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.
35
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
35 results for “coral reef ecosystem”
Indicative distribution map for Ecosystem Functional Group M1.3 Photic coral reefs
<p>This archive contains indicative distribution maps and profiles for <strong>M1.3 Photic coral reefs</strong>, a ecosystem functional group (EFG, level 3) of the <a href="https://global-ecosystems.org/">IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology</a> (v2.0). Please refer to Keith <em>et al.</em> (2020) for details.</p> <p>The descriptive profiles provide brief summaries of key ecological traits and processes, maps are indicative of global distribution patterns, and are not intended to represent fine-scale patterns. The maps show areas of the world containing major (value of 1, coloured red) or minor occurrences (value of 2, coloured yellow) of each ecosystem functional group. Minor occurrences are areas where an ecosystem functional group is scattered in patches within matrices of other ecosystem functional groups or where they occur in substantial areas, but only within a segment of a larger region. Given bounds of resolution and accuracy of source data, the maps should be used to query which EFG are likely to occur within areas, rather than which occur at particular point locations. Detailed methods and references for the maps are included in the profile (xml format).</p>
MCR LTER: Coral Reef: Landscape-scale patterns of nutrient enrichment in a coral reef ecosystem: implications for coral to algae phase shifts, Adam et al., Ecol. Appl.
These data and analyses code were generated in support of the manuscript: Adam TC, Burkepile DE, Holbrook SJ, Carpenter RC, Claudet J, Loiseau C, Thiault L, Brooks, AJ, Washburn L, and RJ Schmitt, Ecological Applications We investigated the potential role of anthropogenic nutrient loading in driving recent coral-to-macroalgae phase shifts on reefs in the lagoons surrounding Moorea, French Polynesia. We used nitrogen (N) tissue content and stable isotopes (δ15N) in an abundant macroalga (Turbinaria ornata) together with empirical models of nutrient discharge to describe spatial and temporal patterns of nutrient enrichment in the lagoons. Turbinaria ornata were collected at 190 sites around Moorea in January, May, and August 2016. These sampling periods corresponded with distinct seasonal shifts in rainfall and wave forcing. Our results revealed that patterns of N enrichment were linked to rainfall, wave-driven circulation, and distance from anthropogenic nutrient sources, especially human sewage. In addition to describing high resolution patterns of N enrichment from 2016, we also analyzed core MCR time series on N tissue content in Turbinaria ornata from three habitats (fringing reef, back reef, and reef crest) at the six core MCR LTER sites between 2007 and 2013. These data showed that fringing reefs have been consistently enriched in N relative to back reefs, which are enriched relative to the reef crest. Further, these patterns mirror long-term patterns of nitrate and nitrite concentrations in the water column. We also analyzed core MCR time series on benthic communities and fishes and found that back reef sites that were consistently enriched in N between 2007 and 2013 experienced large increases in macroalgae while macroalgae remained much less abundant at back reef sites with lower N. These phase shifts to macroalgae occurred despite island-wide increases in the density and biomass of herbivorous fishes over the time period. Together, these results indicate th
NOAA NCCOS Assessment: Agency priorities for mapping coral reef ecosystems in American Samoa, 2023-06-06 to 2023-08-07
<p>Description:</p><p>NOAA's Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP) has identified a need for priority locations based on emerging management requirements in shallow coral reef areas (up to 40 meters depth) surrounding American Samoa. The priorities provided by participating agencies will inform research and monitoring activities, address current and future management needs, and maximize opportunities to leverage and complement existing regional efforts.</p><p>To meet this need, NOAA's National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) developed a systematic, quantitative approach and online GIS application to gather seafloor mapping priorities from researchers and coral reef managers. Participants placed virtual coins into a grid overlaid on the project area to express the location of their mapping priorities. They also used pull-down menus to indicate specific mapping data needs and the rationale for their selections. Participants' inputs were compiled and analyzed to identify high priority areas along with their justifications and requirements. A total of nine participant groups entered their mapping priorities into the online tool. Identifying these high priority areas provide a critical spatial framework for prioritizing mapping efforts in shallow coral reef ecosystems in American Samoa.</p><p>Purpose:</p><p>The overall goal of the project was to systematically gather and quantify suggestions for mapping needs to support management of shallow coral reef ecosystems along the coast of the American Samoa. This dataset supports these goals by compiling input from a diversity of regional experts on their recommended priorities for mapping data collection.