Source Insects
Mixed-sex adults of S. oryzae and P. truncatus were used in all experiments for this study. These insects were cultured on organic soft wheat (var. Mexa) and maize (var Dias), respectively, and maintained in incubators under constant abiotic conditions at 27 \u00b1 0.1\u00b0C, 55 \u00b1 1 % relative humidity (r.h.), and 14:10 (L:D) h photoperiod. Colonies were maintained at the Laboratory of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology (LEAZ), at the Department of Agriculture, Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, Greece.
Insecticide formulations for concrete surfaces and for grain treatment
We used the formulation Teenox\u00ae EC (Armosa Tech S.A., Engis, Belgium), that contains 10% w/v of azamethiphos. Concrete arenas were prepared for testing by first mixing a slurry of water and cement in a large pitcher (Rockite, Cleveland, OH, US). Briefly, water was added until a thick paste consistency was achieved. The mixture then sat for 1 min before it was stirred vigorously, making sure any remaining clumps of dry Rockite were hydrated. Once the mixture was a loose, batter-like consistency, 8.5 ml of the slurry was poured into plastic Petri dishes (90 mm in diameter and 15 mm in height; area of the bottom: 63.61 cm2; hereafter, arenas). The slurry was poured to create a surface of approximately 0.5 cm thick. The cement dishes were then left at room temperature to cure for 24 h. The insecticide treatments that were sprayed onto the concrete arenas included: control (distilled H2O) and with the corresponding concentrations being 5 x 10-6, 5 x 10-4 and 5 x 10-3 mg a.i./cm\u00b2. We selected these concentrations, as the label concentrations of Teenox\u00ae EC vary, depending of the target species and key application scenario.
Untreated, clean, and uninfested maize and wheat were used in the experiments that had been frozen for 72 h beforehand to ensure no prior infestation. The insecticide treatments were sprayed onto 500 g lots of maize or wheat with an artist\u2019s airbrush sprayer (Badger 100 series, Badger Corporation, Franklin Park, IL, US; designed to spray a line 3.2\u201350.8 mm wide with materials of high viscosity) at a pressure of 0.70 kg/cm2 for each treatment listed above. For both maize and wheat, Teenox\u00ae EC was applied on grain at 0.01, 1, and 10 ppm (mg of active ingredient per kg of grain), in order to cover a wide range of concentrations, given that this is the first time that Teenox\u00ae EC is tested on grains. The insecticide was applied on maize or wheat grain in three separate formulation events on different days, one for each replicate.
Experimental Setup
Cohorts of 10 mixed-sex adult S. oryzae and P. truncatus were exposed for 24, 48, and 168 h periods on concrete and 72 h, 7 and 14 d in grain. Sitophilus oryzae was tested on wheat and P. truncatus was tested on maize. The cohorts were added to separate vials filled with 10 g of grain. After the exposure period, individuals were removed and placed into a clean Petri dish with filter paper and evaluated for condition. Using a stereomicroscope (SMZ-18, Nikon Inc., Tokyo, Japan) under 60\u00d7 magnification, insects were classified as alive (moving normally, is able to right itself when flipped over, no twitching), affected (moving sluggishly or erratically, unable to right itself, twitching of antennae or legs may be present), or dead (completely immobile even after prodding). After evaluating insect mortality on grain on day 14, adults were removed from the vials, and commodity was kept for 65 d to assess progeny production.
","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/67776549","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"teenox_rw_lagb_concrete_assay_agdata_commons.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/67776552","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"teenox_rw_lagb_grain_assay_agdata_commons.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/67776555","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"progenyteenoxcombined.csv"}],"identifier":"10.15482/USDA.ADC/33318054.v1","keyword":["Azamethiphos","European Union","Greece","Prostephanus truncatus","Sitophilus oryzae","University of Thessaly","bulk storage","concrete","crack-and-crevice","exposure assay","food facilities","grain","grain protectant","insecticides","laboratory","larger grain borer","maize","organophosphate","processing","rice weevil","stored product insects","stored products","wheat"],"license":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/","modified":"2026-08-28","programCode":["005:040"],"publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"Agricultural Research Service"},"spatial":"{\"type\": \"Point\", \"coordinates\": [22.94084880702261, 39.393638539142074]}","temporal":"2025-07-01/2026-09-01","title":"Data from: A new organophosphate in stored-product protection? Efficacy of azamethiphos for the control of Sitophilus oryzae (L.) and Prostephanus truncatus (Horn)"},"description":"Source Insects
Mixed-sex adults of S. oryzae and P. truncatus were used in all experiments for this study. These insects were cultured on organic soft wheat (var. Mexa) and maize (var Dias), respectively, and maintained in incubators under constant abiotic conditions at 27 \u00b1 0.1\u00b0C, 55 \u00b1 1 % relative humidity (r.h.), and 14:10 (L:D) h photoperiod. Colonies were maintained at the Laboratory of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology (LEAZ), at the Department of Agriculture, Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, Greece.
Insecticide formulations for concrete surfaces and for grain treatment
We used the formulation Teenox\u00ae EC (Armosa Tech S.A., Engis, Belgium), that contains 10% w/v of azamethiphos. Concrete arenas were prepared for testing by first mixing a slurry of water and cement in a large pitcher (Rockite, Cleveland, OH, US). Briefly, water was added until a thick paste consistency was achieved. The mixture then sat for 1 min before it was stirred vigorously, making sure any remaining clumps of dry Rockite were hydrated. Once the mixture was a loose, batter-like consistency, 8.5 ml of the slurry was poured into plastic Petri dishes (90 mm in diameter and 15 mm in height; area of the bottom: 63.61 cm2; hereafter, arenas). The slurry was poured to create a surface of approximately 0.5 cm thick. The cement dishes were then left at room temperature to cure for 24 h. The insecticide treatments that were sprayed onto the concrete arenas included: control (distilled H2O) and with the corresponding concentrations being 5 x 10-6, 5 x 10-4 and 5 x 10-3 mg a.i./cm\u00b2. We selected these concentrations, as the label concentrations of Teenox\u00ae EC vary, depending of the target species and key application scenario.
