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.
23
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
23 results for “semi-natural habitats”
Dataset accompanying Riesch et al. 2022. Grazing by wild red deer can mitigate nutrient enrichment in protected semi-natural open habitats. Oecologia
<p>This repository contains the data set on nutrient fluxes through wild red deer used by Riesch et al. 2022 in an article puplished in <em>Oecologia</em> (accepted 2022-05-01).</p> <p>Metadata are provided in the first excel worksheet. For further details please see the original article (DOI: 10.1007/s00442-022-05182-z).</p>
Data from: Semi-natural habitat, but not aphid amount or continuity, predicts lady beetle abundance across agricultural landscapes
<p>The amount of semi-natural habitat surrounding farm fields is a common but inconsistent predictor of natural enemy populations and predation services. Standard land cover metrics may not accurately capture the actual availability of limiting resources for natural enemies and can miss important dynamics across space and time. Theory from animal movement and landscape ecology predicts that regions with more, spatio-temporally continuous resources (i.e. food, shelter) should have larger predator populations and enhanced biological control. To test these predictions empirically, we designed a study measuring aphids, lady beetles, and predation services in agricultural landscapes in Wisconsin, USA. In two study years, we sampled lady beetles and aphids in 336 crop fields (corn, soybean, alfalfa, and small grains) and adjacent semi-natural habitat patches (grasslands and woodlands) across 24 1.5 km buffer landscapes at 4–7 time points each, and in one year we assessed predation rates with sentinel egg cards. We used aphid counts to model habitat-specific aphid phenologies, from which we calculated landscape indices of prey amount and continuity. These indices, along with semi-natural habitat area, were used to predict lady beetle abundance. While there were strong differences in the abundance and timing of aphids by habitat, semi-natural habitat amount was still a better predictor of lady beetle counts and sentinel egg predation than either aphid amount or continuity indices in these landscapes.</p> <p>Synthesis and application: Our findings confirm the robust relationship between lady beetles and semi-natural habitat in agricultural landscapes, and highlight the complexities of measuring fine-scale resource heterogeneity in real landscapes. Retaining or adding woodland and grassland patches in agricultural landscapes is likely to support larger lady beetle populations and enhance predation in crop fields. Our results suggest that these habitats may be more important for shelter than prey continuity, though this mechanism warrants further investigation. Future work should continue to refine experimental methods for the successful integration of landscape ecology and animal behavior to support conservation goals.</p>
Data from: Semi-natural habitat, but not aphid amount or continuity, predicts lady beetle abundance across agricultural landscapes
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Dataset accompanying Riesch et al. 2020. Grazing by wild red deer maintains characteristic vegetation of semi-natural open habitats: Evidence from a 3-year exclusion experiment. Applied Vegetation Science
<p>This repository contains vegetation community data used by Riesch et al. 2020 in an article accepted in Applied Vegetation Science.</p> <p>Metadata are provided in the first excel worksheet. For further details please see the original article.</p>
The contribution of semi-natural habitats to biological control is dependent on sentinel prey type
<ol> <li>It is widely recognized that landscape factors affect the biological control of weed seeds and insect pests in arable crops, but landscape effects have been found to be inconsistent between studies.</li> <li>Here, we compare six different types of sentinels (s<span>urrogate prey that was either live insects or seeds) to measure the effects of semi-natural habitats at field to landscape scales on levels of biological control in winter wheat in the UK. Sentinels were located in fields adjacent to three boundary types: grassy margin, hedgerows or woodland to study local scale effects and in landscapes of varying heterogeneity in study areas of 1 km radius. </span> </li> <li> <span>Overall mean levels of predation were higher for most insect prey (60.8%) located on the ground compared to the crop (12.2%) and was lower for seeds (5.8%). Predation of sentinels on the ground was attributed to generalist predators. <a name="_Hlk24705886">Semi-natural habitats had both positive and negative effects at field and landscape scales, but the response varied with the sentinel type.