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.
41
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
41 results for “weed seeds”
Data for: Functional redundancy of weed seed predation is reduced by intensified agriculture
<p>Intensive agriculture, a driver of biodiversity loss, can diminish ecosystem functions and their stability. Biodiversity can increase functional redundancy and is expected to stabilize ecosystem functions. Few studies however have explored how agricultural intensity affects functional redundancy and its link with ecosystem function stability. Here, within a continent-wide study, we assess how the functional redundancy of seed predation is affected by agricultural intensity and landscape simplification. By combining carabid abundances with molecular gut content data, functional redundancy of seed predation was quantified for 65 weed genera across 60 fields in four European countries. Across weed genera, functional redundancy was reduced with high field management intensity and simplified crop rotations. Moreover, functional redundancy increased the spatial stability of weed seed predation within fields. We found that ecosystem functions are vulnerable to disturbance in intensively managed agroecosystems, providing empirical evidence of the importance of biodiversity for stable ecosystem functions across space.</p>
Figure 7 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 7. Annual, perennial, dicot, and monocot weed biomass in each weed management treatment pooled across fields. Similar letters above bars indicate no significant difference using separate Fisher's LSD tests (P> 0.05). Error bars are standard errors, and treatments are abbreviated: NC, nontreated control; SR, seeding rate; IM, interrow mower; WZ, Weed Zapper™.
Figure 6 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 6. Diversity indices of weed communities for all treatments. Weed by species biomass was pooled across fields.Similar letters above bars indicate no significant difference using separate Fisher's LSD tests (P> 0.05).Error bars are standard errors and treatments are abbreviated:NC,nontreated control; SR,seeding rate; IM, interrow mower;WZ,Weed Zapper™.
Figure 5 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 5. Weed biomass in each weed management treatment pooled across all site-years.Biomass was sampled in mid-August after all management tactics had been applied. Similar letters above bars indicate no significant difference using Fisher's LSD test (P> 0.05). Error bars are standard errors, and treatments are abbreviated: NC, nontreated control; SR, seeding rate; IM, interrow mower; WZ, Weed Zapper™.
Figure 4 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 4. Soybean density in August after all weed management treatments were applied. Data were pooled across all site-years. Similar letters above bars indicate no significant difference using Fisher's LSD test (P> 0.05). Error bars are standard errors, and treatments are abbreviated: NC, nontreated control; SR, seeding rate; IM, interrow mower; WZ, Weed Zapper™.
Figure 8 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 8. Soybean yield from each weed management treatment pooled across fields. Yield is dry weight corrected to 13% moisture. Similar letters above bars indicate no significant difference using Fisher's LSD test (P> 0.05). Error bars are standard errors, and treatments are abbreviated: NC, nontreated control; SR, seeding rate; IM, interrow mower; WZ, Weed Zapper™.
Figure 1 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 1. The interrow mower used in this experiment, attached to a John DeereṜ 5100R tractor with a three-point hitch. The mower is powered with a hydraulic system and was custom made by IRM X4, R-Tech Industries (Homewood, MB, Canada).
Figure 2. The model 6R30 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 2. The model 6R30 Weed Zapper™ used in this experiment. The generator is attached to the back of a John DeereṜ 5100R tractor with a three-point hitch. The 4.6-m electric copper boom is attached to the front of the tractor with a three-point hitch. The Weed Zapper™ was purchased from Old School Manufacturing (Sedalia, MO, USA).
Figure 7 in Effect of water stress on weed germination, growth characteristics, and seed production: a global meta-analysis
Figure 7. Results from the sensitivity analysis depicting variations in the overall effect size estimates (mean ± 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of water-stress effects on (A) weed germination/emergence, (B) seedling radicle/root length, (C) plant height, and (D) leaf area when a particular study is omitted from the analysis. The vertical black solid and dashed lines represent overall effect sizes (mean ± 95% CIs) with all studies included.
Figure 3 in Effect of water stress on weed germination, growth characteristics, and seed production: a global meta-analysis
Figure 3. Overall water-stress effects on germination/emergence of grass and broadleaf weeds (top) and six weed families—Asteraceae, Fabaceae, Convolvulaceae, Amaranthaceae, Rubiaceae, and Poaceae (bottom). The vertical black dashed line represents zero effect. The black dots are overall mean effect sizes, and the black lines are 99% confidence intervals (CIs).The values in parentheses are the number of observations followed by the number of studies for each pair-wise comparison. The mean effect sizes were considered significantly different when their 99% CIs did not include zero.
