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.
57
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
57 results for “flower visitor”
Floral Censuses and Surveys of Insect Visitors to Flowers, University of Michigan Biological Station, Summers 1984-1986
I investigated within- and between-year patterns of flowering phenology of plants and the insects that visited them in an isolated old field in northern Michigan, USA. The project goal was to document the dynamics of resource availabilty (each floral species produced nectar and/or pollen) and assess the implications of its temporal variation on the composition of the community of insects that exploited those resources. I censued the number of open flowers for each species in 50 4-m2 quadrats at 3- 5-day intervals from June-September 1984-1986, and in separate but contemporaneous surveys of the same quadrats recorded each insect species observed on any open flower. Census and survey details noted below.
Plant-flower visitor network from Avon Gorge, UK
<table> <tbody> <tr> <td>Abstract</td> <td>This dataset gathers information on interactions between plants<br>and their flower visitors collected throughout 2004 (11 surveys covering local flowering season) the Avon Gorge (England), an iconic field site well known for its rare plant populations. The study area (1480 m2 ) included a broad<br>range of flowering plants, and overall the dataset shows information for 260 species (81 plant species, 179 insect species and morphospecies).</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Classification System</td> <td>all taxa were identified by specialist taxonomists</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Sampling Description</td> <td>A total of 11 survey visits were carried out from 10 May to 27 September 2004, this covering the main period of insect activity. Flower and insect surveys took place approximately every 14 days under dry conditions. In each flower abundance survey, a stratified random design was used to select 1 m2 quadrats in the study area. The area was divided into nine sub-areas based on habitat type and accessibility. Each sub-area was divided into 1 m2 quadrats and 2·5% (37) of these were randomly selected per sampling occasion. In each quadrat, the number of floral units of each plant species was recorded, defined as the distance that a small bee (c.1 cm length) would fly, rather than walk (Saville 1993). For example, in the Asteraceae, a flower unit is the entire inflorescence while in the Rosaceae, a flower unit is a single flower. Thus, the floral unit is defined from the bee’s perspective rather than by flower anatomy. Rare flowers which were missed using this method were included in the food web data as rare species with an abundance of two flower units (which was the lowest number of units observed in the plot for any species).<br>In the insect surveys, an observation point was chosen for each flowering plant species by randomly selecting one of the quadrats where the species was present. All the flowering units that could be surveyed by a single observer (approximately a semi-circle with 1-m radius) were observed for 20 min. On consecutive sampling occasions, plant species were rotated through three time slots, the morning (09.00–12.00 h), early afternoon (12.00–15.00 h) and late afternoon (15.00–18.00 h), to allow each species to be observed equally over time. At least two floral units were observed per plant species per sample. All flower–visitor interactions were recorded, and all visitors observed were collected for identification. To estimate the overall abundance of each plant species, the average number of flower units per 1 m 2 quadrat was multiplied by the total area of the study site. To estimate the interaction frequency for each visitor–plant species pair, we divided the total number of visits recorded by the number of flower units observed (per 20 min) and then multiplied by the total number of floral units in the study plot. By collecting the insects, we did not allow for repeated visits by the same individual; hence, some visitation frequencies may be underestimated. However, collecting specimens is essential for identification of most visitor species. Hymenoptera, Diptera, and Coleoptera were identified by taxonomists either to species or to morphospecies. Lepidoptera were identified to species by the authors and Heteroptera and parasitoids were morphotyped by the authors.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
Fig. 1 in Insect visitors to flowering buckwheat, Fagopyrum esculentum (Polygonales: Polygonaceae), in north-central Florida
Fig. 1. Map depicting location of eight 2 ha buckwheat fields utilized for this study in north-central Florida.
Linked collectors and determiners for: Chilean flower visitors.
Natural history specimen data linked to collectors and determiners held within, "Chilean flower visitors". Claims or attributions were made on Bionomia by volunteer Scribes, <a href="https://bionomia.net/dataset/ec4e6fa9-9bae-4e5b-af77-17cf0a1a6725">https://bionomia.net/dataset/ec4e6fa9-9bae-4e5b-af77-17cf0a1a6725</a> using specimen data from the dataset aggregated by the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, <a href="https://gbif.org/dataset/ec4e6fa9-9bae-4e5b-af77-17cf0a1a6725">https://gbif.org/dataset/ec4e6fa9-9bae-4e5b-af77-17cf0a1a6725</a>. Formatted as a Frictionless Data package.