</a><a name="_Hlk12869057"> Herbaceous linear semi-natural habitats had positive effects at local scales for <i>Calliphora vomitoria </i>and <i>Sitobion avenae </i>sentinels and provides </a></span><span>evidence that farmers can introduce linear herbaceous features to benefit biological control. In contrast o</span><span>ur distance weighted kernel models identified a positive relationship between woody habitats and the predation of <i>Caliphora vomitoria </i>and<i> Chenopodium album</i>. Natural aphid infestations were lower in landscapes with more semi-natural habitat. </span> </li> <li> <i><span>Synthesis and applications. </span></i><span>Sentinels may be sensitive enough to detect variation in levels of biological control influenced by semi-natural habitats, but this study confirms that landscape effects differ for different types of sentinel prey. This implies that it may not be possible to categorize landscapes as pest suppressive using a single sentinel type. Future studies should therefore consider </span>using multiple sentinels to give a better perspective on predation intensity. The resulting recommendations for farm management include <span>planting woodland adjacent wheat fields infested with seed predators and positioning herbaceous linear habitats adjacent wheat fields infested with <i>Sitobion Avenae</i>, particularly if fields are bordered by woody liner habitats due to their association with decreased <i>Sitobion Avenae </i>predation.</span> </li> </ol>
Different types of semi-natural habitat are required to sustain diverse wild bee communities across agricultural landscapes
<p><span>1. Semi-natural habitats provide important resources for wild bees in agricultural landscapes. Landscapes under management are dynamic and floral resources fluctuate in space and time. Thus, promoting different semi-natural habitat types within landscapes could be key to support diverse bee meta-communities throughout the season.</span></p> <p><span>2. Here, we integrate analyses of </span><span>a</span><span>-diversity (species richness) and </span><span>b</span><span>-diversity and species-habitat networks to examine the relative contribution of all major semi-natural habitats to wild bee meta-communities in agricultural landscapes. We sampled extensively and conventionally managed meadows, flower strips, hedgerows and forest edges in spring, early and late summer in 25 landscapes in Switzerland. </span></p> <p><span>3. Habitat types varied in their importance for wild bees throughout the season: While extensively managed meadows supported more rare species, habitat specialists and bee species overall than the other habitat types, flower strips were most important later in the season. Each of the five investigated habitat types harboured relatively unique sets of species with different habitats generally acting as distinct modules in the overall bee-habitat network. </span></p> <p><span>4. Not only flower richness in a habitat per se, but also flower-habitat network properties (habitat strength and functional complementarity) were good predictors of wild bee richness. In addition to local floral richness, landscape composition and configuration interactively influenced </span><span>b</span><span>-diversity patterns across habitats.</span></p> <p><span>5. Synthesis and applications</span><span>. Our study highlights the value of pollinator-habitat network analysis to inform pollinator conservation management at the landscape scale, especially when combined with information on floral resources and flower-habitat networks. Maintaining different types of semi-natural habitats offers diverse and complementary resources throughout the season, which are crucial to sustain diverse wild bee meta-communities in agricultural landscapes. Particularly meadow extensification schemes can play a key role in safeguarding rare and specialist species in these landscapes. While locally a high flower richness promoted bee abundance and richness in general, our results indicate that increasing connectivity between habitat patches in landscapes dominated by arable crops appears to improve species exchange between local bee communities of different habitats, thereby possibly increasing their resilience to disturbances.</span></p>
Dataset accompanying Riesch et al. 2019. Grazing by wild red deer: management options for the conservation of semi-natural open habitats. Journal of Applied Ecology
<p>This repository contains vegetation biomass and forage quality data used by Riesch et al. in an article accepted in Journal of Applied Ecology.</p> <p>Metadata are provided in the first excel worksheet ('explanation_overview'). For further details please see the original article.</p>
Fruit orchards and woody semi-natural habitat provide complementary resources for pollinators in agricultural landscapes