</p><p>Methods:</p><p>An advisory group was established which included individuals from NOAA CRCP and NOAA Fisheries. This advisory team customized the prioritization process specifically to meet the needs of CRCP and local coral reef manager priorities. In the online prioritization tool the study area was divided into 160 hexagonal grid cells 2.6 km2 in size. Existing relevant spatial datasets (e.g., bathymetry layers, Sanctuary Protection Areas, etc.) were provided as a digital atlas to help participants understand information and data gaps within the project area and to identify locations they wanted to prioritize for future data collections. Each participant was provided with 50 virtual coins to place into grid cells that they wished to prioritize. They were instructed to place more coins in grid cells that were higher priorities. A maximum of 5 coins could be placed into an individual grid cell. Respondents also reported why these locations were important by selecting a minimum of one, and a maximum of two, management uses from the following list: endangered species management (e.g.,), habitat restoration, monitoring, coastal vulnerability planning, watershed management, fisheries management, consultations and permitting, emergency response, and spatial protection and management. Respondents also reported requirements of data were needed in priority cells. A minimum of one, to a maximum of two choices were selected from the following list: delineations of large topographic features, delineations of hard vs. soft bottom, models of habitat suitability for key taxa or communities, delineations of substrate type (e.g. sand, mud, coral, rock), models of presence/absence or density of corals, identification of coral species and their local environments, documentation of individual specimen condition. Coin values were summarized and mapped to identify high priority areas, reasons for those priorities, and information needs. This ESRI shapefile contains the 2.6 km2 grid cells used in this prioritization and their associated coin values overall, as well as by management use, data product, and mapping methodology. Other summary values include the number of participants, number of participating groups, number of management uses, and number of data requirements. Additionally, coins for microscale (identification of coral species and their local environments and documentation of individual specimen condition), mesoscale (delineations of substrate type, models of presence/absence/density of corals), and regional (delineations of topographic features, delineations of hard vs. soft bottom, models of habitat suitability) requirements were summarized. Also included is a ranking of each grid cell based on the total number of coins, management uses, and participating groups allocating coins in the respective cell. For a complete description of the process and analysis see: Hile et al. 2023, in prep.</p>
NOAA NCCOS Assessment: Agency priorities for mapping coral reef ecosystems in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 2021-11-03 to 2022-01-14
<p>Description:</p> <p>The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) developed a spatial framework, process, and online application (Buja and Christensen 2019) to identify mapping needs along the Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Island (USVI) coasts to support shallow coral reef management by NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP). Participants from local, federal, academic, and other institutions (sixteen in Puerto Rico, eighteen in USVI), entered their priorities in an online participatory Geographic Information System (pGIS). Participants used virtual coins to denote their priorities in 2.6 km<sup>2</sup> hexagonal grid cells overlaid on the study area, individually for Puerto Rico and USVI. Grid cells with more coins were higher priorities than cells with fewer coins. Participants also reported why these locations were important, what data types were needed, and data collection methodologies using a pre-set list of options. Results were compiled, summarized, and mapped to identify high priority areas, reasons for those priorities, and information needs. Identifying these high priority areas provide a critical spatial framework for prioritizing mapping efforts in shallow coral reef ecosystems in Puerto Rico and USVI.</p> <p> </p> <p>Purpose:</p> <p>The overall goal of the project was to systematically gather and quantify suggestions for mapping needs to support management of shallow coral reef ecosystems along the coasts of Puerto Rico and USVI. This dataset supports these goals by compiling input from a diversity of regional experts on their recommended priorities for mapping data collection.