data:InDoRES
Not a member yet
398 research outputs found
Sort by
Time-depth data of Adélie penguin at Petrel Island, Antarctica, 1998-2024
No full textThis repository contains the time-depth data collected from Adélie penguin (Pygoscelis adeliae) at Petrel Island, Antarctica published in Dupuis et al. xxxxx.
Please, read also the Read Me file included in this dataset
responses of pollinators to urbanization and local management in urban farms in Havana
No full textThis database contains information on flower visitation and insect assemblages collected in 16 urban farms (organopónicos) in the Cuban provinces of Havana and surrounding areas. Data were collected during 2023 and 2024 and include information on flower abundance, insect abundance, and species richness, as well as records for specific insect groups: Syrphidae, other Diptera, Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, large bees (Xylocopa, Centris), small bees (other Cuban Apidae genera, Halictidae, Megachilidae), Apis mellifera, ants (Formicidae), and wasps (Vespoidea).
The database comprises 16 farms, including Organopónico Raquel Pérez, Labranza, Oro Verde, Vivero de Alamar, Hermanos Gómez, Esfuerzo Colectivo, El Girasol, CIMEQ, Arides Estévez, Arcoiris, 5to Congreso, 24 de Febrero, 1ro de Julio, Cooperativa 1ro de Julio, Playa, and Luyanó. Data for Organopónico Luyanó in 2023 and Hermanos Gómez in 2024 are not available due to lack of sampling.
In addition to biological data, the database includes climatic variables (monthly minimum and maximum temperatures, and precipitation) recorded from July 2022 to June 2024, which allow analysis of environmental influences on flower visitation and insect community structure.
Overall, the database provides detailed records on flower abundance and insect community composition across two years, enabling studies of temporal and spatial variation in pollinator communities in urban agricultural landscapes. Each record is linked to the farm and sampling year, with consistent taxonomic classification and standardized abundance metrics for comparative analyses
Cours de l'Oise de Guise à Noyon puis de Beaumont à Paris (18ème siècle)
No full textEnsemble de deux cartes représentant le cours de l'Oise. Les cartes ont été élaborées au 18ème siècle, sans doute adaptées de celle des Cassini.
Cours de l'Oise de Guise à Noyon : CG_Oise_Guise_Noyon_1750.tif
Cours de l'Oise de Beaumont à Paris : CG_Oise_Beaumont_Seine_1750.tif
Service des Cartes et Plans des Archives Nationales. Cote AN F/14/10071/1/3 et AN F/14/10071/1/1.
Numérisation en 2014. Géoréférencement en 2014 par Julie DAVODET. Mise en ligne en avril 2015. Métadonnées par Julie DAVODET et Juliette AUDET dans le cadre du projet Archiseine (PIREN-Seine - Archives Nationales).</p
Shapefile de la Zone Atelier santé-environnement Camargue (ZACAM)
No full textPérimètre de la Zone Atelier santé-environnement Camargue (ZACAM
Data of the article "Divergent and stabilizing selection shape the phenotypic space of Arabidopsis thaliana", published in PLOS Biology, 2025
No full textThis dataset contains the data used in the article "Divergent and stabilizing selection shape the phenotypic space of Arabidopsis thaliana", published in PLOS Biology, 2025. R scripts can also be found on GitHub: https://github.com/msprzybylska/Analysis_PhenSpac
Replication data for: Fig 8.14, Bottom, Submergers vs nonsubmergers, UPDs, 21 Nov 2025
No full textFILE DESCRIPTION
Keywords: alarm calls, submergers vs nonsubmergers, UPDs
Filename = Fig 8.14, Bottom, Submergers vs nonsubmergers, UPDs, 21 Nov 2025
OLD file name = UPDs, Submerge, 23 Sept 2019
These numbers checked TWO TIMES at creation of old file name
458/2978 of UPD submergers = 15.38% DID give alarm call in response to experimental badger
2520/2978 of UPD submergers = 84.62% did NOT give alarm call in response to experimental badger
1067/2436 of UPD NON-submergers = 43.80% DID give alarm call in response to experimental badgers
1369/2436 of UPD NON-submergers = 56.20% DID NOT give alarm call in response to experimental badgers
Data in this file represents SUMMATION OF UPD DATA FROM ALL YEARS
Variable = Frequency = number of observations of calling or non-calling for
UPDs that did and did not submerge during experiments with the moving stuffed badger
Submerger = 1 = prairie dog DID submerge
Submerger = 2 = prairie dog did NOT submerge
Alarm call = 1 = prairie dog DID give alarm call
Alarm call = 2 = prairie dog did NOT give alarm call
For statistical analysis, I did a 2x2 chi-square test
These data used for Fig 8.14, Bottom, in Hoogland 2026.