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Different types of semi-natural habitat are required to sustain diverse wild bee communities across agricultural landscapes
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
The contribution of semi-natural habitats to biological control is dependent on sentinel prey type
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Biocontrol in insecticide sprayed crops does not benefit from semi-natural habitats and recovers slowly after spraying
1. To enhance biological pest control in crop fields, it is recommended to increase semi-natural area on farm and decrease insecticide spraying. While the benefits of semi-natural area for biocontrol in unsprayed fields are often demonstrated, it remains largely unknown if there are any benefits in real world, commonly sprayed crops. 2. Here, we explored the combined effects of semi-natural field margins and insecticide spraying on pest (cotton bollworm) egg predation in 53 Australian cotton fields and semi-natural field margins across two years. We used predation experiments close to field edges to exclude functional groups of predators depending on their spatio-temporal activity (diurnal vs. nocturnal and ground vs. canopy dwelling) and digital cameras to record natural enemy taxa responsible for predation. 3. Ground predation was substantially higher than canopy predation and its magnitude in unsprayed crops with semi-natural margins was similar to that within semi-natural areas. In contrast, semi-natural field margins did not benefit biocontrol in sprayed crop fields and did not influence recovery rate of biocontrol after spraying. 4. Within ground-dwelling predators, one dominant taxon contributed the most to biocontrol at a particular time and place. However, the dominant predator-prey interactions changed between day and night and fields with and without margins, thus indicating increased importance of additional predator taxa with increasing spatio-temporal scales. 5. Synthesis and applications: Overall, our results show that semi-natural margins benefit pest control only in unsprayed fields. Spraying at different time (e.g. during night) would not reduce the negative effects of insecticides because it would affect complementary group of nocturnal natural enemies that exert equally high biocontrol as diurnal ground-dwelling predators. We highlight the need for management recommendations to simultaneously consider pros and cons of within field spraying and surrounding semi-natural habitats to maximize their benefits in high input conventional production systems.23-May-2019
Data from: Testing scale-dependent effects of semi-natural habitats on farmland biodiversity
The effectiveness of conservation interventions for maximizing biodiversity benefits from agri-environment schemes (AESs) is expected to depend on the quantity of seminatural habitats in the surrounding landscape. To verify this hypothesis, we developed a hierarchical sampling design to assess the effects of field boundary type and cover of seminatural habitats in the landscape at two nested spatial scales. We sampled three types of field boundaries with increasing structural complexity (grass margin, simple hedgerow, complex hedgerow) in paired landscapes with the presence or absence of seminatural habitats (radius 0.5 km), that in turn, were nested within 15 areas with different proportions of seminatural habitats at a larger spatial scale (10 × 10 km). Overall, 90 field boundaries were sampled across a Mediterranean region (northeastern Italy). We considered species richness response across three different taxonomic groups: vascular plants, butterflies, and tachinid flies. No interactions between type of field boundary and surrounding landscape were found at either 0.5 and 10 km, indicating that the quality of field boundary had the same effect irrespective of the cover of seminatural habitats. At the local scale, extended-width grass margins yielded higher plant species richness, while hedgerows yielded higher species richness of butterflies and tachinids. At the 0.5-km landscape scale, the effect of the proportion of seminatural habitats was neutral for plants and tachinids, while butterflies were positively related to the proportion of forest. At the 10-km landscape scale, only butterflies responded positively to the proportion of seminatural habitats. Our study confirmed the importance of testing multiple scales when considering species from different taxa and with different mobility. We showed that the quality of field boundaries at the local scale was an important factor in enhancing farmland biodiversity. For butterflies, AESs should focus particular attention on preservation of forest patches in agricultural landscapes within 0.5 km, as well as the conservation of seminatural habitats at a wider landscape scale.
