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.
147
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
147 results for “ground-dwelling”
Long-term monitoring of ground-dwelling arthropods in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area of central Arizona, USA (1998-2025)
The Central Arizona–Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research (CAP LTER) program has been monitoring ground-dwelling arthropods (e.g., insects, ararchnids) at locations throughout the greater Phoenix metropolitan area (GPMA) and surrounding Sonoran desert region since 1998. Monitoring locations span a diversity of habitat types, including mesic and xeric residential yards, commercial areas, agricultural fields, desert locations within the GPMA (desert remnant), and undisturbed desert locations. Organisms are collected quarterly using unbaited pitfall traps, typically ten per location but with some variation, exposed for approximately seventy-two hours. Organisms are identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level and enumerated. Many of the sampling locations established at the beginning of the monitoring project were relocated in 2001-2002 to overlap with the CAP LTER's Ecological Survey of Central Arizona (ESCA; formerly named Survey200) long-term monitoring sites, although within the same general landscape categories.
Long-term monitoring of ground-dwelling arthropods in the McDowell Sonoran Preserve, Scottsdale, Arizona (2012-2025)
*Project overview* Protected lands, such as the McDowell Sonoran Preserve (hereafter referred to as the Preserve) in Scottsdale, Arizona, provide critical refuge for native biota and natural, ecological processes within and near urban environments. At the same time, a key feature that makes urban, open-space preserves so valuable − their proximity to urban areas − places strain on the ecological integrity of these systems through visitation, habitat fragmentation, and the introduction of exotic species among others. Effective management of these systems requires detailed knowledge of the biota within the protected area, and monitoring of ecological indicators through time. Arthropods are well suited to monitoring ecological health. This diverse group of organisms typically reflects overall biological diversity of a system, and includes several trophic levels; their short generation times mean they will likely respond quickly to change; and they are relatively easy to sample. As part of a broad effort by the McDowell Sonoran Conservance Field Institute, an organization that oversees science and research in Preserve, to establish a baseline inventory of biota in the Preserve, investigators with the Central Arizona−Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research (CAP LTER) program at Arizona State University (ASU) in collaboration with Field Institute Citizen Scientists are monitoring ground-dwelling arthropods at select locations that reflect a diversity of habitat within the Preserve. Investigators employ a sampling design that is intended to provide insight regarding influence of the urban-wildland interface on the arthropod community within the protected area. The simple but effective technique of pitfall trapping is used to sample ground-dwelling arthropods at select locations spanning a wide range of habitat with the Preserve. Additional collections of vegetation-dwelling arthropods have been conducted at the sampling locations at periodic intervals. *Project design and sa
Long-term monitoring of ground-dwelling arthropods in the McDowell Sonoran Preserve, Scottsdale, Arizona, ongoing since 2012 (Reformatted to the ecocomDP Design Pattern)
This data package is formatted as an ecocomDP (Ecological Community Data Pattern). For more information on ecocomDP see https://github.com/EDIorg/ecocomDP. This Level 1 data package was derived from the Level 0 data package found here: https://pasta.lternet.edu/package/metadata/eml/knb-lter-cap/643/3. The abstract below was extracted from the Level 0 data package and is included for context:
Long-term monitoring of ground-dwelling arthropods in central Arizona-Phoenix, ongoing since 1998 (Reformatted to the ecocomDP Design Pattern)
This data package is formatted as an ecocomDP (Ecological Community Data Pattern). For more information on ecocomDP see https://github.com/EDIorg/ecocomDP. This Level 1 data package was derived from the Level 0 data package found here: https://pasta.lternet.edu/package/metadata/eml/knb-lter-cap/41/16. The abstract below was extracted from the Level 0 data package and is included for context: The Central Arizona–Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research (CAP LTER) program has been monitoring ground-dwelling arthropods (e.g., insects, ararchnids) at locations throughout the greater Phoenix metropolitan area (GPMA) and surrounding Sonoran desert region since 1998. Monitoring locations span a diversity of habitat types, including mesic and xeric residential yards, commercial areas, agricultural fields, desert locations within the GPMA (desert remnant), and undisturbed desert locations. Organisms are collected quarterly using unbaited pitfall traps, typically ten per location but with some variation, exposed for approximately seventy-two hours. Organisms are identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level and enumerated. Many of the sampling locations established at the beginning of the monitoring project were relocated in 2001-2002 to overlap with the CAP LTER’s Ecological Survey of Central Arizona (ESCA; formerly named Survey200) long-term monitoring sites, although within the same general landscape categories.