</p> <p> </p> <p>Methods:</p> <p>An advisory group was established which included individuals from NOAA CRCP and NOAA Fisheries. This advisory team customized the pGIS process specifically to meet the needs of CRCP and local coral reef manager priorities. In the online pGIS, the Puerto Rico study area was divided into 2007 hexagonal grid cells 2.6 km2 in size. The USVI study area was divided into 644 hexagonal grid cells 2.6 km2 in size. Existing relevant spatial datasets (e.g., bathymetry, Sanctuary Protection Areas, etc.) were provided as a digital atlas to help participants understand information and data gaps within the project area and to identify locations they wanted to prioritize for future data collections. The pGIS was used by 16 participants in Puerto Rico and 18 participants in USVI to convey their recommendations. Each Puerto Rico participant was provided with 600 virtual coins to place into grid cells that they wished to prioritize. Each USVI participant was provided with 200 coins. They were instructed to place more coins in grid cells that were higher priorities. A maximum of 60 coins could be placed into an individual grid cell in Puerto Rico by each respondent, and a maximum of 20 coins could be place into an individual grid cell in USVI. Respondents also reported why these locations were important by selecting a minimum of one, and a maximum of two, management uses from the following list: endangered species management (e.g.,), habitat restoration, monitoring, coastal vulnerability planning, watershed management, fisheries management, consultations and permitting, emergency response, and spatial protection and management. Respondents also reported requirements of data were needed in priority cells. A minimum of one, to a maximum of two choices were selected from the following list: delineations of large topographic features, delineations of hard vs. soft bottom, models of habitat suitability for key taxa or communities, delineations of substrate type (e.g. sand, mud, coral, rock), models of presence/absence or density of corals, identification of coral species and their local environments, documentation of individual specimen condition. Coin values were summarized and mapped to identify high priority areas, reasons for those priorities, and information needs. This ESRI shapefile contains the 2.6 km2 grid cells used in this prioritization and their associated coin values overall, as well as by management use, data product, and mapping methodology. Other summary values include the number of participants, number of participating groups, number of management uses, and number of data requirements. Additionally, coins for microscale (identification of coral species and their local environments and documentation of individual specimen condition), mesoscale (delineations of substrate type, models of presence/absence/density of corals), and regional (delineations of topographic features, delineations of hard vs. soft bottom, models of habitat suitability) requirements were summarized. Also included is a ranking of each grid cell based on the total number of coins, management uses, and participating groups allocating coins in the respective cell. For a complete description of the process and analysis see: Kraus et al. 2022, in prep.</p> <p> </p>
Figure 1. - A in Possible collapse of reef shark populations in remote coral reef ecosystems in the Coral Sea (Western Pacific)
Figure 1. - A: Location of the Chesterfield and Bampton reefs in a central position among the Coral Sea, between the Australian Eastern coast and New Caledonia. B: Close up of the reefs where the 2010 and 2011 field trips were conducted; specific spots for shark surveys are shown with circles around the Bampton Reefs. C: Close up on the Chesterfield reefs with circles showing the locations for fishing and underwater visual surveys.
Figure 3 in Possible collapse of reef shark populations in remote coral reef ecosystems in the Coral Sea (Western Pacific)
Figure 3. - Comparison of average sizes of grey reef shark (C. amblyrhynchos) assessed through underwater visual censuses during the 2010 (blue) and 2011 (orange) field trips. In order to facilitate the comparison, shark numbers were linked to effort (h). Sizes above 120 cm TL are essentially rep- resented by the assessment in BF3 spot (North Avon Islet) for which densities and sizes were far above the rest of the Bampton and Chesterfield reefs.
Figure 2 in Possible collapse of reef shark populations in remote coral reef ecosystems in the Coral Sea (Western Pacific)
Figure 2. - Number of grey reef shark (C. amblyrhynchos) per size classes caught in Moorea Island (French Polynesia) and Chesterfield Islands reefs (New Caledonia), respectively, with similar techniques and fishing effort (25 h × 1 operator). The size difference was assessed as highly significantly (P <0.001), and greater in Moorea than in the Chesterfield, by a one-tailed Mann-Whitney U-test.
Fig. 5 in Preliminary observations of macrobenthic invertebrates and megafauna communities in the upper mesophotic coral ecosystems in Apo Reef Natural Park, Philippines
Fig. 5. Barplots represent the total species richness across the depths (A) and reef types (B). C and E show the abundance of macrobenthic invertebrates and megafauna, respectively, with their corresponding trophic groups across depths. D and F show the abundance of macrobenthic invertebrates and megafauna, respectively, with their corresponding trophic groups across reef types.
Fig. 3 in Preliminary observations of macrobenthic invertebrates and megafauna communities in the upper mesophotic coral ecosystems in Apo Reef Natural Park, Philippines
Fig. 3. Macrobenthic invertebrate species in Apo Reef Natural Park. A, Holothuria atra; B, Holothuria fuscogilva; C, Thelenota anax; D, Thelenotarubra lineata; E, Thromidia catalai; F, Tridacna sp.; G, Xetospongia sp.