Untreated, clean, and uninfested maize and wheat were used in the experiments that had been frozen for 72 h beforehand to ensure no prior infestation. The insecticide treatments were sprayed onto 500 g lots of maize or wheat with an artist\u2019s airbrush sprayer (Badger 100 series, Badger Corporation, Franklin Park, IL, US; designed to spray a line 3.2\u201350.8 mm wide with materials of high viscosity) at a pressure of 0.70 kg/cm2 for each treatment listed above. For both maize and wheat, Teenox\u00ae EC was applied on grain at 0.01, 1, and 10 ppm (mg of active ingredient per kg of grain), in order to cover a wide range of concentrations, given that this is the first time that Teenox\u00ae EC is tested on grains. The insecticide was applied on maize or wheat grain in three separate formulation events on different days, one for each replicate.
Experimental Setup
Cohorts of 10 mixed-sex adult S. oryzae and P. truncatus were exposed for 24, 48, and 168 h periods on concrete and 72 h, 7 and 14 d in grain. Sitophilus oryzae was tested on wheat and P. truncatus was tested on maize. The cohorts were added to separate vials filled with 10 g of grain. After the exposure period, individuals were removed and placed into a clean Petri dish with filter paper and evaluated for condition. Using a stereomicroscope (SMZ-18, Nikon Inc., Tokyo, Japan) under 60\u00d7 magnification, insects were classified as alive (moving normally, is able to right itself when flipped over, no twitching), affected (moving sluggishly or erratically, unable to right itself, twitching of antennae or legs may be present), or dead (completely immobile even after prodding). After evaluating insect mortality on grain on day 14, adults were removed from the vials, and commodity was kept for 65 d to assess progeny production.
","distribution_titles":["teenox_rw_lagb_concrete_assay_agdata_commons.csv","teenox_rw_lagb_grain_assay_agdata_commons.csv","progenyteenoxcombined.csv"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/20d1c814-a6cc-4a90-a118-d40438640561","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/20d1c814-a6cc-4a90-a118-d40438640561/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"10.15482/USDA.ADC/33318054.v1","keyword":["Azamethiphos","European Union","Greece","Prostephanus truncatus","Sitophilus oryzae","University of Thessaly","bulk storage","concrete","crack-and-crevice","exposure assay","food facilities","grain","grain protectant","insecticides","laboratory","larger grain borer","maize","organophosphate","processing","rice weevil","stored product insects","stored products","wheat"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-09-30T21:32:35.667372","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"352b4532-793d-4075-a03f-05b778a3c43a","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/refs/heads/master/usda.png","name":"Department of Agriculture","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"usda"},"parent_identifier":null,"popularity":0,"publisher":"Agricultural Research Service","slug":"data-from-a-new-organophosphate-in-stored-product-protection-efficacy-of-azamethiphos-for-","spatial_centroid":{"lat":39.393638539142074,"lon":22.94084880702261},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[22.94084880702261,39.393638539142074],"type":"Point"},"theme":[],"title":"Data from: A new organophosphate in stored-product protection? Efficacy of azamethiphos for the control of Sitophilus oryzae (L.) and Prostephanus truncatus (Horn)","type":"dataset"},{"_score":70.017235,"_sort":[1790803955484,70.017235,0,"b6c5d6d6-15b9-4b5d-9be3-a9b7382ad8fc"],"access_level":"public","dcat":{"@type":"dcat:Dataset","accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["005:18","005:20"],"contactPoint":{"fn":"Smart, Brian, C.","hasEmail":"mailto:brian.smart@ndsu.edu"},"description":"Code accompanying the manuscript \"The stability of fatty acid composition in sunflower oil is dependent on environment and affected by structural variation\" (Ingold, Hulke et al.), submitted to Theoretical and Applied Genetics.
The code implements a genome-wide association study of seed fatty acid composition and its stability in the sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) association mapping (SAM) population of 287 varieties, grown in eight field trials across North America: Vancouver, British Columbia (2010); Moorhead, Minnesota (2015, early and late plantings 2016); Ames, Iowa (2010, 2013, 2014); and Athens, Georgia (2010). Palmitic, stearic, oleic, and linoleic acid were measured by gas chromatography.
Multivariate GWAS was performed on four phenotype sets: mean fatty acid composition within each environment; the same omitting high oleic varieties; within-environment stability quantified by standard errors among replicate samples (alpha stability); and across-environment stability quantified by Eberhart and Russell's beta.
Included are scripts for phenotype preparation, beta stability regression, CHELSA climate data extraction and correlation, genotype and kinship analysis (ADMIXTURE, VanRaden kinship, PCA, LD blocks), multivariate GWAS with GEMMA and univariate GWAS with vcf2gwas, post-GWAS candidate gene identification, and analysis of a chromosome 5 introgression associated with stability under hot, humid conditions.
The code is archived at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22001495 and developed at https://github.com/BrianSmart/SunflowerFattyAcidStabilityGWAS. SNP genotypes are third-party and available from HelianthOME (http://www.helianthome.org/download/#genotype).