Long-term monitoring of ground-dwelling arthropods in the McDowell Sonoran Preserve, Scottsdale, Arizona, ongoing since 2012 (Reformatted to a Darwin Core Archive)
This data package is formatted as a Darwin Core Archive (DwC-A, event core). For more information on Darwin Core see https://www.tdwg.org/standards/dwc/. This Level 2 data package was derived from the Level 1 data package found here: https://pasta.lternet.edu/package/metadata/eml/edi/248/2, which was derived from the Level 0 data package found here: https://pasta.lternet.edu/package/metadata/eml/knb-lter-cap/643/3. The abstract below was extracted from the Level 0 data package and is included for context:
Long-term monitoring of ground-dwelling arthropods in central Arizona-Phoenix, ongoing since 1998 (Reformatted to a Darwin Core Archive)
This data package is formatted as a Darwin Core Archive (DwC-A, event core). For more information on Darwin Core see https://www.tdwg.org/standards/dwc/. This Level 2 data package was derived from the Level 1 data package found here: https://pasta.lternet.edu/package/metadata/eml/edi/254/2, which was derived from the Level 0 data package found here: https://pasta.lternet.edu/package/metadata/eml/knb-lter-cap/41/16. The abstract below was extracted from the Level 0 data package and is included for context: The Central Arizona–Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research (CAP LTER) program has been monitoring ground-dwelling arthropods (e.g., insects, ararchnids) at locations throughout the greater Phoenix metropolitan area (GPMA) and surrounding Sonoran desert region since 1998. Monitoring locations span a diversity of habitat types, including mesic and xeric residential yards, commercial areas, agricultural fields, desert locations within the GPMA (desert remnant), and undisturbed desert locations. Organisms are collected quarterly using unbaited pitfall traps, typically ten per location but with some variation, exposed for approximately seventy-two hours. Organisms are identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level and enumerated. Many of the sampling locations established at the beginning of the monitoring project were relocated in 2001-2002 to overlap with the CAP LTER’s Ecological Survey of Central Arizona (ESCA; formerly named Survey200) long-term monitoring sites, although within the same general landscape categories.
Soil microarthropods, ground-dwelling arthropods and soil properties in mown and grazed grasslands in the Veluwe region
<p>In order to find out which factors limit the restoration of soil life and their ecosystem services under grasslands on sandy soils, we studied 40 grasslands of which 20 had agricultural and 20 nature land use, all after an agricultural history.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Site selection</strong></p> <p>Within the Veluwe region (The Netherlands), we selected 40 grasslands: 20 agricultural grasslands and 20 nature grasslands which were managed as new nature reserves since last tillage. Within each of these two land-use types, two types of grassland management were selected: mowing and grazing. Within each of the four combinations of land use and management we selected ten grasslands over a broad age range since last tillage. All grasslands were located on sandy soils (Typic Haploquod and Plaggeptic Haploquod; Soil Survey Staff 1999) with a deep water table to rule out dispersal of soil fauna during waterlogging (Siepel 1996; Jabbour & Barbercheck 2008).