Fig. 2 in Preliminary observations of macrobenthic invertebrates and megafauna communities in the upper mesophotic coral ecosystems in Apo Reef Natural Park, Philippines
Fig. 2. Reef fish and marine reptile megafaunal species in Apo Reef Natural Park. A, Eretmochelys imbricata; B, Bolbometopon muricatum; C, Balistoides viridescens; D, Cheilinus undulatus; E, Caranx melampygus; F, Cephalopholis argus; G, Macolor niger; H, Sphyraena qenie; I, Triaenodon obesus.
Fig. 1 in Preliminary observations of macrobenthic invertebrates and megafauna communities in the upper mesophotic coral ecosystems in Apo Reef Natural Park, Philippines
Fig. 1. Map showing the location of Apo Reef Natural Park in the Philippines, as well as, the study sites that were surveyed in March 2016.
Fig. 4 in Preliminary observations of macrobenthic invertebrates and megafauna communities in the upper mesophotic coral ecosystems in Apo Reef Natural Park, Philippines
Fig. 4. Results of the non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) across depths (A) and reef types (B). Analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) results along with the corresponding p values are included in the plots (A and B). Vectors showing the influence (direction and magnitude) of the different benthic cover on the species composition (C).
NOAA NCCOS Assessment: Agency priorities for mapping coral reef ecosystems in Hawaiʻi, 2022-07-08 to 2022-08-01
<p>Description</p> <p>NOAA's Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP) has identified a need for priority locations based on emerging management requirements in shallow coral reef areas (up to 40 meters) surrounding the main Hawaiian Islands. The priorities provided by participating agencies will inform research and monitoring activities, address current and future management needs, and maximize opportunities to leverage and complement existing regional efforts.</p> <p>To meet this need, NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) developed a systematic, quantitative approach and online GIS application to gather seafloor mapping priorities from researchers and coral reef managers. Participants placed virtual coins into a grid overlaid on the project area to express the location of their mapping priorities. They also used pull-down menus to indicate specific mapping data needs and the rationale for their selections. Participants’ inputs were compiled and analyzed to identify high priority areas along with their justifications and requirements. A total of 17 participant groups entered their mapping priorities into the online tool. Identifying these high priority areas provide a critical spatial framework for prioritizing mapping efforts in shallow coral reef ecosystems in Hawaiʻi.</p> <p>Purpose:</p> <p>The overall goal of the project was to systematically gather and quantify suggestions for mapping needs to support management of shallow coral reef ecosystems along the coasts of the main Hawaiian Islands. This dataset supports these goals by compiling input from a diversity of regional experts on their recommended priorities for mapping data collection.</p> <p>Methods:</p> <p>An advisory group was established which included individuals from NOAA CRCP and NOAA Fisheries. This advisory team customized the prioritization process specifically to meet the needs of CRCP and local coral reef manager priorities. In the online prioritization tool, the study area was divided into 1786 hexagonal grid cells 2.6 km<sup>2</sup> in size. Existing relevant spatial datasets (<em>e.g.</em>, bathymetry, protected areas, etc.) were provided as a digital atlas to help participants understand information and data gaps within the project area and to identify locations they wanted to prioritize for future data collections. Each participant was provided with 540 virtual coins to place into grid cells to denote their mapping needs. They were instructed to place more coins in grid cells that were higher priority. A maximum of 54 coins could be placed into an individual grid cell by each respondent. Participants also selected from a drop-down list of predefined management uses from the following list: endangered species management (e.g.,), habitat restoration, monitoring, coastal vulnerability planning, watershed management, fisheries management, consultations and permitting, emergency response, and spatial protection and management. Respondents also selected what map product requirements were needed in priority cells by selecting a minimum of one, to a maximum of two choices from the following list: delineations of large topographic features, delineations of hard vs. soft bottom, models of habitat suitability for key taxa or communities, delineations of substrate type (e.g. sand, mud, coral, rock), models of presence/absence or density of corals, identification of coral species and their local environments, documentation of individual specimen condition. Coin values were summarized and mapped to identify high priority areas, reasons for those priorities, and information needs. This ESRI shapefile contains the 2.6 km<sup>2</sup> grid cells used in this prioritization and their associated coin values overall, as well as by management use and map product requirement. Other summary values include the number of participants, number of participating groups, number of management uses, and number of map product requirements. Additionally, coins for microscale (identification of coral species and their local environments and documentation of individual specimen condition), mesoscale (delineations of substrate type, models of presence/absence/density of corals), and regional (delineations of topographic features, delineations of hard vs. soft bottom, models of habitat suitability) requirements were summarized. Also included is a ranking of each grid cell based on the total number of coins, management uses, and participating groups allocating coins in the respective cell. For a complete description of the process and analysis see: Kraus et al. 2023, in prep.</p> <p> </p>