R code and datasets for flower-visitor interactions (pollinators, robbers, thieves) and plant traits from Mount Cameroon
<p>Raw data and R code for: <strong>Cheaters among pollinators: Nectar robbing and thieving vary spatiotemporally with floral traits in Afrotropical forests. </strong><i>Ecosphere, 2023</i>. doi: 10.1002/ecs2.4696<br> </p><p>When using the dataset for anything, cite the Sakhalkar et al. <i>Ecosphere </i>paper.</p><p><br>All related information can be found in the cited paper. For additional information, refer to the paper or write to either robert.tropek@gmail.com or sailee.sakha@gmail.com.</p>
Flower visitors and fruit set of sweet cherry in Germany
<p><span>Mason bees (<em>Osmia </em>spp.) are efficient fruit tree pollinators that can be encouraged to occupy and breed in artificial nesting material. </span><span>In sweet cherry orchards</span><span>, they are occasionally used as an alternative managed pollinator as a replacement for or in addition to honey bees (<em>Apis</em> <em>mellifera</em>). Yet, the lack of practical guidelines on management practices, e.g., optimal stocking rates, for both mason bee nesting material and honey bees might compromise pollination service provision. In this study, we assessed the relationship between stocking rates (honey bee hives and mason bee nesting material) and the abundance of honey bees and mason bees in 17 sweet cherry (<em>Prunus</em> <em>avium</em>) orchards in Central Germany. </span><span>We furthermore performed a</span><span> pollination experiment </span><span>to</span><span> explore the interactive effect of mason bees and honey bees on sweet cherry fruit set. In the orchards, both honey bee and mason bee abundance increased with increasing stocking rates of hives or nesting material, respectively. Honey bee abundance increased linearly with stocking rates. In contrast, mason bee abundance asymptoted at 2-3 nesting boxes per ha, beyond which more boxes resulted </span><span>in</span><span> little increase in visitation rate. Our pollination experiment demonstrated that the orchards were pollen limited, with only 28% of insect-pollinated flowers setting fruit versus 39% of optimally hand-pollinated flowers. Honey bees and mason bees enhanced sweet cherry fruit set, but only when both were present and not when either was present alone in an orchard. Our findings demonstrate that offering nesting material for mason bees and employing honey bee hives can enhance bee abundance in sweet cherry orchards. By increasing honey bee abundance in combination with enhanced mason bee abundance, farmers can </span><span>substantially</span><span> boost fruit set and potentially sweet cherry yield. To enhance pollination services, farmers should consider the benefits of increasing pollinator biodiversity as an immediate</span><span> benefit to improve crop yields.</span></p>
Flower-visitor and pollen-load data provide complementary insight into species and individual network roles
<p>Most animal pollination results from plant-insect interactions, but how we perceive these interactions may differ with the sampling method adopted. The two most common methods are observations of visits by pollinators to plants and observations of pollen loads carried by insects. Each method could favour the detection of different species and interactions, and pollen load observations typically reveal more interactions per individual insect than visit observations. Moreover, while observations concern plant and insect individuals, networks are frequently analysed at the level of species. Although networks constructed using visitation and pollen-load data have occasionally been compared in relatively specialised, bee-dominated systems, it is not known how sampling methodology will affect our perception of how species (and individuals within species) interact in a more generalist system. Here we use a Diptera-dominated high-Arctic plant--insect community to explore how sampling approach shapes several measures of species' interactions (focusing on specialisation), and what we can learn about how the interactions of individuals relate to those of species. We found that species degrees, interaction strengths, and species motif roles were significantly correlated across the two method-specific versions of the network. However, absolute differences in degrees and motif roles were greater than could be explained by the greater number of interactions per individual provided by the pollen-load data. Thus, despite the correlations between species roles in networks built using visitation and pollen-load data, we infer that these two perspectives yield fundamentally different summaries of the ways species fit into their communities. Further, individuals' roles generally predicted the species' overall role, but high variability among individuals means that species' roles cannot be used to predict those of particular individuals. These findings emphasize the importance of adopting a dual perspective on bipartite networks, as based on the different information inherent in insect visits and pollen loads.</p>
Pollinator efficiency of avocado (Persea americana) flower insect visitors
