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.
12
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
12 results for “degraded areas”
Area Estimates of Forest Degradation and Deforestation in the Country of Georgia by Region
<p>Area estimates of forest degradation and deforestation in the country of Georgia by region from 1987 to 2019. Unit is square kilometers.</p> <p>georgia_forest_def_0512.csv: Area estimates of deforestation</p> <p>georgia_forest_deg_0512.csv: Area estimates of forest degradation</p> <p>Please cite the data as: <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425721003680">Chen, S., Woodcock, C.E., Bullock, E.L., Arévalo, P., Torchinava, P., Peng, S. and Olofsson, P., 2021. Monitoring temperate forest degradation on Google Earth Engine using Landsat time series analysis. Remote Sensing of Environment, 265, p.112648.</a></p> <p><a href="https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1devg7qzStnwW">Click here to get 50-day free access without registration</a></p>
Degradation corrected 0.05 degree GOME-2 SIF datasets in Amazon area
<p>An 8-day instrument degradation corrected 0.05 degree GOME-2 SIF dataset in Amazon area from 2010 to 2018. PK dataset from the spatially downscaled sun-induced fluorescence global product proposed by Gregory Duveiller in 2020 is corrected based on a pseudo-invariant method and then masked. Mean value composite method is used to produce monthly data. Files are organized in TIF format.</p>
Data from: Trends in habitat quality and habitat degradation within terrestrial protected areas
<p>Please see the paper<strong> "Trends in habitat quality and habitat degradation within terrestrial protected areas"</strong> for the definition of habitat quality, habitat degradation and different threats.</p> <p>This dataset describes global habitat quality and degradation for 2020, with a resolution of 250 m. Values of habitat quality and total habitat degradation can be used directly. <strong>Of note, values of habitat degradation caused by each threat should be multiplied by the relative threat weights before use.</strong> The details are as follows:</p> <ol> <li>"quality_c_2020.tif" represents habitat quality.</li> <li>"deg_sum_c_2020.tif" represents total habitat degradation which is caused by all 5 threats.</li> <li>"deg_sum_c_NonIrriCrp_2020.tif" represents habitat degradation caused by non-irrigated cropland, and should be multiplied by 0.2145 before use.</li> <li>"deg_sum_c_IrriCrp_2020.tif" represents habitat degradation caused by irrigated cropland, and should be multiplied by 0.2292 before use.</li> <li>"deg_sum_c_CrpVeg_2020.tif" represents habitat degradation caused by mosaic cropland-vegetation, and should be multiplied by 0.1623 before use.</li> <li>"deg_sum_c_VegCrp_2020.tif" represents habitat degradation caused by mosaic vegetation-cropland, and should be multiplied by 0.0541 before use.</li> <li>"deg_sum_c_Urban_2020.tif" represents habitat degradation caused by urban areas, and should be multiplied by 0.3400 before use.</li> </ol> <p>Besides, "InputData_forR.zip" provides data on protected-area-level habitat quality and habitat degradation, which is for statistical analyses by R in the paper "Trends in habitat quality and habitat degradation within terrestrial protected areas".</p>
Dataset: Recruitment responses of shade-tolerant and heliophilous trees in human-degraded areas: the necessity of knowing the recruitment autecology of species for making reforestation decisions
<p>This repository contains the files associated with the following article:</p> <p>Johanna Croce, Ernesto I. Badano, Andrés Tálamo. Recruitment responses of shade-tolerant and heliophilous trees in human-degraded areas: the necessity of knowing the recruitment autecology of species for making reforestation decisions Submitted to <em>Land Degradation & Development</em>.</p> <p>The first Microsoft Excel file (Dataset 01 - Microclimate.xlsx) contains two sheets with the microclimatic data (average, maximum and minimum soil temperatures, and volumetric soil water content) measured in Cerro Chachapoyas and Cerro Fachacano. These measurements were performed on three plots of each trearment, including shrub-protected treatment with high shade, shrub-protected treatment with medium shade, sunny treatment with high herbaceous cover, sunny treatment with medium herbaceous cover and controls. The second Microsoft Excel file (Dataset 02 -Plant responses.xlsx Dataset 02 - Plant responses.xlsx) contains three sheets with the data used to estimate the seedling emergence rates, plant survival rates and net aboveground growth rates of the tree species, including <em>Anadenanthera colubrina</em> and <em>Ceiba chodatii</em> in Cerro Chachapoyas, and <em>Jacaranda mimosifolia</em> in Cerro Fachacano.</p>
Mangrove deforestation and degradation areas in Indonesia 2009-2019
