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.
18
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
18 results for “Plea”
Fig. 2 in Impacts of crustacean invasions on parasite dynamics in aquatic ecosystems: A plea for parasite-focused studies
Fig. 2. Introduced hosts ‾ native parasites: hypothetical examples of the potential effects of invasive crustaceans on native parasites. Note that only a subsample of nonexclusive scenarios from a number of potential outcomes of biological invasion on native parasite dynamics is represented here. The hypothetical native parasite considered here has a two-host life cycle involving a definitive host predator and an intermediate host prey, transmission from the intermediate host to the definitive host requiring consumption of infected intermediate host prey. The variable sizes of squares, circles and diamonds represent relative intermediate and definitive hosts, and parasite abundances, respectively. During transmission, some parasites are unsuccessful and therefore lost from the system (parasite loss); the thickness of the arrows indicates the relative numbers that are either lost or successfully transmitted. The life cycle at the top represents the situation prior to the invasion, providing a benchmark for comparisons. (A) The invader is a suitable alternative intermediate host in which native parasite larvae can survive. However, the introduced host is also a poor transmission vector, due to low predation rate from the definitive host and/or failed host manipulation by the parasite, for example. Introduced hosts are thus more infected than their congeneric, native hosts only because of the accumulation of native parasite larvae that fail to get transmitted to the definitive host. This may in turn negatively affect parasite dynamics in native hosts as shown here. (B) The invader is again a suitable alternative intermediate host but also a good transmission vector to the definitive host, leading to greater infection risk for native definitive hosts. In this case, the invader positively influences parasite dynamics and may increase infection levels in definitive hosts, as shown here. In extreme cases, invasive hosts may be more efficient vectors for the parasite than native hosts and become key hosts. (C) The invader is not a suitable host but directly impacts native intermediate hosts, the transmission vector for the parasite, through predation and thus indirectly reduces native parasite abundance in native definitive hosts.
Fig. 1 in Impacts of crustacean invasions on parasite dynamics in aquatic ecosystems: A plea for parasite-focused studies
Fig. 1. Hypothetical examples of enemy release (A), dilution effect (B), parasite spillback (C) and spillover (D) following introduction of a non-native host in a recipient ecosystem, illustrating the fundamental differences among the different processes. The theoretical recipient ecosystem is here composed of a native host infected by a parasite with a simple life cycle and direct transmission, invaded by a congeneric non-native host infected with a co-introduced parasite with a similar life cycle, to simplify representation. The variable sizes of squares and diamonds represent relative host and parasite abundances, respectively. The thickness of the arrows represents transmission dynamics of the parasite and account for parasite loss during transmission. Enemy release (A) happens when the introduced species benefits from a reduction, or total loss as represented here, in parasitism as a result of invasion. This may in turn have drastic effects on invasion success and both native and invasive host abundances. Dilution effect (B) results from the failure of native parasites to use invasive hosts for successful reproduction and transmission. Native parasites may be unable to infect or be killed (as represented here) by the invasive host. Dilution may in turn decrease parasite transmission among native hosts and negatively affect parasite population dynamics. Parasite spillback (C) happens when invasive hosts acquire a native parasite that is already present in the native host population. Infected invasive hosts can then act as reservoirs of native parasites, potentially increasing infection levels in native hosts as represented here. Increased infection levels in the native host may in turn reduce native host abundance, compared to pre-invasion levels (not represented here). Parasite spillover (D) follows the co-introduction of non-native parasites with their invasive hosts and infection of native hosts by the introduced parasite. Infection of the native host can be maintained by the invasive host, which acts as a reservoir of infection, self-sustained if the parasite can reproduce in its novel host, or both as represented here. Infection of the native host by the introduced parasite can in turn influence host abundances, compared to pre-invasion levels. Note that in scenario D, the native host may or may not possess native parasites.