<p>Pollination services from insects are important for higher yield and better fruit quality in avocado (<em>Persea americana Mill.</em>). Measuring pollinator effectiveness is significant for capturing the relative contributions of different insect taxa to pollination services and for identification of the most important pollinators of this globally important crop. In the present study, we tested pollinator efficiency of avocado in Kenya based on pollen deposition after single visits of flowers by different pollinator species and visitation frequency. We monitored the pollination frequency during the flowering period replicated across six farms. Three trees were selected per farm, each <span>with five flower panicles.</span> Out of the <span>14 </span>observed insect flower visitor species, pollen deposition efficiency was highest in the Western honey bee (<em>Apis mellifera L.</em>), followed by the hover fly species (<em>Phytomia incisa W</em>.). These two species had both the highest pollen deposition and pollen grain loads on their bodies. Furthermore, <em>A. mellifera</em> was the most frequent avocado flower visitor followed by Diptera except hoverflies. Our results imply that A. mellifera can be managed to achieve adequate pollination services for avocado, particularly in areas lacking efficient wild pollinators.</p>
Database of plant-flower visitor interactions from Ireland
<p><span>Beneficial insects provide valuable services upon which we rely, including pollination. Pollinator conservation is a global priority, and a significant concern in Ireland, where over half of extant bee species have declined significantly in recent decades. As flower-visiting insects rely on flowering plants, one way to conserve and promote pollinator populations is to protect high-quality habitat. We analysed the structure of </span><span>insect-flower interactions</span><span> from multiple habitat categories in a large database of interactions from Ireland. Our primary goals were to compare spatial and temporal variation in Irish network structures, compare Irish networks to published networks from other countries, and provide evidence-based recommendations for pollinator conservation in Ireland by identifying well-visited plant species that may promote high pollinator diversity, abundance, and functional complementarity. Habitat types within Ireland differed substantially: semi-natural grasslands had the highest pollinator species richness and largest number of unique pollinator species, while intensively-managed habitats exhibited negative asymmetry (more plant than pollinator species). This negative asymmetry is notable because most plant-pollinator networks exhibit a positive asymmetry. Within intensively-managed habitats, agricultural and urban habitats differed. Urban habitats had the highest number of non-native plant species while agricultural habitats had the lowest pollinator species richness. We also found Irish networks varied across the growing season, where July had the highest plant and insect species richness. When comparing Irish networks to published networks from other countries, we found Irish networks had a higher ratio of plant species to pollinator species, and that this difference was most evident in agricultural habitats. This ratio means the typical network asymmetry (more pollinator than plant species) was flipped (more plant than pollinator species) in the Irish network. We conclude that conserving semi-natural grasslands in Ireland will be an essential component of pollinator conservation and identify thirty-five plant species important for restoring semi-natural habitats.</span></p>
Fine-scale temporal dynamics of flower visitors sheds light on the pollination strategy of a dioecious palm in the Ecuadorian Andes
<p>Background: Dioecious plants generally display sexual dimorphism in male and female floral traits, potentially attracting slightly different pollinator communities. The sharing of common floral visitors between male and female flowers and their timing of visits to both sexes is of critical importance to ensure plant's reproductive success. Palm inflorescences are visited by abundant and diverse insect communities, yet the temporal patterns of insect visits on both sexes remain poorly known.</p> <p>Results: We report 59 morphospecies in the arthropod community, dominated by three beetle families: Staphylinidae, Nitidulidae and Curculionidae. Male inflorescences were more abundantly visited than female, but visitors of the later were taxonomically more diverse. Among the 16 pollinator candidates identified, 9 visited both inflorescence sexes synchronously at dusk /night whereas the others did so asynchronously during the day.</p> <p>Conclusion: Our study provides new insights into the pollination mechanism of P. aequatorialis. We found evidence of differential pollinator attraction between floral sexes, which may be explained by the sexual dimorphism of both flowers. Synchronicity in dusk/night visits of both inflorescence sexes suggests a sexual synchronization of the signal used to attract pollinators.</p>
Exploring spatiotemporal dynamics of flower visitor association pattern on two Avicennia mangroves: A network approach