This file ready for longterm storage on 04 June 2025.
Counts for this file come from study of alarm call raw data sheets.
Filename = Fig 8.14, Bottom, Submergers vs nonsubmergers, UPDs, 04 June 2025
I considered data from the same prairie dog
on the same day and on different days and in different years to be independent
Replication Data for: Fig 5.1, Left side, BTPDs, Aggression vs ward rank, 22 Sept 2025.
No full textFILE DESCRIPTION
Keywords: aggression, black-tailed prairie dog, ward rank
File name = Fig 5.1, Left side, BTPDs, Aggression vs ward rank,
22 Sept 2025.
These summary data used for Figure 5.1 (which also
shows sample sizes) are in Hoogland 2026.
This file ready for longterm storage on 24 January 2025.
These data come from summaries of means in Table 1 of
Hoogland 1979, Aggression, ectoparasitism, and other
possible costs of prairie dog (Sciuridae, Cynomys)
coloniality. Behaviour. 69:1-34.
Raw data for these summaries are not in any EXCEL file.
but they are in my field notes.
Colony rank is from smallest (1) to largest (3).
Individuals at BTPD colonies were not marked, so I could accurately
determine colony ranks (relative colony sizes), but not exact colony sizes.
To repeat: These data are summaries. Raw data are in my field notes, but not
in any EXCEL file.
BTPD = black-tailed prairie dog WTPD = white-tailed prairie dog
Data for this figure come from summations of data in Table
1 of Hoogland 19791282, for which I could not easily
calculate standard errors
Replication data for: Fig 5.10, Bottom, WTPDs, Vocal alarm callers vs ward size. 21 Oct 2025
No full textFILE DESCRIPTION
Keywords: badger, WTPDs, vocal alarm callers, ward size, 21 Oct 2025
File name = Fig 5.10, Bottom, WTPDs, Vocal alarm callers vs ward size. 21 Oct 2025
Number and percentage of alarm callers in response to badger vs ward size for white-tails
The number above each SEM line is the number of experiments
with the moving stuffed badger
Data in this EXCEL file are summaries. Raw data are in my field notes
from 1974 through 1976.
For these three WTPD wards, I was able to determine exact ward sizes (number of
adults and yearlings) rather than simply ward ranks.
No black-tail data were available for number of alarm callers vs ward size.
Note: Left- and right-side graphs at top of Fig 5.10 are for visual alarmer
Replication data for: Fig 8.1, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, and 8.12, Alarm calls, Males and Females, UPDs, 19 Nov 2025
No full textFILE DESCRIPTION
Keywords: alarm calls, UPDs, age, ARS, clan size, sex
File name = Fig 8.1, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, and 8.12, Alarm calls, Males and Females, UPDs, 19 Nov 2025
OLD Filename = UPDs, NEW alarm calls, 28 Feb 2020
05 March 2019. This file has been checked TWO TIMES.
once by JLH alone, and once by JLH and MAH.
Year = year when frequency of alarm calling recorded in response to moving
stuffed specimen of American badger
UPD = Marking scheme with Nyanzol fur dye for Utah prairie dog
After a UPD died, the marking scheme was often used again for a
different prairie dog in a different year
Eartag = unique eartag for each UPD. The same eartag was never used
again for a different prairie dog in a different year
Sex = MALE or FEMALE
Class caller = type of kin in home territory
0 = no known kin in home territory (r <0.0313)
1 = distant kin only in home territory (first and second full or half cousins, aunts,
uncles, nephews, nieces, nonlittermate siblings)
For class = 1, 0.0625 < r < 0.2500
2 = littermate siblings in home territory
3 = mother in home territory
4 = offspring in home territory
Callfreq = proportion of times UPD gave alarm call in response to stuffed badger
Trials = number of experimental runs with moving stuffed badger per year
Age = age in years of UPD
Clan size = number of adult and yearling UPDs in same home territory
Yearling offspring only indicates age of offspring in home territory
0 = juvenile offspring in home territory, with or without
adult offspring as well
1 = adult offspring in home territory, with no juvenile offspring
Note for Newclass caller: The number indicates the closest kin in the
home territory, with or without other possible kin.
