><b>Table 3.</b> Heights of <i>S. altissima</i> before mowing in September 2019.</p><table><tbody><tr><th>Site</th><th>Control</th><th>Mowing 1</th><th>Mowing 2</th><th>Mowing 3</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Site 1</th><td>168.0 ± 3.27a</td><td>64.0 ± 3.32c</td><td>100.5 ± 9.14b</td><td>67.5 ± 3.1c</td></tr><tr><th>Site 2</th><td>192.0 ± 11.3a</td><td>79.0 ± 4.07c</td><td>111.0 ± 6.9b</td><td>73.0 ± 7.61c</td></tr><tr><th>Site 3</th><td>159.0 ± 4.99a</td><td>123.0 ± 7.12b</td><td>84.5 ± 5.89c</td><td>47.0 ± 2.71d</td></tr><tr><th>Site 4</th><td>190.0 ± 2.98a</td><td>102.0 ± 3.89b</td><td>112.5 ±8.07b</td><td>62.0 ± 5.33c</td></tr><tr><th>Site 5</th><td>217.0 ±10.23a</td><td>87.5 ± 4.9c</td><td>137.0 ± 4.96b</td><td>62.5 ± 3.1d</td></tr><tr><th>Site 6</th><td>177.5 ± 6.76a</td><td>97.5 ± 5.44c</td><td>120.5 ± 4.97b</td><td>60.0 ± 2.58d</td></tr><tr><th>Site 7</th><td>143.5 ± 12.2a</td><td>81.0 ± 2.77b</td><td>138.5 ± 3.5a</td><td>62.0 ± 4.67b</td></tr></tbody></table><p>* Mowing 1: mowed once in July; Mowing 2: mowed twice in May and September; Mowing 3: mowed three times in May, July, and September. Data are presented as means ± standard errors of 10 replicates. Means within a row followed by different letters are significantly different at p <0.05 (ANOVA with post hoc Tukey’s test). Units: cm.</p>
Table 2 in Mowing inhibits the invasion of the alien species Solidago altissima and is an effective management strategy
<p><b>Table 2.</b> Heights of <i>S. altissima</i> before mowing treatment in May 2019.</p><table><tbody><tr><th>Site</th><th>Control</th><th>Mowing 1</th><th>Mowing 2</th><th>Mowing 3</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Site 1</th><td>101.0 ± 3.2a</td><td>101.0 ± 3.0a</td><td>81.1 ± 2.6b</td><td>64.9 ± 3.1c</td></tr><tr><th>Site 2</th><td>116.5 ± 4.7a</td><td>111.8 ± 4.7a</td><td>82.9 ± 4.1b</td><td>72.5 ± 6.6b</td></tr><tr><th>Site 4</th><td>89.1 ± 2.2a</td><td>74.8 ± 2.2b</td><td>49.5 ± 3.1d</td><td>59.8 ± 1.6c</td></tr><tr><th>Site 5</th><td>93.5 ± 2.5a</td><td>99.5 ± 2.3a</td><td>78.0 ± 2.0b</td><td>77.1 ± 2.0b</td></tr><tr><th>Site 6</th><td>125.3 ± 5.2a</td><td>117.0 ± 3.0a</td><td>86.5 ± 3.0c</td><td>105.0 ± 3.4b</td></tr><tr><th>Site 7</th><td>123.3 ± 3.3a</td><td>119.3 ± 2.9ab</td><td>111.3 ± 2.8bc</td><td>110.3 ± 3.1c</td></tr><tr><th>Site 8</th><td>96.0 ± 4.0a</td><td>94.5 ± 4.1ab</td><td>84.5 ± 3.3bc</td><td>81.0 ± 3.1c</td></tr></tbody></table><p>* Mowing 1: mowed once in July; Mowing 2: mowed twice in May and September; Mowing 3: mowed three times in May, July, and September. Data are presented as means ± standard errors of 10 replicates. Means within a row followed by different letters are significantly different at p <0.05 (ANOVA with post hoc Tukey’s test). Units: cm.</p>
Table 1 in Mowing inhibits the invasion of the alien species Solidago altissima and is an effective management strategy
<p><b>Table 1.</b> Heights of dead shoots of <i>S. altissima</i> after 1 year of treatment in April 2019.</p><table><tbody><tr><th>Site</th><th>Control</th><th>Mowing 1</th><th>Mowing 2</th><th>Mowing 3</th><th>Eco 200</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Site 1</th><td>162.8 ± 6.62a</td><td>85.7 ± 5.52b</td><td>29.5 ± 2.74c</td><td>21.3 ± 2.09c</td><td>77.9 ± 8.94b</td></tr><tr><th>Site 2</th><td>213.2 ± 12.08a</td><td>87.1 ± 7.33c</td><td>38.4 ± 2.17d</td><td>29.0 ± 2.01d</td><td>144.8 ± 9.57b</td></tr><tr><th>Site 3</th><td>163.4 ± 7.31a</td><td>66.3 ± 4.55c</td><td>40.7 ± 2.57d</td><td>33.4 ± 2.11d</td><td>143.4 ± 7.13b</td></tr><tr><th>Site 4</th><td>191.6 ± 3.84a</td><td>160.8 ± 7.90b</td><td>59.2 ± 1.66d</td><td>81.9 ± 6.50c</td><td>166.9 ± 12.33b</td></tr><tr><th>Site 5</th><td>181.7 ± 4.76a</td><td>114.7 ± 2.90b</td><td>89.5 ± 10.23c</td><td>46.6 ± 5.12d</td><td>183.8 ± 9.00a</td></tr><tr><th>Site 6</th><td>174.8 ± 4.34a</td><td>82.9 ± 4.49c</td><td>39.7 ± 2.51d</td><td>31.6 ± 2.47d</td><td>153.3 ± 3.12b</td></tr><tr><th>Site 7</th><td>165.5 ± 4.79a</td><td>91.2 ± 6.02b</td><td>64.7 ± 3.24c</td><td>44.0 ± 3.67d</td><td>153.8 ± 7.25a</td></tr></tbody></table><p>* Mowing 1: mowed once in July; Mowing 2: mowed twice in May and September; Mowing 3: mowed three times in May, July, and September; Eco 200: 30% of shoots in the quadrats were cut near the ground, and the cut surfaces were covered with the Eco 200 block. Data are presented as means ± standard errors of 20 replicates. Means within a row followed by different letters are significantly different at p <0.05 (ANOVA with post hoc Tukey’s test). Units: cm.</p>
Table 4 in Mowing inhibits the invasion of the alien species Solidago altissima and is an effective management strategy
<p><b>Table 4.</b> Change in areas occupied by <i>S. altissima</i> in patch-type communities from March 2018 to March 2019.</p><table><tbody><tr><th>Control</th><th>Mowing 3</th><th>Eco 20%</th><th>Eco 100%</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>205.2 ± 107.3</th><td>24.7 ± 44.0</td><td>104.5 ± 85.2</td><td><i>−</i> 31.7 ± 13.0</td></tr></tbody></table><p>Mowing 3: mowed three times in May, July, and September; Eco 20%: 20% of shoots were mowed and treated with Eco 200; Eco 100%: 100% of shoots were mowed and treated with Eco 200. Data are presented as means ± standard errors of six replicates.</p>