","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://geodata.nal.usda.gov/geonetwork/srv/api/records/e5eb6950-5358-45a0-b524-41b33ce2b954/formatters/xml","conformsTo":"https://www.isotc211.org/2005/gmd","format":"xml","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Geodata ISO 19139 metadata"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22001495","mediaType":"text/html","title":"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22001495"}],"identifier":"10.5281/zenodo.22001495","keyword":["GWAS","Helianthus annus L.","association mapping","fatty acid composition","genotype by environment (G\u00d7E) interaction","linoleic acid","oleic acid","seed oil quality","source code","structural variation","sunflower","trait stability"],"license":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/","modified":"2026-08-28","programCode":["005:040"],"publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"Agricultural Research Service"},"spatial":"{\"type\": \"MultiPoint\", \"coordinates\": [[-123.1207, 49.2827], [-96.7678, 46.8738], [-93.6199, 42.0347], [-83.3576, 33.9519]]}","temporal":"2010-01-01/2016-12-31","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Code for: The stability of fatty acid composition in sunflower oil is dependent on environment and affected by structural variation"},"description":"Code accompanying the manuscript \"The stability of fatty acid composition in sunflower oil is dependent on environment and affected by structural variation\" (Ingold, Hulke et al.), submitted to Theoretical and Applied Genetics.
The code implements a genome-wide association study of seed fatty acid composition and its stability in the sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) association mapping (SAM) population of 287 varieties, grown in eight field trials across North America: Vancouver, British Columbia (2010); Moorhead, Minnesota (2015, early and late plantings 2016); Ames, Iowa (2010, 2013, 2014); and Athens, Georgia (2010). Palmitic, stearic, oleic, and linoleic acid were measured by gas chromatography.
Multivariate GWAS was performed on four phenotype sets: mean fatty acid composition within each environment; the same omitting high oleic varieties; within-environment stability quantified by standard errors among replicate samples (alpha stability); and across-environment stability quantified by Eberhart and Russell's beta.
Included are scripts for phenotype preparation, beta stability regression, CHELSA climate data extraction and correlation, genotype and kinship analysis (ADMIXTURE, VanRaden kinship, PCA, LD blocks), multivariate GWAS with GEMMA and univariate GWAS with vcf2gwas, post-GWAS candidate gene identification, and analysis of a chromosome 5 introgression associated with stability under hot, humid conditions.
The code is archived at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22001495 and developed at https://github.com/BrianSmart/SunflowerFattyAcidStabilityGWAS. SNP genotypes are third-party and available from HelianthOME (http://www.helianthome.org/download/#genotype).
","distribution_titles":["Geodata ISO 19139 metadata","https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22001495"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/cf2c9546-b9bc-42b3-abdb-ec61759cf271","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/cf2c9546-b9bc-42b3-abdb-ec61759cf271/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"10.5281/zenodo.22001495","keyword":["GWAS","Helianthus annus L.","association mapping","fatty acid composition","genotype by environment (G\u00d7E) interaction","linoleic acid","oleic acid","seed oil quality","source code","structural variation","sunflower","trait stability"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-09-30T21:32:35.484474","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"352b4532-793d-4075-a03f-05b778a3c43a","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/refs/heads/master/usda.png","name":"Department of Agriculture","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"usda"},"parent_identifier":null,"popularity":0,"publisher":"Agricultural Research Service","slug":"code-for-the-stability-of-fatty-acid-composition-in-sunflower-oil-is-dependent-on-environm","spatial_centroid":{"lat":43.035775,"lon":-99.2165},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[-123.1207,49.2827],[-96.7678,46.8738],[-93.6199,42.0347],[-83.3576,33.9519]],"type":"MultiPoint"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Code for: The stability of fatty acid composition in sunflower oil is dependent on environment and affected by structural variation","type":"dataset"},{"_score":2.9287682,"_sort":[1790803950747,2.9287682,2,"3c29b8a0-90c6-4200-a9b4-328d305fdc30"],"access_level":"public","dcat":{"@type":"dcat:Dataset","accessLevel":"public","accrualPeriodicity":"irregular","bureauCode":["005:18"],"contactPoint":{"fn":"Morrison, William R.","hasEmail":"mailto:william.morrison@usda.gov"},"description":"[NOTE: 2026-07-31: Data files added, see README file for descriptions]
Trapping in 2023 with a linear set of dosages of (E)-8-dodecenyl acetate
Field trapping was done according to the methodology in Ruiz et al. 2022. The fields were located in North-Central Kansas at the Land Institute near Salina, KS. No pesticides were applied to these fields during the experiment in 2023. Starting the first week of June, six transects were set out, two in each Silphium integrifolium field. Each transect contained seven 30.4 cm x 30.4 cm sticky card traps (Alpha Scents, Canby, OR, USA) affixed to the top of a 1.27 cm diameter, three foot in length PVC pole that was hammered into the ground until sturdy. The cards were affixed using a 271 cm long sticky card ring holder (Olson Products Inc., Medina, OH, USA) that was bent to a 90\u00b0 angle and placed inside the PVC pipe. Two large binder clips were also used to anchor the sticky card to its card holder.
The sticky traps in each transect were spaced 10 meters apart around the perimeter of the field. Within each transect, traps were baited with a linear increase in concentrations in 2023, including either a control (50 \u00b5l of acetone), a low concentration (50 \u00b5l of a solution made by mixing 5.75 \u00b5l of (E)-8-dodecenyl acetate in 5 ml of acetone), or a doubled concentration (11.5 \u00b5l of (E)-8-dodecenyl acetate diluted in 5 ml of acetone) of (E)-8-dodecenyl acetate (Alfa Chemistry, Ronkonkoma, NY, USA). All lures were added to a 3-ml LDPE dropping bottle (Wheaton, DWK Life Sciences, Millville, NJ, USA). The clear sticky card traps were collected and replaced biweekly until the first E. giganteana adult was caught, then traps were changed weekly. The lures and control bottles were replaced once every two weeks (with lure emissions confirmed out to 14 d in Ruiz et al. 2022) and their position in the field rotated at each change. Each lure was in each position twice over the course of the season.
When collected, the sticky cards were held in a 7.6 L (=2 gal) labeled Ziploc\u00a9 bag transported back to USDA-ARS. All collected sticky traps were placed in a freezer for approximately 24 h. The total number of E. giganteana per trap and their distance from the lure in millimeters was recorded. In addition, the number of nontarget lepidoptera was recorded on each trap. Individual E. giganteana and non-target lepidoptera were only counted if more than half of the specimen was remaining on the sticky trap at the time of counting to ensure positive identification.