<p>All the data sets used in the analyses of this study are provided here along with the <strong>R-Script.</strong><br> The datasets for foraging behaviour and Generalized linear mixed models will be provided upon request to the first or corresponding author of this article.</p> <p><strong>Please note that, in this R-script, we have shown the codes only for one dataset of respective analyses.</strong><br> <strong>PLEASE NOTE: In this R-script, there are two minor mistakes, as follows:<br> 1) Line no. 46<br> Present code: </strong><strong>nulls <- nullmodel(I_S.network, N=1000, method=3) ##(3=Vaznull) ## file name mistake<br> Correct code: nulls <- nullmodel(AO_Site, N=1000, method=3) ##(3=Vaznull)</strong></p> <p><strong>2) Line no. 55<br> Present code: AO_Site_V<-AM_Site[,-1] ##Omitting individual coloumn(species) ## file name mistake<br> Correct code: AO_Site_V<-AO_Site[,-1] ##Omitting individual coloumn(species)</strong></p> <ul> <li><strong>Description of the data set</strong></li> </ul> <p>Data explorers the plant-flower visitor network with spatiotemporal approaches. Here, AM denotes <em>Avicennia marina </em>and AO denotes <em>Avicennia officinalis. </em>For the overall site-visitor network (combining all years and all time frames) datasets are AO_Site and AM_Site.</p> <p>For the overall visiting time-visitor network (combining all years and all sites) the datasets are AO_Time and AM_Time</p> <p>For the site-visitor networks on the yearly scale, the datasets are AO_2016, AO_2017, AO_2018, AM_2016, AM_2017 and AM_2018.</p> <p>For the site-specific visiting time-visitor networks the datasets are AO_Satjelia, AO_Bali, AO_Sagar, AO_Bakkhali, AM_Satjelia, AM_Bali, AM_Sagar and AM_Bakkhali.</p>
Pan trap and plant-flower visitor observation data for: Multi-species crop mixtures increase insect biodiversity in an intercropping experiment
<ol> <li><span>Recent biodiversity declines require action across sectors such as agriculture. The situation is particularly acute for arthropods, a species-rich taxon providing important ecosystem services. To counteract negative consequences of agricultural intensification, creating a less hostile agricultural "matrix" through growing crop mixtures can reduce harm for arthropods without yield losses. </span></li> <li><span>While grassland biodiversity experiments showed positive plant biodiversity effects on arthropods, experiments manipulating crop diversity and agrochemical input use to study arthropods are lacking. </span></li> <li><span>Here, we experimentally manipulated crop diversity (1–3 species, fallows), crop species (wheat, faba bean, linseed, oilseed rape) and agrochemical input (high vs. low) and studied responses of arthropod biodiversity. We tested if arthropod responses were affected by crop diversity, mixtures and management. Additionally, we measured crop biomass.</span></li> <li><span>Crop biomass increased with crop diversity under high-input mangement, while under low management intensity, biomass was highest in two-species mixtures.</span></li> <li><span>Increasing crop diversity positively affected arthropod abundance and diversity, both under low- and high-input management. Crop mixtures containing faba bean, linseed or oilseed rape had particularly high arthropod diversity.</span></li> <li><span>Mass-flowering crops attracted more arthropods than legumes or cereals. Integrating intercropping into agricultural systems could increase flower visits by insects up to 15 million per hectare, thus likely also supporting pollination and pest-control ecosystem services.</span></li> <li><span>Flower-visitor network complexity increased in mixtures containing linseed and faba bean, and under low-input management.</span></li> <li><span>Intercropping can counteract insect declines in farmland by creating beneficial matrix habitat without compromising crop yield.</span></li> </ol>
Flower visitors and fruit set of sweet cherry in Germany
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Ants on flowers: Protective ants impose a low but variable cost to pollination, moderated by location of extrafloral nectaries and type of flower visitors
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Pollinator efficiency of avocado (Persea americana) flower insect visitors
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Pan trap and plant-flower visitor observation data for: Multi-species crop mixtures increase insect biodiversity in an intercropping experiment
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Flower-visitor and pollen-load data provide complementary insight into species and individual network roles
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Database of plant-flower visitor interactions from Ireland
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Fine-scale temporal dynamics of flower visitors sheds light on the pollination strategy of a dioecious palm in the Ecuadorian Andes
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Haplopappus floral volatiles, flower visitors' preferences, and floral-visitors interaction outcomes along an Andean elevational gradient
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.