Fig. 3 in Impacts of crustacean invasions on parasite dynamics in aquatic ecosystems: A plea for parasite-focused studies
Fig. 3. Introduced parasites ‾ native/introduced hosts: hypothetical examples of the potential effects of invasive crustaceans on native parasites. Note that only a subsample of non-exclusive scenarios from a number of potential outcomes of non-native parasite introduction is represented here. The hypothetical non-native parasite considered here has a two-host life cycle involving a definitive host predator and an intermediate host prey, transmission from the intermediate host to the definitive host requiring consumption of infected intermediate host prey. The variable sizes of squares, circles and diamonds represent relative intermediate and definitive hosts, and parasite abundances, respectively. During transmission, some parasites are unsuccessful and therefore lost from the system (parasite loss); the thickness of the arrows indicates the relative numbers that are either lost or successfully transmitted. The life cycle at the top left represents the situation in the ecosystem of origin of the parasite, providing a benchmark for comparisons. Prior to the invasion, the hypothetical recipient ecosystem does not contain native parasites for simplification of representation. (A) The parasite is co-introduced with its intermediate host prey. The invasive parasite retains its original, co-introduced hosts and uses native definitive hosts to complete its life cycle. The situation represented here is the simplest one where the native predator exactly replaces the original definitive host of the parasite with no effect on either parasite dynamics or host abundance. However, parasite invasion may in turn negatively affect native predators and change parasite dynamics compared to that observed in the original ecosystem (shown at the top left). (B) The parasite is again cointroduced with its intermediate host prey. The invasive parasite retains its original, co-introduced hosts and uses native definitive hosts to complete its life cycle but also uses the native prey species as an alternative transmission vector. The introduced parasite may negatively influence native host abundance, thus influencing invasion success of its co-introduced host, as shown here. This may in turn lead to greater infection levels in definitive hosts in the recipient ecosystem than in the original ecosystem of the parasite (situation not represented here) (C) The non-native parasite is introduced without its original host (or this host does not survive translocation) but is subsequently included in the recipient food web. The novel parasite may in turn have drastic effects on intermediate and/or native hosts and reach higher infection levels in these novel hosts as represented here. However, a multitude of alternative scenarios are possible with as many outcomes in terms of parasite dynamics.
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>
A plea for scale, and why it matters for invasive species management, biodiversity, and conservation
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Supplementary material 1 from: Zermoglio PF, Plos A, Acosta N, Amaya L, Escobar DA, Grattarola F, Mancina CA, Nuñez F, Plata CA, Quintero E, Vargas M (2020) Latin American Plea for Incorporation of Other, Non-English Languages in TDWG Standards Documentation. Biodiversity Information Science and Standards 4: e58973. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.4.58973
Signatories to the petition for incorporation of other languages to the Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) standards and documentation
FIGURE 4 in Identifying species of Bythinella (Caenogastropoda: Rissooidea): A plea for an integrative approach
FIGURE 4. SEM images of morphological and anatomical details of B. opaca. A. protoconch; B. structure of protoconch; C. radula; D, E. apical view of penis (extended in D) with tubular accessory gland; F. tips of penis and tubular accessory gland with extruded papilla (arrow). A, B, D. Sand Grafenstein; C. Farchtnersee; E. Niedermarkt; F. Granitztal St. Paul. p, penis; tg, tubular accessory gland; t, tentacle. Scale bars = 300 µm in A, 200 µm in D, E, 50 µm in F, 20 µm in B, C.
FIGURE 3 in Identifying species of Bythinella (Caenogastropoda: Rissooidea): A plea for an integrative approach
FIGURE 3. Shells of Carinthian populations. A–G. B. opaca; H. B. angelitae, Tscheppaschlucht. A. Bärental; B. Farchtnersee; C. Granitztal St. Paul; D. Sand Grafenstein; E. Oberdrauburger Bach; F. Niedermarkt; G. Podkraj.