Trapping in 2024 with an exponential set of concentrations of (E)-8-dodecenyl acetate
Field trapping in 2024 was conducted similarly to that in 2023 with the following modifications. Three different fields located at the Land Institute were used (Table 1). [HS1] Pesticides were applied once to one of the fields and adjacent to one of the others. Three transects were deployed in each of the three fields. Each transect contained four traps for a total of 36 traps. The traps were assembled similarly to those used in 2023, but a hand-made sticky card was used instead of a manufactured one to improve captures. These sticky cards were made of a laminated 21.6 \u00d7 27.9 cm (=8.5 by 11 in) piece of white cardstock paper (Astrobright, Neenah, WI, USA) coated on both sides with TAD\u24c7 all-weather adhesive (Tr\u00e9c\u00e9 Adhesives Division, Adair, OK, USA). The sticky sides were covered with wax paper for ease of travel. Additionally, the sticky cards had a chicken wire cage placed over them in the field to try to prevent the capture of birds and other nontargets on the traps. Traps in 2024 were baited with an exponential set of concentrations of (E)-8-dodecenyl acetate. In each transect, there was a solvent only control (50 \u00b5l of acetone), a low concentration equivalent to the 2023 treatment (50 \u00b5l of a solution made of 5.75 \u00b5l of (E)-8-dodecenyl acetate diluted in 5 ml of acetone), a medium concentration (50 \u00b5l of a solution made of 78.5 \u00b5l of (E)-8-dodecenyl acetate diluted in 5 ml of acetone), and a high concentration (50 \u00b5l of a solution made of 580.4 \u00b5l of (E)-8-dodecenyl acetate diluted in 5 ml of acetone). The traps were replaced weekly, and the lures were replaced biweekly, as well as rotated positions in the transect. Each lure was in each position twice over the course of the season.
Eucosma giganteana and Silphium integrifolium collections from the field
Eucosma giganteana cannot yet be reared successfully in the laboratory, thus we sourced all specimens from the field. Adult E. giganteana individuals were carefully captured by hand in one of the fields planted to Silphium integrifolium at the Land Institute (38.769622, -97.598576) between 22:00 and 24:00 five times a week from June to August 2024. Moths were immediately sexed and individually placed in small deli cups with appropriate labels. They were brought back to the USDA-ARS Center for Grain and Animal Health (39.1955486, -96.5987334) for the experiments described below. Once in the lab but prior to use in experiments, moths were kept in a quiet environment at approximately 23 \u00b1 0.1\u2103 and 16:8 L:D photoperiod. Importantly, no lures were used to capture insects to avoid biasing the results of the experiments below. Silphium integrifolium flower heads were cut 1 cm below the flower and brought back on a weekly basis during the same timeframe and stored at 4\u00b0C until needed for experiments. Flower heads were never more than 4 days old prior to use.
Headspace Characterization
Headspace was collected from the following treatments: 10 E. giganteana male moths only, 10 E. giganteana female moths only, an even mix of male and female moths (5:5), flower cuttings of S. integrifolium, and a blank control. For the E. giganteana treatments, only alive, healthy adult moths that were collected within five days were used. For the S. integrifolium collections, approximately 25 grams of flower heads cut the same week as collections were used.
For each treatment, E. giganteana or S. integrifolium were placed in a clean 100-mL beaker. To prevent moth escapees, a metal mesh top was constructed and affixed to the opening of the beaker. The beaker was then placed in one of eight 500-mL glass headspace collection containers with a PTFE septum and lid. A Pora-Pak Q volatile collection trap (VCT) was inserted in the output end. The VCT consisted of an angled drip-tip collection point borosilicate glass tube with a mesh (Stainless Steel #316 screen), packed with 20 mg of PoraPak-Q\u2122 chemical absorbent held in place with a borosilicate glass wool plug, and followed by a PTFE Teflon\u2122 compression seal. A PTFE tube spanned from the flow meter (CADS-4CPP, Clean Air Delivery System, Sigma Scientific, LLC, Micanopy, FL, USA) to the input end of the headspace container at a flow rate of 1 L/min. Prior to that, the air was scrubbed with an activated carbon filter and was pumped in using the central air pump for the center. Samples ran for 24 h. Each volatile collection trap was collected and eluted with 150 \u00b5l of dichloromethane in a fume hood into a 2-mL GC vial containing a 250 \u00b5l glass insert with polymer feet. The solvent was gently pushed through the volatile collection trap with N2 gas. At the end of collecting all the samples, 1 \u00b5l of an internal standard, tetradecane (190.5 ng), was added to each of the samples. The samples were then all capped with a magnetic screw top lid and secured with PTFE tape before being placed in a freezer at -20 \u2103 until they could be run. All headspace samples were collected within 5 weeks. After each replication, the headspace collection containers were all washed with methanol and then hexane. VCTs were rinsed in triplicate with dichloromethane. A total of at least n = 5 replicates were tested for each treatment.
Gas Chromatography Coupled with Mass Spectrometry
All headspace collection sample extracts were run on an Agilent 7890B gas chromatograph (GC) equipped with an Agilent Durabond HP-5 column (30 m length, 0.250 mm diameter and 0.25 \u03bcm film thickness) with He as the carrier gas at a constant 1.2 mL/min flow and 40 cm/s velocity. The GC was coupled with a single-quadrupole Agilent 5997B mass spectrometer (MS). The compounds were separated by auto-injecting 1 \u03bcl of each sample under splitless into the GC\u2013MS at room temperature (approximately 23 \u00b0C). The flow rate was 18 ml/min. The GC program consisted of 40 \u00b0C for 1 min followed by 10 \u00b0C/min increases to 300 \u00b0C and then held for 26.5 min. After a solvent delay of 3 min, mass ranges between 50 and 550 atomic mass units were scanned. Compounds were tentatively identified by comparison of spectral data with those from the NIST 14 library and by GC retention index. The samples were normalized according to the following formula: (Pksam \u2013 Pkmin)/(Pkmax \u2013 Pkmin), where Pksam is the peak area from the sample, Pkmin is the global minimum peak area, and Pkmax is the global max peak area.