Data from: Arthropod abundance is most strongly driven by crop and semi-natural habitat type rather than management in an intensive agricultural landscape in the Netherlands
<p>The dataset supporting the publication "Arthropod abundance is most strongly driven by crop and semi-natural habitat type rather than management in an intensive agricultural landscape in the Netherlands" is provided. Methods of data collection can be found in the respective publication.</p>
Data from: Biocontrol in insecticide sprayed crops does not benefit from semi-natural habitats and recovers slowly after spraying
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Testing scale-dependent effects of semi-natural habitats on farmland biodiversity
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Crop diversity benefits carabid and pollinator communities in landscapes with semi-natural habitats
<p class="LO-Normal">1. In agricultural landscapes, arthropods provide essential ecosystem services such as biological pest control and pollination. Intensified crop management practices and homogenization of landscapes have led to declines among such organisms. Semi-natural habitats, associated with high numbers of these organisms, are increasingly lost from agricultural landscapes but diversification by increasing crop diversity has been proposed as a way to reverse observed arthropod declines and thus restore ecosystem services. However, whether or not an increase in the diversity of crop types within a landscape promotes diversity and abundances of pollinating and predaceous arthropods, and how semi-natural habitats might modify this relationship, is not well understood.</p> <p class="LO-Normal">2. To test how crop diversity and the proportion of semi-natural habitats within a landscape are related to the diversity and abundance of beneficial arthropod communities, we collected primary data from seven studies focusing on natural enemies (carabids and spiders) and pollinators (bees and hoverflies) from 154 crop fields in Southern Sweden between 2007 and 2017.</p> <p class="LO-Normal">3. Crop diversity within a 1-km radius around each field was positively related to the Shannon diversity index of carabid and pollinator communities in landscapes rich in semi-natural habitats. Abundances were mainly affected by the proportion of semi-natural habitats in the landscape, with decreasing carabid and increasing pollinator numbers as the proportion of this habitat type increased. Spiders showed no response to either crop diversity or the proportion of semi-natural habitats.</p> <p class="LO-Normal">4. <i>Synthesis and applications</i>. We show that the joint effort of preserving semi-natural habitats and promoting crop diversity in agricultural landscapes is necessary to enhance communities of natural enemies and pollinators. Our results suggest that increasing the diversity of crop types can contribute to the conservation of service-providing arthropod communities, particularly if the diversification of crops targets complex landscapes with a high proportion of semi-natural habitats.</p> <div> <div> <div class="msocomtxt"> </div> </div> </div> <p> </p>
Data from: Landscape complexity promotes hoverflies across different types of semi-natural habitats in farmland
1. Semi-natural habitats (SNH) provide essential resources for many organisms in agricultural landscapes and can increase biodiversity at the local and landscape scale. For the management of ecosystem services, it is crucial to understand how local characteristics of SNH and the surrounding landscape complexity affect beneficial species. 2. We investigated this for hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae), an important functional group providing both pest control and pollination services, in a total of 138 SNH in 35 agricultural landscapes in Switzerland and Germany. SNH differed in type (woody, herbaceous), shape (areal, linear) and availability of food resources (floral resources and aphids). They were located along a gradient of landscape complexity (1-75 % SNH in a 1 km radius). 3. In total 9,030 hoverflies belonging to 89 species were collected. In both countries, hoverfly community composition was mainly driven by SNH type and SNH shape, and in Switzerland additionally by landscape complexity. Species richness of hoverflies increased with increasing amounts of SNH at the landscape scale. However, the ubiquitous and dominant aphidophagous species Episyrphus balteatus was indifferent to landscape composition. 4. Species richness of total and aphidophagous hoverflies was higher in woody than herbaceous SNH. Hoverfly species richness was similar in linear and areal SNH, but non-aphidophagous hoverflies were more vulnerable to landscape simplification in linear than areal SNH. Effects of the SNH type partly differed between the two countries: In Germany, the dominant aphidophagous species E. balteatus preferred woody over herbaceous SNH, while no such difference was found in Switzerland. 5. Surprisingly, local richness and abundance of floral resources were poor predictors for hoverfly abundance, richness or community composition. 6. Synthesis and applications: Large-scale conservation and restoration of complex agricultural landscapes with a high proportion of different SNH types is key for the conservation of hoverfly diversity, and thus likely promote pest control and pollination services provided by them. Local improvement of SNH to promote hoverflies has to consider regional differences in habitat characteristics.07-Dec-2017
Supplementary material 3 from: Lange S, Mockford A, Burkhard B, Müller F, Diekötter T (2023) As green infrastructure, linear semi-natural habitats boost regulating ecosystem services supply in agriculturally-dominated landscapes. One Ecosystem 8: e108540. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.8.e108540
LSE and the threat to erosion by water
Supplementary material 1 from: Lange S, Mockford A, Burkhard B, Müller F, Diekötter T (2023) As green infrastructure, linear semi-natural habitats boost regulating ecosystem services supply in agriculturally-dominated landscapes. One Ecosystem 8: e108540. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.8.e108540
Summary statistics
Supplementary material 4 from: Lange S, Mockford A, Burkhard B, Müller F, Diekötter T (2023) As green infrastructure, linear semi-natural habitats boost regulating ecosystem services supply in agriculturally-dominated landscapes. One Ecosystem 8: e108540. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.8.e108540
LSE and hydrologic soil groups
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.