Malaysian Coral Reef Ecosystem Resilience
<p>This dataset is based on coral reef resilience project conducted in Peninsular Malaysia islands. These islands are Pulau Perhentian, Pulau Redang, Pulau Tioman and Kepulauan Mersing. In this research, a list of prioritized resilience factors and anthropogenic stressed were examined to understand the resilience of the selected sites. The project was funded by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP). Please see the terms and conditions below for the usage of the data:</p> <p>1. Disclaimer: Data produced under this award and made available to the public must be accompanied by the following statement: "These data and related items of information have not been formally disseminated by NOAA, and do not represent any agency determination, view, or policy."</p> <p>2. Data Citation: Publications based on data, and new products derived from source data, must cite the data used according to the conventions of the Publisher, using unambiguous labels such as Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs). All data and derived products that are used to support the conclusions of a peer-reviewed publication must be made available in a form that permits verification and reproducibility of the results.</p>
NOAA NCCOS Assessment: Agency priorities for mapping coral reef ecosystems in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 2023-02-22 to 2023-06-12
<p>Description:<br> NOAA's Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP has identified a need for priority locations based on emerging management requirements in shallow coral reef areas (up to 40 meters) surrounding Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). The priorities provided by participating agencies will inform research and monitoring activities, address current and future management needs, and maximize opportunities to leverage and complement existing regional efforts.<br> To meet this need, NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) developed a systematic, quantitative approach and online GIS application to gather seafloor mapping priorities from researchers and coral reef managers. Participants placed virtual coins into a grid overlaid on the project area to express the location of their mapping priorities. They also used pull-down menus to indicate specific mapping data needs and the rationale for their selections. Participants’ inputs were compiled and analyzed to identify high priority areas along with their justifications and requirements. A total of seven participant groups entered their mapping priorities into the online tool for Guam and ten participant groups for CNMI. Identifying these high priority areas provide a critical spatial framework for prioritizing mapping efforts in shallow coral reef ecosystems in Guam and CNMI.</p> <p>Purpose:<br> The overall goal of the project was to systematically gather and quantify suggestions for mapping needs to support management of shallow coral reef ecosystems along the coasts of the Guam and CNMI. This dataset supports these goals by compiling input from a diversity of regional experts on their recommended priorities for mapping data collection.</p> <p>Methods:<br> An advisory group was established which included individuals from NOAA CRCP and NOAA Fisheries. This advisory team customized the prioritization process specifically to meet the needs of CRCP and local coral reef manager priorities. In the online prioritization tool, the Guam study area was divided into 153 hexagonal grid cells 2.6 km2 in size. The CNMI study area was divided into 330 hexagonal grid cells 2.6 km2 in size. Existing relevant spatial datasets (e.g., bathymetry, Sanctuary Protection Areas, etc.) were provided as a digital atlas to help participants understand information and data gaps within the project area and to identify locations they wanted to prioritize for future data collections. Each Guam participant was provided with 50 virtual coins to place into grid cells that they wished to prioritize. Each CNMI participant was provided with 110 coins. They were instructed to place more coins in grid cells that were higher priorities. A maximum of 5 coins could be placed into an individual grid cell in Guam by each respondent, and a maximum of 11 coins could be place into an individual grid cell in CNMI. Respondents also<br> reported why these locations were important by selecting a minimum of one, and a maximum of two, management uses from the following list: endangered species management (e.g.,), habitat restoration, monitoring, coastal vulnerability planning, watershed management, fisheries management, consultations and permitting, emergency response, and spatial protection and management. Respondents also reported requirements of data were needed in priority cells. A minimum of one, to a maximum of two choices were selected from the following list: delineations of large topographic features, delineations of hard vs. soft bottom, models of habitat suitability for key taxa or communities, delineations of substrate type (e.g. sand, mud, coral, rock), models of presence/absence