Electroantennography of E. giganteana
All electroantennogram (EAG) recordings of E. giganteana were taken from 19:00 to 23:00 which corresponded to the peak activity period of E. giganteana based on prior literature (Ruiz et al. 2022). Prior to recordings, the machine and software were powered on and given 30 min to warm up. Only field-captured moths within ...","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/51279737","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"scribner_headspace_volatiles_eucosma_2024.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/51279740","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Eucosma_EAD .csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/51279743","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Combined flight mill data1.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/51279749","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Trapping_combined2024.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/66814319","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"beta_myrcene_NIST_mass_spectra.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/66814322","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"beta_myrcene_silphium_sample.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/66814325","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"beta_myrcene_std_sample.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/66814328","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"beta_phellandrene_NIST_mass_spectra.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/66814331","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"beta_phellandrene_sample_silphium.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/66814334","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"beta_phellandrene_std_sample.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/66814337","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"beta_pinene_NIST_extracted_mass_spectrum.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/66814340","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"beta_pinene_sample_silphium.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/66814343","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"beta_pinene_std_sample.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/66814346","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"camphene_in_silphium_sample_mass_spectrum.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/66814349","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"camphene_NIST_mass_spectra.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/66814352","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"camphene_standard_sample.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/66814355","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"D_limonene_NIST_mass_spectra.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/66814358","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"D_limonene_silphium_sample.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/66814361","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"D_limonene_std_sample.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/66814364","format":"R","mediaType":"text/plain","title":"Hazel Amalgamated Script.R"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/66814367","format":"docx","mediaType":"application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document","title":"README Scribner et al.docx"}],"identifier":"10.15482/USDA.ADC/28055111.v2","keyword":["ars","attract-and-kill","behavior","behavioral ecology","behaviorally-based management","cgahr","cup plant","eag","eucosma giganteana","flight mill","giant eucosma moth","insect behavior","insect flight","integrated pest management","kansas","lepidoptera","manhattan, ks","mating disruption","monitoring","pest","physiology","prairie","semiochemicals","silphium","silphium integrifolium","the land institute","tortricidae","trapping","usda"],"license":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/","modified":"2026-07-31","programCode":["005:040"],"publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"Agricultural Research Service"},"temporal":"2023-05-01/2024-10-01","title":"Data from: Behavioral and physiological response of Eucosma giganteana to semiochemicals from conspecifics and Silphium integrifolium"},"description":"
[NOTE: 2026-07-31: Data files added, see README file for descriptions]
Trapping in 2023 with a linear set of dosages of (E)-8-dodecenyl acetate
Field trapping was done according to the methodology in Ruiz et al. 2022. The fields were located in North-Central Kansas at the Land Institute near Salina, KS. No pesticides were applied to these fields during the experiment in 2023. Starting the first week of June, six transects were set out, two in each Silphium integrifolium field. Each transect contained seven 30.4 cm x 30.4 cm sticky card traps (Alpha Scents, Canby, OR, USA) affixed to the top of a 1.27 cm diameter, three foot in length PVC pole that was hammered into the ground until sturdy. The cards were affixed using a 271 cm long sticky card ring holder (Olson Products Inc., Medina, OH, USA) that was bent to a 90\u00b0 angle and placed inside the PVC pipe. Two large binder clips were also used to anchor the sticky card to its card holder.
The sticky traps in each transect were spaced 10 meters apart around the perimeter of the field. Within each transect, traps were baited with a linear increase in concentrations in 2023, including either a control (50 \u00b5l of acetone), a low concentration (50 \u00b5l of a solution made by mixing 5.75 \u00b5l of (E)-8-dodecenyl acetate in 5 ml of acetone), or a doubled concentration (11.5 \u00b5l of (E)-8-dodecenyl acetate diluted in 5 ml of acetone) of (E)-8-dodecenyl acetate (Alfa Chemistry, Ronkonkoma, NY, USA). All lures were added to a 3-ml LDPE dropping bottle (Wheaton, DWK Life Sciences, Millville, NJ, USA). The clear sticky card traps were collected and replaced biweekly until the first E. giganteana adult was caught, then traps were changed weekly. The lures and control bottles were replaced once every two weeks (with lure emissions confirmed out to 14 d in Ruiz et al. 2022) and their position in the field rotated at each change. Each lure was in each position twice over the course of the season.
When collected, the sticky cards were held in a 7.6 L (=2 gal) labeled Ziploc\u00a9 bag transported back to USDA-ARS. All collected sticky traps were placed in a freezer for approximately 24 h. The total number of E. giganteana per trap and their distance from the lure in millimeters was recorded. In addition, the number of nontarget lepidoptera was recorded on each trap. Individual E. giganteana and non-target lepidoptera were only counted if more than half of the specimen was remaining on the sticky trap at the time of counting to ensure positive identification.