<p>Mangrove forests are important carbon sinks and this is especially true for Indonesia where about 24% of the world's mangroves exist. Unfortunately, vast expanses of these mangroves have been deforested, degraded or converted to other uses resulting in significant greenhouse gas emissions. The objective of this study was to quantify the climate change mitigation potential of mangrove conservation and restoration in Indonesia. We calculated the emission factors from the dominant land uses in mangroves, determined mangrove deforestation rates and quantified the total emissions and the potential emission reductions that could be achieved from mangrove conservation and restoration. Based upon our analysis of the carbon stocks and emissions from land use in mangroves we found: (1) Indonesia's mangrove ecosystem carbon stocks are amongst the highest of any tropical forest type; (2) mangrove deforestation results in greenhouse gas emissions that far exceed that of upland tropical deforestation; (3) in the last decade the rates of deforestation in Indonesian mangroves have remained high; and (4) conservation and restoration of mangroves promise to sequester significant quantities of carbon. While mangroves comprise only ≈2.6% of Indonesia's total forest area, their degradation and deforestation accounted for ≈10% of total greenhouse gas emissions arising from the forestry sector. The large source of greenhouse gas emissions from a relatively small proportion of the forest area underscores the value for inclusion of mangroves as a natural climate solution (NCS). Mangrove conservation is far more effective than mangrove restoration in carbon emissions reductions and an efficient pathway to achieve Indonesia's nationally determined contribution (NDC) targets. The potential emission reduction from halting deforestation of primary and secondary mangroves coupled with restoration activities could result in an emission reduction equivalent to 8% of Indonesia's 2030 NDC emission reduction targets from the forestry sector.</p>
Distribution. Now restricted to the Channel Country of SW Queensland and the Lake Eyre Basin in NE South Australia. Descriptive notes. Head-body 95-120 mm, tail 105-160 mm, ear 23-29 mm, hindfoot 32-37 mm; weight 30-50 g. The Fawn Hopping Mouse has body form typical of hopping mice, with very long hindfeet, long tail with distal brush of longer hairs, very long ears, and large protruberant eyes. Dorsal fur is of variable color, from pale pinkish fawn to gray; ventral fur white. Unlike most other hopping mice, it has no throat pouch, but males have a glandular area of naked skin on the chest. Habitat. Occurs in low shrublands and tussock grasslands on stony ("gibber") plains and claypans. Shows marked habitat segregation from the Dusky Hopping Mouse (N. fuscus), which is closely associated with sandy substrates. Food and Feeding. The Fawn Hopping Mouse is mostly granivorous, but also eats other plant material (stems, leaves) and occasionally invertebrates. It uses succulent, salt-adapted plants around edges of claypans as a source of water. Breeding. Reproduction is probably largely opportunistic and aseasonal, with high reproductive output from near-continuous breeding after periods of high rainfall; reported littersize is 1-5, most commonly three; gestation period 38-43 days for nonlactating females. Females may mature later than other hopping mice, with reproductive maturity reached at about six months. Activity patterns. Terrestrial and nocturnal. Fawn Hopping Mice shelter during day in burrow systems that are typically simpler and shallower than those of other hopping mice. Movements, Home range and Social organization. Fawn Hopping Mice generally live singly or in small groups; typically uncommon within range, but population density may increase by an order of magnitude following periods of high rainfall. Status and Conservation. Classified as Near Threatened on The IUCN Red List. The Fawn Hopping Mouse has shown marked decline in range (estimated at greater than 50%), and presumably population size, since European settlement of Australia. This is mostlikely due to predation by the introduced house cat and Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), and to habitat degradation associated with pastoralism. Bibliography. Brazenor (1934), Burbidge et al. (2008), Finlayson (1939), Gould (1853), Jackson & Groves (2015), Murray et al. (1999), Ogilby (1892), Thomas (1921h), Van Dyck & Strahan (2008), Waite (1898), Watts & Aslin (1981), Woinarski et al. (2014), Wood Jones (1925). in Muridae