or density of corals, identification of coral species and their local environments, documentation of individual specimen condition. Coin values were summarized and mapped to identify high priority areas, reasons for those priorities, and information needs. This ESRI shapefiles contain the 2.6 km2 grid cells used in this prioritization and their associated coin values overall, as well as by management use, data product, and mapping methodology. Other summary values include the number of participants, number of participating groups, number of management uses, and number of data requirements. Additionally, coins for microscale (identification of coral species and their local environments and documentation of individual specimen condition), mesoscale (delineations of substrate type, models of presence/absence/density of corals), and regional (delineations of topographic features, delineations of hard vs. soft bottom, models of habitat suitability) requirements were summarized. Also included is a ranking of each grid cell based on the total number of coins, management uses, and participating groups allocating coins in the respective cell. For a complete description of the process and analysis see: Hile et al. 2023, in prep.</p>
Bermuda Reef Ecosystem Assessment and Mapping Programme: Baseline Coral Reef and Fish data
<p>BREAM: Bermuda Reef Ecosystem Analysis and Mapping Programme, mapped all coral reefs across the Bermuda platform in 2003. We then surveyed over 200 sites for benthic and fish assemblages using the AGRRA.org v4 methods, with local modifications. See www.bermudaBREAM.org for more information about the baseline monitoring work, or to contact us for additional data and information.</p> <p>Contributors:</p> <p>Research Associates:</p> <p>Jessie Murdoch MSc; Robert Fisher, BFA; Gretchen Goodbody-Gringley, PhD, Matthew Strong BSc; Struan R. Smith PhD</p> <p>Undergraduate Interns</p> <p>Taylor Gorham, Anke Moesinger, Molly Sinnott, D’mitri Williams</p> <p>Graduate Interns</p> <p>Gerardo Toro-Farmer, Mike Colella, Brittany Huntington, Katherine Yates</p> <p>Volunteers</p> <p>Ian Murdoch; Judie Clee; Teddy Gosling; Gil Nolan; Lynn Wolfe</p> <p>RV Endurance Captain: Tim Hasselbring</p> <p> </p>
Data from: Challenging trophic position assessments in complex ecosystems: calculation method, choice of baseline, trophic enrichment factors, season and feeding guild do matter. A case study from Marquesas Islands coral reefs
<p>Assessments of ecosystem functioning are a fundamental ecological challenge and an essential foundation for ecosystem-based management. An understanding of species trophic positions (TP) is essential to characterize food web architecture. However, despite the intuitive nature of the concept, empirically estimating TP is a challenging task due to the complexity of trophic interaction networks. Various alternative methods are proposed to assess TPs, including different approaches to account for the different sources of organic matter at the base of the food web (the "baseline"). However, it is often not clear which methodological approach and which baseline choices are the most reliable. Using an ecosystem-wide assessment of a tropical reef (Marquesas Islands, French Polynesia, with available data for 70 coral reef invertebrate and fish species), we tested whether different commonly used TP estimation methods yield similar results and, if not, whether it is possible to identify the most reliable method. We found significant differences in TP estimates of up to 1.7 TP for the same species, depending on the method and the baseline used. When using bulk stable isotope data, the choice of the baseline significantly impacted TP values. Indeed, while δ<sup>15</sup>N values of macroalgae led to consistent TP estimates, those using phytoplankton generated unrealistically low TP estimates. The use of a conventional enrichment factor (i.e. 3.4 ‰) or a "variable" enrichment factor (i.e. according to feeding guilds) also produced clear discrepancies between TP estimates. Regarding the use of different calculation methods, TPs obtained with δ<sup>15</sup>N values of source amino acids (compound specifics isotope analysis) were close to those assessed with macroalgae, but evidenced the opposite seasonal pattern, with significantly lower TPs in winter than in summer for the majority of assessed species, with particularly pronounced differences for lower TP species. We use the observed differences to discuss possible drivers of the diverging TP estimates and the potential ecological implications.</p>
Assessing key ecosystem functions through soundscapes: a new perspective from coral reefs (Acoustic dataset)
<p>Acoustic dataset associated to "Assessing key ecosystem functions through soundscapes: a new perspective from coral reefs" - article published in Ecological Indicators (2019) <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105623">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105623</a></p> <p>All details about sampling are available in the Material and Methods section.</p> <p>Sound sample names are coded as follows : SITE_acq_hydro_100k_DDMMYY_HHMMSS.wav ; with HHMMSS in Local Time (UTC+3)</p>
Data from: Challenging trophic position assessments in complex ecosystems: calculation method, choice of baseline, trophic enrichment factors, season and feeding guild do matter. A case study from Marquesas Islands coral reefs
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Marine carbon dynamics in a coral reef ecosystem of Southern Taiwan
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.