FIGURE 1 in Identifying species of Bythinella (Caenogastropoda: Rissooidea): A plea for an integrative approach
FIGURE 1. ArcGis (ESRI Inc.) generated map showing localities in the southern Austrian province of Carinthia and in Slovenia. Squares, B. angelitae; asterisk, B. robiciana; circles, B. opaca; triangle, Bythinella sp. (species assignments are a result of the current study). Localities are abbreviated by their first four letters (see Table 1).
FIGURE 2. Shells. A. B in Identifying species of Bythinella (Caenogastropoda: Rissooidea): A plea for an integrative approach
FIGURE 2. Shells. A. B. angelitae, holotype (and lectotype of Paludinella opaca Frauenfeld, 1857); B, C. B. angelitae, paratypes (and paralectotypes of P. opaca Frauenfeld, 1857); D. B. robiciana, topotype; E. B. opaca, (topotype of Paludina schmidtii Küster, 1852). Scale bar = 2 mm.
FIGURE 7 in Identifying species of Bythinella (Caenogastropoda: Rissooidea): A plea for an integrative approach
FIGURE 7. Phylogramme of most likely tree resulting from Bayesian analysis with posterior probabilities/majority rule consensus indices/bootstrap support values, the latter two from the maximum parsimony analysis. Outgroup pruned from tree. Populations are identified by their first four letters (see Table 1).
FIGURE 6 in Identifying species of Bythinella (Caenogastropoda: Rissooidea): A plea for an integrative approach
FIGURE 6. Distal genitalia of three females of B. angelitae from the Tscheppaschlucht. ag, albumen gland; bc, bursa copulatrix; bd, bursal duct; cg, capsule gland; go, genital opening; od, oviduct; rs, receptaculum seminis. Scale bar = 400 µm.
Data from: Description of a new Malagasy treefrog (Boophis) occurring syntopically with its sister species, and a plea for studies on non-allopatric speciation in tropical amphibians
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
FIGURE 5 in Identifying species of Bythinella (Caenogastropoda: Rissooidea): A plea for an integrative approach
FIGURE 5. Plot of canonical variates analysis. Locality names represent populations of B. opaca.
Figure 2 from: Mossakowski D, Dormann W (2011) A plea for using qualitative aspects in the interpretation of ecological field data as revealed by carabid beetle assemblages of a pristine salt marsh. ZooKeys 100: 273-286. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.100.1532
Figure 2 - IndVals at different levels in the UPGMA tree. Result for a single species, Dicheirotrichus gustavii, calculated by the original IndVal program. Eight values of the nine levels are significant. Data: abundance/frequency data. 7/4: a total of seven specimens were found in four of the five traps. Sites 102 and 103 are omitted.
Figure 1 from: Mossakowski D, Dormann W (2011) A plea for using qualitative aspects in the interpretation of ecological field data as revealed by carabid beetle assemblages of a pristine salt marsh. ZooKeys 100: 273-286. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.100.1532
Figure 1 - Result of a cluster analysis using Relative Euclidean distances and Ward's method. Most traps of the site at the lowest elevation (-20 cm below MHW) cluster with those of 100 cm above MHW. Arrow: One trap of -20 behaves differently.
Figure 3 from: Mossakowski D, Dormann W (2011) A plea for using qualitative aspects in the interpretation of ecological field data as revealed by carabid beetle assemblages of a pristine salt marsh. ZooKeys 100: 273-286. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.100.1532
Figure 3 - Results of the IndVal procedure depend on the tree used. Data: abundance/frequency of Cillenus lateralis along the elevation gradient. 3/3: a total of three specimens was found in three of the five traps. Sites 102 and 103 are omitted.
Supplementary material 1 from: Praz CJ, Bénon D (2023) Revision of the leachella group of Megachile subgenus Eutricharaea in the Western Palaearctic (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Megachilidae): A renewed plea for DNA barcoding type material. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 95: 143-198. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.95.96796
List of examined specimens, with BOLD and genbank accession numbers
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.