Distribution. Now restricted to the Channel Country of SW Queensland and the Lake Eyre Basin in NE South Australia. Descriptive notes. Head-body 95-120 mm, tail 105-160 mm, ear 23-29 mm, hindfoot 32-37 mm; weight 30-50 g. The Fawn Hopping Mouse has body form typical of hopping mice, with very long hindfeet, long tail with distal brush of longer hairs, very long ears, and large protruberant eyes. Dorsal fur is of variable color, from pale pinkish fawn to gray; ventral fur white. Unlike most other hopping mice, it has no throat pouch, but males have a glandular area of naked skin on the chest. Habitat. Occurs in low shrublands and tussock grasslands on stony ("gibber") plains and claypans. Shows marked habitat segregation from the Dusky Hopping Mouse (N. fuscus), which is closely associated with sandy substrates. Food and Feeding. The Fawn Hopping Mouse is mostly granivorous, but also eats other plant material (stems, leaves) and occasionally invertebrates. It uses succulent, salt-adapted plants around edges of claypans as a source of water. Breeding. Reproduction is probably largely opportunistic and aseasonal, with high reproductive output from near-continuous breeding after periods of high rainfall; reported littersize is 1-5, most commonly three; gestation period 38-43 days for nonlactating females. Females may mature later than other hopping mice, with reproductive maturity reached at about six months. Activity patterns. Terrestrial and nocturnal. Fawn Hopping Mice shelter during day in burrow systems that are typically simpler and shallower than those of other hopping mice. Movements, Home range and Social organization. Fawn Hopping Mice generally live singly or in small groups; typically uncommon within range, but population density may increase by an order of magnitude following periods of high rainfall. Status and Conservation. Classified as Near Threatened on The IUCN Red List. The Fawn Hopping Mouse has shown marked decline in range (estimated at greater than 50%), and presumably population size, since European settlement of Australia. This is mostlikely due to predation by the introduced house cat and Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), and to habitat degradation associated with pastoralism. Bibliography. Brazenor (1934), Burbidge et al. (2008), Finlayson (1939), Gould (1853), Jackson & Groves (2015), Murray et al. (1999), Ogilby (1892), Thomas (1921h), Van Dyck & Strahan (2008), Waite (1898), Watts & Aslin (1981), Woinarski et al. (2014), Wood Jones (1925).
Study on the degradation pattern of impact crater communities in Yutu-2's rovering area
<p>Here are the DEM data and DOM data created using images taken by the Yutu-2 rover along the route between the 27th and 33rd moon days.</p> <p>And the extracted impact craters contain their degradation levels.</p> <p>All impact craters are classified into 5 categories (A-AB-B-BC-C)</p>
Mangrove deforestation and degradation areas in Indonesia 2009-2019
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Figure 3 from: Schwerk A, Szyszko J (2011) Model of succession in degraded areas based on carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). ZooKeys 100: 319-332. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.100.1534
Figure 3 - Model graphs based on the parameters in Table 1 for the relationship between MIB values (mg) and age of stands for the first 60 years in A planted stands on forest soil, B naturally regenerated stands on post-agricultural soil, C planted stands on post-agricultural soil, D stands on ash heap, and E stands on mining heap (Open circles indicate that MIB was calculated from less than 25 individuals; broken lines indicate that the respective part of the graph cannot be verified due to a lack of data).
Figure 2 from: Schwerk A, Szyszko J (2011) Model of succession in degraded areas based on carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). ZooKeys 100: 319-332. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.100.1534
Figure 2 - Schematic illustration of the model. Succession starts from an 'initial degradation level', followed by a facultative 'delay phase' (characterized by the time of 'delay'). The optional 'delay phase' is followed by an 'increase phase' (characterized by the 'increase rate'), and a 'stagnation phase' in which the succession process runs towards a 'recovery level'. The type of area, origin of vegetation, and landscape-related aspects are assumed to influence the trajectory of succession.
Figure 1 from: Schwerk A, Szyszko J (2011) Model of succession in degraded areas based on carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). ZooKeys 100: 319-332. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.100.1534
Figure 1 - Relationship between MIB values (mg) and age of stands in A planted stands on forest soil (r = 0.343, p <0.05), B naturally regenerated stands on post-agricultural soil (r = 0.677, p <0.001), C planted stands on post-agricultural soil (r = 0.238, p <0.001), D stands on ash heap (r = 0.025, n.s.) and E stands on mining heap (r = 0.839, p <0.001) (Open circles indicate that MIB was calculated from less than 25 individuals).
Proteinaceous Matter in PM2.5 in a Hilly Basin area, Southwestern China: Decreased Importance in Long-Range Transport and Atmospheric Degradation
<p>Data</p>
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.