Trapping in 2024 with an exponential set of concentrations of (E)-8-dodecenyl acetate
Field trapping in 2024 was conducted similarly to that in 2023 with the following modifications. Three different fields located at the Land Institute were used (Table 1). [HS1] Pesticides were applied once to one of the fields and adjacent to one of the others. Three transects were deployed in each of the three fields. Each transect contained four traps for a total of 36 traps. The traps were assembled similarly to those used in 2023, but a hand-made sticky card was used instead of a manufactured one to improve captures. These sticky cards were made of a laminated 21.6 \u00d7 27.9 cm (=8.5 by 11 in) piece of white cardstock paper (Astrobright, Neenah, WI, USA) coated on both sides with TAD\u24c7 all-weather adhesive (Tr\u00e9c\u00e9 Adhesives Division, Adair, OK, USA). The sticky sides were covered with wax paper for ease of travel. Additionally, the sticky cards had a chicken wire cage placed over them in the field to try to prevent the capture of birds and other nontargets on the traps. Traps in 2024 were baited with an exponential set of concentrations of (E)-8-dodecenyl acetate. In each transect, there was a solvent only control (50 \u00b5l of acetone), a low concentration equivalent to the 2023 treatment (50 \u00b5l of a solution made of 5.75 \u00b5l of (E)-8-dodecenyl acetate diluted in 5 ml of acetone), a medium concentration (50 \u00b5l of a solution made of 78.5 \u00b5l of (E)-8-dodecenyl acetate diluted in 5 ml of acetone), and a high concentration (50 \u00b5l of a solution made of 580.4 \u00b5l of (E)-8-dodecenyl acetate diluted in 5 ml of acetone). The traps were replaced weekly, and the lures were replaced biweekly, as well as rotated positions in the transect. Each lure was in each position twice over the course of the season.
Eucosma giganteana and Silphium integrifolium collections from the field
Eucosma giganteana cannot yet be reared successfully in the laboratory, thus we sourced all specimens from the field. Adult E. giganteana individuals were carefully captured by hand in one of the fields planted to Silphium integrifolium at the Land Institute (38.769622, -97.598576) between 22:00 and 24:00 five times a week from June to August 2024. Moths were immediately sexed and individually placed in small deli cups with appropriate labels. They were brought back to the USDA-ARS Center for Grain and Animal Health (39.1955486, -96.5987334) for the experiments described below. Once in the lab but prior to use in experiments, moths were kept in a quiet environment at approximately 23 \u00b1 0.1\u2103 and 16:8 L:D photoperiod. Importantly, no lures were used to capture insects to avoid biasing the results of the experiments below. Silphium integrifolium flower heads were cut 1 cm below the flower and brought back on a weekly basis during the same timeframe and stored at 4\u00b0C until needed for experiments. Flower heads were never more than 4 days old prior to use.
Headspace Characterization
Headspace was collected from the following treatments: 10 E. giganteana male moths only, 10 E. giganteana female moths only, an even mix of male and female moths (5:5), flower cuttings of S. integrifolium, and a blank control. For the E. giganteana treatments, only alive, healthy adult moths that were collected within five days were used. For the S. integrifolium collections, approximately 25 grams of flower heads cut the same week as collections were used.
For each treatment, E. giganteana or S. integrifolium were placed in a clean 100-mL beaker. To prevent moth escapees, a metal mesh top was constructed and affixed to the opening of the beaker. The beaker was then placed in one of eight 500-mL glass headspace collection containers with a PTFE septum and lid. A Pora-Pak Q volatile collection trap (VCT) was inserted in the output end. The VCT consisted of an angled drip-tip collection point borosilicate glass tube with a mesh (Stainless Steel #316 screen), packed with 20 mg of PoraPak-Q\u2122 chemical absorbent held in place with a borosilicate glass wool plug, and followed by a PTFE Teflon\u2122 compression seal. A PTFE tube spanned from the flow meter (CADS-4CPP, Clean Air Delivery System, Sigma Scientific, LLC, Micanopy, FL, USA) to the input end of the headspace container at a flow rate of 1 L/min. Prior to that, the air was scrubbed with an activated carbon filter and was pumped in using the central air pump for the center. Samples ran for 24 h. Each volatile collection trap was collected and eluted with 150 \u00b5l of dichloromethane in a fume hood into a 2-mL GC vial containing a 250 \u00b5l glass insert with polymer feet. The solvent was gently pushed through the volatile collection trap with N2 gas. At the end of collecting all the samples, 1 \u00b5l of an internal standard, tetradecane (190.5 ng), was added to each of the samples. The samples were then all capped with a magnetic screw top lid and secured with PTFE tape before being placed in a freezer at -20 \u2103 until they could be run. All headspace samples were collected within 5 weeks. After each replication, the headspace collection containers were all washed with methanol and then hexane. VCTs were rinsed in triplicate with dichloromethane. A total of at least n = 5 replicates were tested for each treatment.
Gas Chromatography Coupled with Mass Spectrometry
All headspace collection sample extracts were run on an Agilent 7890B gas chromatograph (GC) equipped with an Agilent Durabond HP-5 column (30 m length, 0.250 mm diameter and 0.25 \u03bcm film thickness) with He as the carrier gas at a constant 1.2 mL/min flow and 40 cm/s velocity. The GC was coupled with a single-quadrupole Agilent 5997B mass spectrometer (MS). The compounds were separated by auto-injecting 1 \u03bcl of each sample under splitless into the GC\u2013MS at room temperature (approximately 23 \u00b0C). The flow rate was 18 ml/min. The GC program consisted of 40 \u00b0C for 1 min followed by 10 \u00b0C/min increases to 300 \u00b0C and then held for 26.5 min. After a solvent delay of 3 min, mass ranges between 50 and 550 atomic mass units were scanned. Compounds were tentatively identified by comparison of spectral data with those from the NIST 14 library and by GC retention index. The samples were normalized according to the following formula: (Pksam \u2013 Pkmin)/(Pkmax \u2013 Pkmin), where Pksam is the peak area from the sample, Pkmin is the global minimum peak area, and Pkmax is the global max peak area.