Example: If a UPD had offspring and full first cousins in the
home territory, the class caller would be 3
Note for littermate siblings: For this analysis, I make no attempt
to discriminate between full siblings (same mother, same father)
and half-siblings (same mother, different father).
On 16 Feb 2019, I detect an error in this file. The eartag for female-H4 in 2000
should be V63 (not U64). I have made this correction to this file, and I will re-
do whatever statistical analyses are necessary.
On 05 March, this revised file is now ready for statistics.
On 29 March 2019 I discover that female-92 (W65) in 2004 was LACTATING on
15 June 2004. So, on 28 March 2019 I change Newclass for female-92 from 2 to 4.
On 09 April 2019, Callfreq of 4str (A47) for 1997 stays at 100%, but trials changed to 6 (instead of 5)
On 09 April 2019, Callfreq of RS (A31) for 1997 changed to 66.7% (from 50%), and trials
changed to 3 (from 2)
On 11 April 2019, Callfreq for BB5 (E41) changed to 66,7% (from 80%)
On 11 April 2019, Callfreq for HBS (A39) changed to 16.7% (from 28.6%)
On 11 April 2019, Callfreq for 61 (J27) changed to 66.7% (from 50%)
On 15 April 2019, Callfreq for 66 (J33) changed to 66.7% (from 80%)
On 18 June 2019, Callfreq for RABR (485) in 2003 changed to 18.2% (from 10%)
On 04 July, I notice that Callfreq for BB2 in APRIL 2004 should be 3/8 = 37.5% instead of 2/7 = 28.6%.
I do not think this change will affect any analyses, because
I do not THINK I used UPD data from APRIL (not June) 2004 for any analyses.
But watch for this possibility.
On 04 July, I notice that Callfreq for 59 in APRIL 2004 should be 3/6 = 50% instead of 2/5 = 40%
I do not think this change will affect any analyses, because
I do not THINK I used UPD data from APRIL (not June) 2004 for any analyses.
But watch for this possibility.
On 28 Feb 2020, I do not find any new changes to this file beyond those described above.
File name = Fig 8.1, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, and 8.12, Males and Females, UPDs, 19 Nov 202
Replication data for: Fig 10.6, UPDs, Middle, Percentage of sexually active males in colony vs clan type, 16 Dec 2025
No full textFILE DESCRIPTION
Keywords: UPDs, Clan type, percentage of sexually active males in colony
File name = Fig 10.6, UPDs, Middle, Percentage of sexually active males in colony vs clan type, 16 Dec 2025
OLD File name = UPDs, Percentage of colony residents that were sexually active males, 12 Feb 2025
Percentage of UPD clans that were Multi-male = percentage of UPD clans that contained >=2 sexually mature/active males
These data checked TWO TIMES at creation of file.
These data used for Fig 10.6, Middle, in Hoogland 2026.
This file ready for longterm storage on 12 Feb 2025.
Percent of colony residents that were sexually active males = number of sexually active-mature males/total
number of all adult and yearling residents in colony in May (X 100 for calculation of percentage)
These data checked TWO TIMES at creation of this file on 12 Feb 2025
This file ready for longterm storage on 12 Feb 2025.
clan type = Type of clan = One-male (1), Multi-male (2), Half-male (0.5) or No-male (0)
No-male clan had no resident sexually mature male in May
Half-male clan shared a single sexually mature male in May with another clan
One-male clan had a single resident sexually mature male in May
Multi-male clan had >=2 sexually mature males in May
For more information about clan types, see Chapter 10 of Hoogland 2025
One entry per year for columns A and B
All UPD data from Horse Corral Colony at Bryce Canyon National Park from 1996 through 2005
No data from 1995, when I could not accurately determine clan compositions, because
I did not start research in 1995 until May (2 months after mating season)
I have not shown the percentage symbol (%) for any of the two columns (A and B).
This file does not contain information on YEAR for each line. I could find those data, if necessary.
File name = Fig 10.6, UPDs, Middle, Percentage of sexually active males in colony vs clan type, 16 Dec 202