Table 1 in America's Most Wanted Fishes: cataloging risk assessments to prioritize invasive species for management action
<p><b>Table 1.</b> List of fish species with high-risk statuses in the conterminous U.S., in the Great Lakes region, and in the state of Florida. Horizontal lines separate families and species for clarity.</p><table><tbody><tr><th>Family Name</th><th>Fish species name</th><th>Conterminous U.S.</th><th>Great Lakes</th><th>Florida</th></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><th>Atherinidae</th><td><i>Atherina boyeri</i> (Risso, 1810)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Atherinopsidae</th><td><i>Menidia beryllina</i> (Cope, 1867)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Odontesthes bonariensis</i> (Valenciennes, 1835)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Callichthyidae</th><td><i>Hoplosternum littorale</i> (Hancock, 1828)</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><th>Centrarchidae</th><td><i>Lepomis microlophus</i> (Günther, 1859)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Micropterus dolomieu</i> (Lacepède, 1802)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Micropterus salmoides</i> (Lacepède, 1802)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Centropomidae</th><td><i>Lates niloticus</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Channidae</th><td><i>Channa argus</i> (Cantor, 1842)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Channa marulius</i> (Hamilton, 1822)</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><th>Characidae</th><td><i>Pygocentrus nattereri</i> (Kner, 1858)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Cichlidae</th><td><i>Amatitlania nigrofasciata</i> (Günther, 1867)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Astronotus ocellatus</i> (Agassiz, 1831)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Cichla kelberi</i> (Kullander & Ferreira, 2006)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Cichla ocellaris</i> (Bloch & Schneider, 1801)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Cichlasoma uropthalma</i> (Günther, 1862)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Coptodon rendalli</i> (Boulenger, 1897)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Coptodon zilli</i> (Gervais, 1848)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Hemichromis letourneuxi</i> (Sauvage, 1880)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Herichthys cyanoguttatus</i> (Baird & Girard, 1854)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Oreochromis aureus</i> (Steindachner, 1864)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Oreochromis mossambicus</i> (Peters, 1852)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Oreochromis niloticus</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Parachromis managuensis</i> (Günther, 1862)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Pelmatotilapia mariae</i> (Boulenger, 1899)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Sarotherodon melanotheron</i> (Rüppell, 1852)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Serranochromis robustus</i> (Günther, 1864)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Clariidae</th><td><i>Clarias batrachus</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Clarias fuscus</i> (Lacepède, 1803)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Clarias gariepinus</i> (Burchell, 1822)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Clupeidae</th><td><i>Alosa aestivalis</i> (Mitchell, 1814)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Alosa pseudoharengus</i> (Wilson, 1811)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Cobitidae</th><td><i>Misgurnus anguillicaudatus</i> (Cantor, 1842)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><th>Cyprinidae</th><td><i>Abramis brama</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Alburnus alburnus</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Barbus barbus</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Carassius auratus</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Carassius gibelio</i> (Bloch, 1782)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Ctenopharyngodon idella</i> (Valenciennes, 1844)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Culter alburnus</i> (Basilewsky, 1855)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Cyprinella lutrensis</i> (Baird & Girard, 1853)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Cyprinus carpio</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Gobio gobio</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Hypophthalmichthys molitrix</i> (Valenciennes, 1844)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Hypophthalmichthys nobilis</i> (Richardson, 1845)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Leuciscus idus</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Mylopharyngodon piceus</i> (Richardson, 1846)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Opsariichthys uncirostris</i> (Temminck & Schlegel, 1846)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Pimephales promelas</i> (Rafinsque, 1820)</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Phoxinus phoxinus</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Protochondrostoma genei</i> (Bonaparte, 1839)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Pseudorasbora parva</i> (Temminck & Schlegel, 