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Vegetation and insect surveys</strong></p> <p>Within each grassland a 5×5 meter monitoring plot was laid-out for plant cover surveys, insect and soil-microarthropod sampling and soil analyses. The vegetation surveys were carried out in 2019 at the end of May and in early June, using the Braun-Blanquet method (Braun-Blanquet 1932). In June 2019 soil-surface dwelling insects were sampled with a pitfall trap (Wiggers et al. 2015). Three pitfall traps (8 cm diameter, ca. 20 cm deep) were placed in each plot. Traps were half filled with a solution of water and glycol (3:1) and 3 % Extran soap. A plexiglass cover 20 cm above the trap prevented rainfall diluting the liquid. Traps were removed and emptied after seven days. Insects were identified and grouped at the order level, however, predator groups (carabid and staphylinid beetles, ants and spiders) were identified to the species level in order to group those by their feeding guild.</p> <p> Before analyzing the pitfall trap catches we first removed certain groups from the counts because pitfall traps are not well-suited to catch them systematically: Acari, Collembola, Psocoptera, Thysanoptera, Trichoptera, Lepidoptera, Siphonaptera, Diptera, Symphyta, Apocrita, and Parasitica. The remaining 62.0% of the caught individuals were surface-dwelling animals, and their totals (of three pitfall traps per site) were analyzed with negative-binomial generalized linear models. We also analyzed the subset of predators (73.6% of the surface dwellers).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Soil chemical and pesticide sampling and analysis</strong></p> <p>On 8, 9 and 16 October 2019, a bulk soil sample of 50 soil cores (0 - 10 cm) was collected from each 5×5 meter monitoring plot. After homogenization a sub-sample was analyzed for soil chemical analysis. Prior to chemical analysis, samples were oven-dried at 40 °C. Soil acidity of the oven-dried samples was measured in 1 M KCl (pH-KCl). Soil Organic Matter (SOM) was determined by loss-on-ignition (Ball 1964). Ammonium-lactate-extractable P (PAL) was determined according to the standard method (Bronswijk et al. 2003). Total potassium (K) in solution was determined using flame photometry after extraction of soil with HCl (0.1 M) and oxalic acid (0.5 M) in a 1:10 M:V ratio and filtration (Bronswijk et al. 2003). Clay (<2 μm diameter) content was determined through density fractionation (NEN 5753, 2018). Another soil sub-sample was sent to Eurofins Zeeuws-Vlaanderen for pesticide/residue analysis. Samples were freeze-dried and homogenized prior to analysis. Homogenized samples were extracted with acetone, petroleum ether and dichloro-methane using an optimized mini-Luke method. In total 664 pesticides and pesticide residues were analyzed with gas chromatography (Agilent) and liquid chromatography (LC-chromatograph (Agilent) and MSMS (Sciex)). Glyphosate, its residue AMPA and gluphosinate were analyzed using single residue analysis. The detection limit (LOD) was 0,1 mg per kg sample.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Soil microarthropods sampling and determination</strong></p> <p>Grasslands were sampled for microarthropods on 8, 9 and 16 October 2019, taking three cores per monitoring plot of 5×5 m. Cores were 5 cm Ø and 5 cm deep mineral soil plus upper litter. Cores were taken in the middle of the monitoring plots, 1 m apart from each other. Cores were extracted on a Tullgren funnel for 7 days. During that period temperature was increased from 35 to 45 <sup>0</sup>C. Ethanol 70% was used as conservation fluid and microarthropods obtained were put into lactic acid 30% for clarification and identification (Siepel & van de Bund 1988). Identification for the main groups is according to Weigmann (2006) for Oribatida, Karg (1993) for Gamasina and Karg (1989) for Uropodina. Nomenclature is according to Siepel et al. (2009) (Oribatida), Siepel et al. (2016) (Astigmatina) and Siepel et al. (2018) (Mesostigmata).