Electroantennography of E. giganteana
All electroantennogram (EAG) recordings of E. giganteana were taken from 19:00 to 23:00 which corresponded to the peak activity period of E. giganteana based on prior literature (Ruiz et al. 2022). Prior to recordings, the machine and software were powered on and given 30 min to warm up. Only field-captured moths within ...","distribution_titles":["scribner_headspace_volatiles_eucosma_2024.csv","Eucosma_EAD .csv","Combined flight mill data1.csv","Trapping_combined2024.csv","beta_myrcene_NIST_mass_spectra.csv","beta_myrcene_silphium_sample.csv","beta_myrcene_std_sample.csv","beta_phellandrene_NIST_mass_spectra.csv","beta_phellandrene_sample_silphium.csv","beta_phellandrene_std_sample.csv","beta_pinene_NIST_extracted_mass_spectrum.csv","beta_pinene_sample_silphium.csv","beta_pinene_std_sample.csv","camphene_in_silphium_sample_mass_spectrum.csv","camphene_NIST_mass_spectra.csv","camphene_standard_sample.csv","D_limonene_NIST_mass_spectra.csv","D_limonene_silphium_sample.csv","D_limonene_std_sample.csv","Hazel Amalgamated Script.R","README Scribner et al.docx"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/4194b55a-32ce-4785-8de6-4ea832ad9600","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/4194b55a-32ce-4785-8de6-4ea832ad9600/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":false,"identifier":"10.15482/USDA.ADC/28055111.v2","keyword":["ars","attract-and-kill","behavior","behavioral ecology","behaviorally-based management","cgahr","cup plant","eag","eucosma giganteana","flight mill","giant eucosma moth","insect behavior","insect flight","integrated pest management","kansas","lepidoptera","manhattan, ks","mating disruption","monitoring","pest","physiology","prairie","semiochemicals","silphium","silphium integrifolium","the land institute","tortricidae","trapping","usda"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-09-30T21:32:30.747498","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"352b4532-793d-4075-a03f-05b778a3c43a","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/refs/heads/master/usda.png","name":"Department of Agriculture","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"usda"},"parent_identifier":null,"popularity":2,"publisher":"Agricultural Research Service","slug":"data-from-behavioral-and-physiological-response-of-ieucosma-giganteana-ito-semiochemicals-","spatial_centroid":null,"spatial_shape":null,"theme":[],"title":"Data from: Behavioral and physiological response of Eucosma giganteana to semiochemicals from conspecifics and Silphium integrifolium","type":"dataset"},{"_score":56.691845,"_sort":[1790803890126,56.691845,2,"627746d6-1a5f-43bc-8933-06d33a7bf3b5"],"access_level":"public","dcat":{"@type":"dcat:Dataset","accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["005:18"],"contactPoint":{"fn":"McGranahan, Devan, A.","hasEmail":"mailto:Devan.McGranahan@usda.gov"},"description":"
Overview
Fire increasingly conflicts with the built environment. The Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) describes areas where vegetation near the built environment increases wildfire hazard. In the United States, attention concentrates on WUI in forested areas, but human populations are extending into rangelands. The combination of WUI expansion and woody plant encroachment might present novel challenges to wildfire management, especially given the rural nature of rangelands in the US, which extends the response time of emergency services. We use publicly available data to describe the abundance, distribution, type, and overall wildfire risk in rural rangelands. Most of the WUI in the US Interior West (54%) occurs in rangeland: The majority of the US Interior West is rangeland and 4.3% of that\u2014over 1 million km2 \u2014is WUI. Most WUI is rural: 59% is further than 10 km from town and Tribal areas are even more remote. Rangeland WUI is approximately twice as likely to be degraded by woody encroachment than non-WUI rangeland, suggesting that conventional fire suppression tactics for rangeland fuels might be insufficient or unsafe. Greater awareness of rural rangeland WUI might help leverage community-level adaptive capacity against the novel challenges of protecting lives and property beyond urban/peri-urban zones.
Files included
These files include summarized data and R script used to create the analysis described above.
","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://geodata.nal.usda.gov/geonetwork/srv/api/records/352219db-1cf6-4bc8-b31e-3c5c95414983/formatters/xml","conformsTo":"https://www.isotc211.org/2005/gmd","format":"xml","mediaType":"text/xml","title":"Geodata ISO 19139 metadata"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/50799297","format":"xlsx","mediaType":"application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet","title":"RangeWUI.xlsx"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/50799306","format":"zip","mediaType":"application/zip","title":"Robjects.zip"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/50799426","format":"pdf","mediaType":"application/pdf","title":"Rscript.pdf"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/54073649","format":"pdf","mediaType":"application/pdf","title":"EnergyWUI_StateCountyTables.pdf"}],"identifier":"10.15482/USDA.ADC/27905196.v2","keyword":["Landscape ecology","Rural capacity","Wildfire risk","Wildland-Urban Interface"],"license":"https://www.usa.gov/publicdomain/label/1.0/","modified":"2026-08-24","programCode":["005:040"],"publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"Agricultural Research Service"},"spatial":"{\"type\": \"Polygon\", \"coordinates\": [[[-117.22282269144286, 48.951361163538735], [-116.72517991655339, 42.02391635277718], [-120.1729664255404, 42.020697055191334], [-120.01696456111064, 38.967836981509066], [-114.54306862581659, 34.85660167488804], [-114.6832958730517, 32.514550114224704], [-111.06066874853424, 31.322607705912148], [-109.03213360311572, 31.33480834546434], [-108.25891017714905, 31.355888352732066], [-108.24639534112985, 31.7754135525075], [-106.59884725403272, 31.772683839469508], [-103.06316071625766, 31.807185365994997], [-103.04044212432733, 36.88545053812453], [-102.05384882184559, 36.88822301139487], [-102.08372027968149, 40.79801610463937], [-104.06685608300286, 40.96452680481593], [-103.99076822453019, 48.917372469700894], [-117.22282269144286, 48.951361163538735]]]}","temporal":"2020-01-01/2024-10-31","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Data from: Quantifying wildfire risk to the built environment in rangelands of the US Interior West"},"description":"Overview
Fire increasingly conflicts with the built environment. The Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) describes areas where vegetation near the built environment increases wildfire hazard. In the United States, attention concentrates on WUI in forested areas, but human populations are extending into rangelands. The combination of WUI expansion and woody plant encroachment might present novel challenges to wildfire management, especially given the rural nature of rangelands in the US, which extends the response time of emergency services. We use publicly available data to describe the abundance, distribution, type, and overall wildfire risk in rural rangelands. Most of the WUI in the US Interior West (54%) occurs in rangeland: The majority of the US Interior West is rangeland and 4.3% of that\u2014over 1 million km2 \u2014is WUI. Most WUI is rural: 59% is further than 10 km from town and Tribal areas are even more remote. Rangeland WUI is approximately twice as likely to be degraded by woody encroachment than non-WUI rangeland, suggesting that conventional fire suppression tactics for rangeland fuels might be insufficient or unsafe. Greater awareness of rural rangeland WUI might help leverage community-level adaptive capacity against the novel challenges of protecting lives and property beyond urban/peri-urban zones.