1846)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Rhodeus amarus</i> (Bloch, 1782)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Rutilus aula</i> (Bonparte,1841)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Rutilus rutilus</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Scardinius erythrophthalmus</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Tinca tinca</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Esocidae</th><td><i>Esox lucius</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Esox masquinongy</i> (Mitchill, 1824)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Gasterosteidae</th><td><i>Gasterosteus aculeatus</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Gobiidae</th><td><i>Neogobius melanostomus</i> (Pallas, 1814)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Ponticola platyrostris</i> (Pallas, 1814)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Proterorhinus semilunaris</i> (Heckel, 1837)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Heteropneustidae</th><td><i>Heteropneustes fossilis</i> (Bloch, 1794)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Ictaluridae</th><td><i>Ictalurus furcatus</i> (Valenciennes, 1840)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Pylodictis olivaris</i> (Rafinesque, 1818)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Loricariidae</th><td><i>Hypostomus plecostomus</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Pterygoplichthys anisitsi</i> (Eigenmann & Kennedy, 1903)</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Pterygoplichthys disjunctivus</i> (Weber, 1991)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Pterygoplichthys multiradiatus</i> (Hancock, 1828)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Pterygoplichthys pardalis</i> (Castelnau, 1855)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Moronidae</th><td><i>Morone americana</i> (Gmelin, 1789)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Notopteridae</th><td><i>Chitala ornata</i> (Gray, 1831)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Odontobutidae</th><td><i>Perccottus glenii</i> (Dybowski, 1877)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Osmeridae</th><td><i>Hypomesus nipponensis</i> (McAllister, 1963)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Osmerus eperlanus</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Osmerus mordax</i> (Mitchill, 1814)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Osphronemidae</th><td><i>Trichogaster lalius</i> (Hamilton, 1822)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Trichopodus trichopterus</i> (Pallas, 1770)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Percidae</th><td><i>Gymnocephalus cernua</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Perca flavescens</i> (Mitchill, 1814)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Perca fluviatilis</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Sander lucioperca</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Sander vitreus</i> (Mitchill, 1818)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Petromyzontidae</th><td><i>Petromyzon marinus</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Poeciliidae</th><td><i>Belonesox belizanus</i> (Kner, 1860)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Gambusia affinis</i> (Baird & Girard, 1853)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Gambusia holbrooki</i> (Girard, 1859)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Poecilia latipinna</i> (Lesueur, 1821)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Poecilia reticulata</i> (Peters, 1859)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Poecilia sphenops</i> (Valciennes, 1846)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td><i>Xiphophorus helleri</i> (Heckel, 1848)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Xiphophorus variatus</i> (Meek, 1904)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Polypteridae</th><td><i>Polypterus delhezi</i> (Boulenger, 1899)</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><th>Pomacentridae</th><td><i>Neopomacentrus cyanomos</i> (Bleeker, 1856)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Potamotrygonidae</th><td><i>Potamotrygon falkneri</i> (Castex & Maciel, 1963)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Potamotrygon motoro</i> (Müller & Henle, 1841)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Potamotrygon schuhmacheri</i> (Castex, 1964)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Salmonidae</th><td><i>Coregonus albula</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Coregonus lavaretus</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Coregonus maraena</i> (Bloch, 1779)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Coregonus peled</i> (Gmelin, 1789)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Hucho hucho</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Oncorhynchus kisutch</i> (Walbaum, 1792)</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i> (Walbaum, 1792)</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Oncorhynchus tshawytscha</i> (Walbaum, 1792)</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Salmo trutta</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Scorpaenidae</th><td><i>Pterois miles</i> (Bennett, 1828)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><i>Pterois volitans</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>Siluridae</th><td><i>Silurus glanis</i> (Linnaeus, 1758)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