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Litter decomposition</strong></p> <p>To determine the potential decomposition of soil organic matter on each grassland the Tea Bag Index (TBI) was used (Keuskamp et al. 2013). In each grassland four green tea and four rooibos tea bags were buried at 8 cm deep in May 2019 in the 5×5 meter monitoring plots. After 90 days tea bags were collected and stored at 4 ⁰C prior to drying at 70 ⁰C for 48 hours. After drying, remaining sand and (fine) plant roots were carefully removed and the teabags were weighted to determine weight loss. The decomposition rate (<em>k</em>) and the litter stabilization factor (<em>S</em>) of the tea was calculated using the Tea Bag Index (Keuskamp et al. 2013).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Data files</strong></p> <p><em><strong>siteData.csv</strong></em></p> <p>site: grassland ID</p> <p>landuse: agricultural or nature land use</p> <p>treat: mowing or grazing management</p> <p>yearsManaged: number of years since last tillage</p> <p>fertilization: kg available nitrogen applied per hectare</p> <p>nGrazingDaysPerHa: livestock days per hectare per year</p> <p>N: mg nitrogen per 100 g </p> <p>PAl: mg P<sub>2</sub>0<sub>5</sub> per 100 g</p> <p>organicMatter: soil organic matter percentage</p> <p>clay: soil clay percentage</p> <p>nPlantSpecies: number of plant species</p> <p>nForbSpecies: number of forb species</p> <p>nMitesSpringtails: total number of individuals of mites and springtails in three core samples</p> <p>nMitesSpringtailsSpecies: number of mite and springtail species in three core samples</p> <p>shannonMitesSpringtails: Shannon diversity index for microarthropods (mites and springtails)</p> <p>nHerboFungivorousGrazerMitesSpringtails: total number of individuals of mites and springtails that are (herbo-)fungivorous grazers, in three core samples</p> <p>nInsectsSpidersPitfall: number of ground-dwelling insect and spider individuals in pitfall traps</p> <p>nPredatorInsectsSpidersPitfall: number of ground-dwelling insect and spider individuals that are predators, in pitfall traps</p> <p>decompositionRate: decomposition rate based on the Tea Bag Index</p> <p>litterStabilisationFactor: litter stabilization factor based on the Tea Bag Index</p> <p>nPesticides: number of detected pesticides</p> <p>avicidesTotalConcentration: microgram antraquinon per kg dry soil</p> <p>fungicidesTotalConcentration: total microgram of fungicides per kg dry soil</p> <p>insecticidesTotalConcentration: total microgram of insecticides per kg dry soil</p> <p>herbicidesTotalConcentration: total microgram of herbicides per kg dry soil</p> <p>pesticidesTotalConcentration: total microgram of pesticides (avicides+fungicides+herbicides+insecticides) per kg dry soil</p> <p>nPredatorCarabids: number of predator carabid beetles in pitfall traps</p> <p>nPredatorStaphylinids: number of predator staphylinid beetles in pitfall traps</p> <p>distanceToNearestHighway: shortest distance (in meters) to the nearest highway (A-road)</p> <p>distanceToNearestNroad: shortest distance (in meters) to the nearest national road (N-road)</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>mitesSpringtails.csv</strong></em></p> <p>core: core ID, consisting of the site ID (number) and core-within-site ID (letter)</p> <p>species: soil mite or springtail taxon encountered in a soil core</p> <p>guild: feeding guild of the soil mite or springtail taxon:</p> <p> b: bacterivorous</p> <p> fb: fungivorous browser</p> <p> fg: fungivorous grazer</p> <p> gp: general predator</p> <p> hb: herbivorous browser</p> <p> hfg: (herbo-)fungivorous grazer</p> <p> hg: herbivorous grazer</p> <p> o: omnivore</p> <p> ohf: opportunistic herbo-fungivore</p> <p>droughtSens: drought strategy of soil mite and springtail taxa</p> <p> 1: drought avoiders</p> <p> 2: drought sensitive</p> <p> 3: drought mesotolerant</p> <p> 4: drought tolerant</p> <p>microart: number of individuals of a taxon found in a soil core</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>insecticideData.csv</strong></em></p> <p><em><strong>fungicideData.csv</strong></em></p> <p><em><strong>herbicideData.csv</strong></em></p> <p>site: grassland ID</p> <p>other variables: microgram of a certain pesticide per kg dry soil</p> <p> </p>