Figure 4 in Effect of water stress on weed germination, growth characteristics, and seed production: a global meta-analysis
Figure 4. The log response ratio for germination and seedling radicle length of broadleaf (green dots/line) and grass (red dots/line) weed species as a function of water-stress intensity. Water stress increased as solution osmotic potential (ψsolution) decreased and vice versa.The subgroups for germination are 0 to −0.2, −0.2 to −0.4, −0.4 to −0.6, −0.6 to −0.8, −0.8 to −1.0, −1.0 to −1.4, and <−1.4 MPa, while the subgroups for radicle length are 0 to −0.2, −0.2 to −0.4, −0.4 to −0.6, −0.6 to −1.0, and <−1.0 MPa. Only ψsolution-based studies were used in this analysis. For each subgroup, the solid dots and lines represent mean effect sizes and their corresponding 99% confidence intervals (CIs).The mean effect sizes were considered significantly different when their 99% CIs did not include zero. Similarly, the water-stress effects were significantly different for each subgroup and among weed types only when their 99% CIs did not overlap with one another. The fitted lines represent a four-parameter logistic regression model, and the coefficients of the models are presented in Table 2.
Figure 1 in Effect of water stress on weed germination, growth characteristics, and seed production: a global meta-analysis
Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; Page and McKenzie 2021) flow diagram highlighting the selection procedure of 86 scientific published papers included in the meta-analysis.
Figure 8 in Effect of water stress on weed germination, growth characteristics, and seed production: a global meta-analysis
Figure 8. Results from the sensitivity analysis depicting variations in the overall effect size estimates (mean ± 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of water-stress effects on (A) branches/tillers per plant, (B) leaves per plant, (C) inflorescences per plant, (D) seeds per plant, (E) total biomass, (F) root biomass, (G) shoot biomass, and (H) root:shoot ratio, when a particular study is omitted from the analysis. The vertical black solid and dashed lines represent overall effect sizes (mean ± 95% CIs) with all studies included.
Figure 6 in Effect of water stress on weed germination, growth characteristics, and seed production: a global meta-analysis
Figure 6. Density plots depicting the distribution of the individual effect sizes for all 12 response variables considered in this meta-analysis: (A) weed seed germination/emergence; (B) radicle/root length, plant height, and leaf area; (C) branches/tillers per plant, leaves per plant, inflorescences per plant, and seeds per plant; and (D) total biomass, root biomass, shoot biomass, and root:shoot ratio.
Figure 2 in Effect of water stress on weed germination, growth characteristics, and seed production: a global meta-analysis
Figure 2. Overall water-stress effects on weed germination/emergence, growth characteristics, and seed production. The vertical black dashed line represents zero effect. The black dots are overall mean effect sizes, and the black lines are 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The values in parentheses are the number of observations followed by the number of studies for each pair-wise comparison. The mean effect sizes were considered significantly different when their 95% CIs did not include zero.
Figure 2 in Seed-shattering phenology at soybean harvest of economically important weeds in multiple regions of the United States. Part 1: Broadleaf species
Figure 2. Cumulative percent shatter over four time periods (soybean physiological maturity, maturity þ 2 wk,maturity þ 3 wk, maturity þ 4 wk) for each species.The darker the bar, the greater percent of sampled site-years that corresponded to the percent shatter value. This normalizes across species with different sampling efforts. Species sampled in just a single site-year are indicated by a single black square, which represents 100% of the sampling effort. Species are denoted by their EPPO codes.
Figure 3 in Seed-shattering phenology at soybean harvest of economically important weeds in multiple regions of the United States. Part 1: Broadleaf species
Figure 3. Cumulative percent seed shatter for all species from planting date to soybean physiological maturity (black vertical line) for each state in 2016 and 2017. Species are denoted by their EPPO codes.
Figure 1. Heat map indicating the cumulative percent seed shatter across the participating states for a in Seed-shattering phenology at soybean harvest of economically important weeds in multiple regions of the United States. Part 1: Broadleaf species
Figure 1. Heat map indicating the cumulative percent seed shatter across the participating states for a window starting from soybean physiological maturity to 4 wk past maturity in 2016 and 2017. States were included in these maps only if they conducted sampling during the week indicated (e.g., In 2017, Arkansas sampled on October 2, October 18, and November 3, none of which are within ±3 d of the October 10 maturity date or maturity þ2 wk on October 24 in the state that year. Hence only data from maturity þ3 wk are for Arkansas for 2017.)
Figure 5 in Effect of water stress on weed germination, growth characteristics, and seed production: a global meta-analysis
Figure 5. The log response ratio for weed growth characteristics (plant height, leaf area, branches/tillers per plant, leaves per plant,root biomass, shoot biomass, and root:shoot ratio) and seed production (inflorescences per plant and seeds per plant) as a function of water-stress intensity. Water stress increased as soil moisture (% field capacity) decreased and vice versa. The green and red dots represent broadleaf and grass weed species, respectively. The solid black points and the lines represent mean effect sizes and their 99% confidence intervals (CIs) for low (>60%), moderate (30%–60%), and severe (<30% field capacity) water-stress subgroups. The mean effect sizes were considered significantly different when their 99% CIs did not include zero. Similarly, the water-stress effects were significantly different for each subgroup and among weed types only when their 99% CIs did not overlap with one another.
Figure 3 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 3. Monthly temperature and precipitation in Aurora, NY, USA, in 2021 and 2022. Pink lines indicate 30-yr average.
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.