Data from: Simulating effects of fitness and dispersal on the use of Trojan sex chromosomes for invasive species management
<ol> <li>The use of Trojan Y Chromosomes (TYC) for controlling invasive species involves manipulating the sex chromosomes of captive-raised individuals. Once released, the offspring of these individuals consist of only one sex, thereby skewing the sex-ratio of the invasive population and potentially leading to eradication. Simulation models are needed that can inform managers on how to maximize the likelihood of species eradication, since implementation of this novel management approach in the field is still rare.</li> <li>Here, we present the first spatially explicit, mechanistic simulation model of a real-world TYC program for invasive species eradication. Using a brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) system model, we investigated the effects of competitive and reproductive fitness of the captive-raised YY males, dispersal behavior upon their release, and landscape heterogeneity on eradication success.</li> <li>Likelihood of eradication was dependent on both the competitive and reproductive fitness of the Trojan individuals. Competitive fitness (i.e., survival) had a higher threshold for eradication, below which populations failed to be eradicated.</li> <li>Movement ecology of both the wild and YY male populations was important for eradication. Under a restricted dispersal scenario for YY males following their release, the wild population was not extirpated but maintained a stable, yet reduced, population size. In terms of landscape configuration, time to eradication of local patches increased with greater connectivity within the stream network.</li> <li>In addition to sex ratio distortion, density-dependent mortality resulting from outplantings made an important contribution to eradication and therefore may also affect native competitors.</li> <li>While our results indicate that eradication is possible, maximizing its likelihood requires an understanding of the fitness and movement ecology of both the wild and YY male populations of the invasive species. Both our model and the principles derived from this study related to fitness and behavioral landscape ecology can be broadly applied to other invaded species and systems.</li> </ol>
A plea for scale, and why it matters for invasive species management, biodiversity, and conservation
<ol> <li>Invasive species are suspected to be major contributors to biodiversity declines worldwide. Counterintuitively, however, invasive species effects are likely scale-dependent, and are hypothesized to be positively related to biodiversity at large spatial scales. Past studies investigating the effect of invasion on biodiversity have been mostly conducted at small scales (<100 m<sup>2</sup>) that cannot represent large-dynamic landscapes by design. Therefore, replicated experimental evidence supporting a negative effect of invasive plants on biodiversity is lacking across many landscape types, including large grasslands.</li> <li>We collected data across eight large (333–809 ha) grassland landscapes managed with pyric herbivory—i.e., the recoupling of fire and grazing—to test how an invasive legume (<em>Lespedeza</em> <em>cuneata</em>) affected plant and bird communities at spatial grains ranging from 0.1 m<sup>2</sup> to >3,000,000 m<sup>2</sup>.</li> <li> <em>L</em>. <em>cuneata</em> invasion effects on grassland plant diversity and composition changed with scale; being negative at small spatial grains (0.1 m<sup>2</sup>) and neutral or positive at large spatial grains (>3,000,000 m<sup>2</sup>).</li> <li> <em>L</em>. <em>cuneata</em> abundance did not significantly affect bird diversity at any spatial grain measured.</li> <li> <em>L</em>. <em>cuneata</em> may negatively affect biodiversity if abundances are greater than those observed in this study. However, previous research suggests that <em>L</em>. <em>cuneata</em> may not be capable of exceeding 20% canopy cover across large landscapes (>400 ha). Control and eradication strategies can be costly and are fraught with risk. If data do not clearly support a negative <em>L. cuneata</em> abundance-biodiversity relationship, and if invasion is spatially limited across large landscapes, ongoing control and eradication efforts may be unwarranted and ineffective.</li> <li> <em>Synthesis and applications:</em> Invasive species effects gleaned from small-scale studies may not reliably predict their effects at larger scales. Although we recognize the importance of small-scale studies in potentially isolating individual mechanisms, management strategies based solely on results from small-scale studies of invasion are unlikely to increase or conserve biodiversity across large landscapes. Rather, processes that generate landscape heterogeneity—like pyric herbivory—are probably more important for promoting biodiversity across all scales. Scale is a central problem in ecology, and defining scale in management objectives is essential for effective biodiversity conservation.</li> </ol>
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.