Data from: Shifts in ground-dwelling predator communities in response to changes in management intensity in Alpine meadows
<p>Here, we provide raw abundance data from a small-scale case study on the effects of management intensity on ground-dwelling macro-invertebrate communities in extensively and intensively managed hay meadows in South Tyrol, Italy. The fauna was sampled with the pitfall trap methods in two seasons (autumn 2018 and spring 2019). The predatory groups Araneae, Opiliones, Carabidae, Staphylinidae, and Formicidae were identified to species level, the rest – where possible – to family level.</p> <p>The data can be found as absolute numbers (i.e., individuals per pitfall trap) and as standardised numbers (i.e., individuals per sampling day). Additionally, we provide ecological species traits on rarity (for the area of South Tyrol), moisture requirements and ecological tolerance, as well as the Red List statuses.</p>
Fig. 6 in Revision of the staphylinoid and ground-dwelling genus Carvalhoma Slater & Gross (Insecta: Heteroptera: Miridae: Cylapinae) of Australia
Fig. 6. SEM images of C. weiri sp. nov. A. Head, anterior view, Ƌ. B. Head and pronotum, lateral view, Ƌ. C. Head and pronotum, dorsal view, Ƌ. D. Antennal segments I and II, Ƌ. E. Labium, ♀. F. Hemelytron, Ƌ. G. Abdomen, lateral view, Ƌ. H. Middle and hind femora, Ƌ. I. Hemelytron, ♀. J. Pleura, ♀. K. Fore- and middle femora, Ƌ. L. Hind tarsus, ♀.
Fig. 5 in Revision of the staphylinoid and ground-dwelling genus Carvalhoma Slater & Gross (Insecta: Heteroptera: Miridae: Cylapinae) of Australia
Fig. 5. SEM images of C. taplini Slater & Gross, 1977, ♀. A.Head and pronotum, lateral view. B. Head and pronotum, dorsal view. C. Head, anterior view. D. Labium. E. Hind tarsus. F. Forefemur. G. Pleura. H. Antenna. I. Abdomen, lateral view. J. Pronotum, scutellum, hemelytra and abdomen, dorsal view.
Fig. 2 in Revision of the staphylinoid and ground-dwelling genus Carvalhoma Slater & Gross (Insecta: Heteroptera: Miridae: Cylapinae) of Australia
Fig. 2. SEM images of C. malcolmae Slater & Gross, 1977. A. Head, anterior view, ♀. B. Head and pronotum, dorsal view, Ƌ. C. Head and pronotum, lateral view, ♀. D. Fore- and middle femora, Ƌ. E. Scutellum and hemelytra, ♀. F. Antenna, ♀. G. Hind femur, ♀. H. Labium, ♀. I. Hind tarsus, ♀. J. Abdomen, lateral view, Ƌ. K. Pleura, ♀. L. Pretarsus, ventral view, Ƌ.
Fig. 4 in Revision of the staphylinoid and ground-dwelling genus Carvalhoma Slater & Gross (Insecta: Heteroptera: Miridae: Cylapinae) of Australia
Fig. 4. SEM images of C. parvum sp. nov. A. Head, anterior view, ♀. B. Head and pronotum, dorsal view, Ƌ. C. Head and pronotum, lateral view, Ƌ. D. Pleura, ♀. E. Scutellum and hemelytra, Ƌ. F. Scutellum and hemelytra, ♀. G. Fore- and middle femora, ♀. H. Labium, Ƌ. I. Hind tarsus, ♀. J. Hind femur, ♀. K. Genital segment, lateral view, Ƌ. L. Antenna, ♀. M. Pretarsus, Ƌ.
Fig. 3 in Revision of the staphylinoid and ground-dwelling genus Carvalhoma Slater & Gross (Insecta: Heteroptera: Miridae: Cylapinae) of Australia
Fig. 3. SEM images of C. ovatum sp. nov., Ƌ. A. Head and pronotum, lateral view. B. Head and pronotum, dorsal view. C. Head, anterior view. D. Fore- and middle femora. E. Scutellum and hemelytra. F. Genital segment, lateral view. G. Pleura. H. Setae on hemelytron. I. Antenna.
Fig. 1 in Revision of the staphylinoid and ground-dwelling genus Carvalhoma Slater & Gross (Insecta: Heteroptera: Miridae: Cylapinae) of Australia
Fig. 1. Habitus of Carvalhoma species. Scale bar = 1 mm. When two specimens of the same species are shown, the male is on the left and the female on the right. C. ovatum sp. nov. shows the male holotype. C. taplini Slater & Gross, 1977 shows the female holotype.
Fig. 7 in Revision of the staphylinoid and ground-dwelling genus Carvalhoma Slater & Gross (Insecta: Heteroptera: Miridae: Cylapinae) of Australia
Fig. 7. Genitalia of C. malcolmae Slater & Gross, 1977. A. Aedeagus, left lateral view. B. Aedeagus, ventral view. C. Genital capsule. D. Right paramere. E. Left paramere. F. Dorsal labiate plate of bursa copulatrix. G. Posterior wall of bursa copulatrix. Scale bars = 0.1 mm (the large scale bar is for A–B and D–E, the small scale bar is for C and F–G).
Fig. 10 in Revision of the staphylinoid and ground-dwelling genus Carvalhoma Slater & Gross (Insecta: Heteroptera: Miridae: Cylapinae) of Australia
Fig. 10. Genitalia of C. weiri sp. nov. A. Aedeagus, left lateral view. B. Aedeagus, ventral view. C. Genital capsule. D. Right paramere. E. Left paramere. F. Dorsal labiate plate of bursa copulatrix. G. Posterior wall of bursa copulatrix. Scale bars = 0.1 mm (the large scale bar is for A–B and D–E, the small scale bar is for C and F–G).
FIGURE 1 in Two new species of ground-dwelling Cyrtodactylus (Geckoella) from the Mysore Plateau, south India
FIGURE 1. Type localities (stars) of Cyrtodactylus species in south India and the known distribution of the new species. White fill, C. collegalensis; light grey fill, C. speciosus; black fill, C. srilekhae sp. nov. (4); dark grey fill, C. rishivalleyensis sp. nov. Note that the type locality for C. speciosus is imprecise (Beddome 1870). Maximum likelihood phylogeny of the C. collegalensis species complex on the left (ND 2; stars correspond to species shown on the map, solid black circles at nodes indicate bootstrap support greater than 75, outgroups not shown).
FIGURE 8 in Two new species of ground-dwelling Cyrtodactylus (Geckoella) from the Mysore Plateau, south India
FIGURE 8. Dorsal and ventral view of paratype series of Cyrtodactylus rishivalleyensis sp. nov.: A, B NCBS AQ 743; C, D NCBS AQ 744; E, F; ESV 103; G, H BNHS 2326; I, J ESV 104.
Vibroscape analysis reveals acoustic niche overlap and plastic alteration of vibratory courtship signals in ground-dwelling wolf spiders
<p>Soundscape ecology has enabled researchers to investigate natural interactions among biotic and abiotic sounds as well as their influence on local animals. To expand the scope of soundscape ecology to encompass substrate-borne vibrations (i.e. vibroscapes), we developed methods for recording and analyzing sounds produced by ground-dwelling arthropods to characterize the vibroscape of a deciduous forest floor using inexpensive contact microphone arrays followed by automated sound filtering and detection in large audio datasets. Through the collected data, we tested the hypothesis that closely related species of <em>Schizocosa</em> wolf spider partition their acoustic niche. In contrast to previous studies on acoustic niche partitioning, two closely related species - <em>S. stridulans</em> and <em>S. uetzi</em> - showed high acoustic niche overlap across space, time, and/or signal structure. Finally, we examined whether substrate-borne noise, including anthropogenic noise (e.g., airplanes) and heterospecific signals, promotes behavioral plasticity in signaling behavior to reduce the risk of signal interference. We found that all three focal <em>Schizocosa</em> species increased the dominant frequency of their vibratory courtship signals in noisier signaling environments. Also, <em>S. stridulans</em> males displayed increased vibratory signal complexity with an increased abundance of <em>S. uetzi</em>, their sister species with which they are highly overlapped in the acoustic niche.</p>
Data from: Disentangling the drivers of ground-dwelling macro-arthropod metacommunity structure at two different spatial scales
<p>The goal of this study was to explore the community assembly rules at local and regional scales.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Site description </em></strong></p> <p>All sampling locations were selected within the black soil region (Fig. 1), which is predominantly located in the temperate continental monsoon climatic zone in North China. It is characterized by a dry and cold winter and warm and humid summer. The soil was classified as black soil following the Chinese Soil Classification System, which is equivalent to a Typic Hapludoll in the USDA Soil Taxonomy. More specific details for this soil (such as black soil coverage area, geographical and ecological resources, etc.) can be obtained from Wen and Liang (2001). Samples were collected from three municipal districts: Bei'an, Hulan and Dehui.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Sampling design and setup</em></strong></p> <p>We conducted field sampling of ground-dwelling macro-arthropods and measured a set of environmental and spatial variables across all sampling locations three times: in May, July and September 2015. In total, 15 plots (five plots in each of the three municipal districts) were selected and sampled. At each plot, we further selected five sampling sites (approximately 10 m away from each other).</p> <p>We collected additional samples for estimating soil abiotic parameters at each site. Soil samples (5 × 5 cm and 10 cm depth) were collected near each pitfall trap site. The exact geographic coordinates of each sampling site were obtained by GPS.</p> <p>Ground-dwelling macro-arthropods were sampled by a pitfall trapping method. For pitfall traps, we used plastic cups (7 cm in diameter and 12 cm deep), which were partially filled with saturated salt water. The traps were exposed for one week in each sampling month. All collected ground-dwelling macro-arthropods were removed from the pitfall traps, sorted and preserved in a 95% alcohol solution. All adult macroarthropods from pitfalls were identified at the species or genus level using appropriate keys (e.g., Simon (1879), Martens (1978) and Barrientos (2004) for Opiliones; Roberts (1993, 1995) for Lycosidae; and Forel and Leplat (2001) and Ortuño and Marcos (2003) for Carabidae) and then were counted. Juvenile ground-dwelling arthropods were excluded from all analyses due to difficulties with their identification (Gao et al., 2016).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Environmental and spatial variables</em></strong></p> <p>Environmental variables used in our analysis included soil organic matter, soil total nitrogen, water content, pH, temperature. Soil water content (SWC%) was measured in the laboratory after the fresh soil was loaded into an aluminium box. Prior to estimating soil total nitrogen (TN) (Kjeldahl's method described by Duchaufour (1975)), soil organic matter (SOM) (Anne's method described by Duchaufour (1975)) and pH (Pansu and Gautheyrou, 2003), the collected soil samples were air-dried at 25℃ for one week and sieved (1 mm mesh size). Local temperature values were obtained from the publicly available datasets (The Local Chronicles of Bei’an, Hulan and Dehui). Geographic coordinates were recorded for further spatial modelling analysis.</p> <p> </p> <p>We have seven data files:</p> <p>env BAHLDH may.csv</p> <p>env BAHLDH july.csv</p> <p>env BAHLDH september.csv</p> <p>sp BAHLDH may.csv</p> <p>sp BAHLDH july.csv</p> <p>sp BAHLDH september.csv</p> <p>Geospatial coordinates.csv</p> <p> </p> <p>Explanation of the variables in the datasets:</p> <p>Site: Bei’an, Hulan, Dehui represent sampling district; I-V represent sampling plot; 1-5 represent replicate</p> <p>SOM: soil organic matter</p> <p>pH: soil pH</p> <p>SWC: Soil water content</p> <p>TN: soil total nitrogen</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.