Files included
These files include summarized data and R script used to create the analysis described above.
","distribution_titles":["Geodata ISO 19139 metadata","RangeWUI.xlsx","Robjects.zip","Rscript.pdf","EnergyWUI_StateCountyTables.pdf"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/66d49525-4505-4149-809b-326cd19ee7a8","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/66d49525-4505-4149-809b-326cd19ee7a8/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"10.15482/USDA.ADC/27905196.v2","keyword":["Landscape ecology","Rural capacity","Wildfire risk","Wildland-Urban Interface"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-09-30T21:31:30.126590","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"352b4532-793d-4075-a03f-05b778a3c43a","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/refs/heads/master/usda.png","name":"Department of Agriculture","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"usda"},"parent_identifier":null,"popularity":2,"publisher":"Agricultural Research Service","slug":"data-from-quantifying-wildfire-risk-to-the-built-environment-in-rangelands-of-the-us-inter","spatial_centroid":{"lat":37.89491669980133,"lon":-110.11571511992028},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-117.22282269144286,48.951361163538735],[-116.72517991655339,42.02391635277718],[-120.1729664255404,42.020697055191334],[-120.01696456111064,38.967836981509066],[-114.54306862581659,34.85660167488804],[-114.6832958730517,32.514550114224704],[-111.06066874853424,31.322607705912148],[-109.03213360311572,31.33480834546434],[-108.25891017714905,31.355888352732066],[-108.24639534112985,31.7754135525075],[-106.59884725403272,31.772683839469508],[-103.06316071625766,31.807185365994997],[-103.04044212432733,36.88545053812453],[-102.05384882184559,36.88822301139487],[-102.08372027968149,40.79801610463937],[-104.06685608300286,40.96452680481593],[-103.99076822453019,48.917372469700894],[-117.22282269144286,48.951361163538735]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"Data from: Quantifying wildfire risk to the built environment in rangelands of the US Interior West","type":"dataset"},{"_score":29.396832,"_sort":[1790803882039,29.396832,5,"0697d063-75bc-4ebc-b9ec-ee9d8e4648a8"],"access_level":"public","dcat":{"@type":"dcat:Dataset","accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["005:18"],"contactPoint":{"fn":"Read, Quentin D.","hasEmail":"mailto:quentin.read@usda.gov"},"description":"This dataset includes all raw data (.csv) and R software code (.Rmd notebook and rendered .html output) needed to reproduce the results presented in the associated manuscript. All exploratory data visualizations and tables of statistical model results are included. The associated manuscript presents the results of a feeding trial with four treatments: layer hens were fed a control diet or diets supplemented with high-oleic peanuts, peanut skin, or oleic acid. Response variables were measured over the course of eight weeks. Generalized linear mixed models include fixed effects of treatment, time, and their interaction, and repeated measures error structure where appropriate. Body weight was significantly greater than the control in the peanut skin and whole peanut treatment. Statistically significant effects of treatment were found for other responses, but overall the results suggest little adverse effects of peanut supplementation on layer performance or egg quality.
Data sheets include a column titled \"Rep\" indicating either experimental replication or repeated observation within an experimental unit, \"Week\" for time point (week 1-8), \"Pen\" representing an experimental unit within each replication, or group of birds randomly assigned to a treatment, and \"Trmt\" to indicate one of the four treatments:
This dataset includes all raw data (.csv) and R software code (.Rmd notebook and rendered .html output) needed to reproduce the results presented in the associated manuscript. All exploratory data visualizations and tables of statistical model results are included. The associated manuscript presents the results of a feeding trial with four treatments: layer hens were fed a control diet or diets supplemented with high-oleic peanuts, peanut skin, or oleic acid. Response variables were measured over the course of eight weeks. Generalized linear mixed models include fixed effects of treatment, time, and their interaction, and repeated measures error structure where appropriate. Body weight was significantly greater than the control in the peanut skin and whole peanut treatment. Statistically significant effects of treatment were found for other responses, but overall the results suggest little adverse effects of peanut supplementation on layer performance or egg quality.
Data sheets include a column titled \"Rep\" indicating either experimental replication or repeated observation within an experimental unit, \"Week\" for time point (week 1-8), \"Pen\" representing an experimental unit within each replication, or group of birds randomly assigned to a treatment, and \"Trmt\" to indicate one of the four treatments:
[Note 2026-08-31: File \"README_Tribolium_Density_MS_ADDENDUM.txt\" was added to dataset.]
[Note 2026-08-12: Files \"Supplemental Table 1_adult number g larvae.xlsx\", \"Supplemental Table 2_flour loss glm.xlsx\", \"Supplemental Table 3_reproductive output contrasts.csv\", \"Supplemental Table 4_Pairwise_G-Test_DFU_adults.xlsx\", and \"Supplemental Table 5_VOC peak table.csv\" were added to dataset.]
Tribolium castaneum, the red flour beetle, is a key pest of cereal grains and products that routinely infests food processing facilities. Such facilities represent dynamic environments comprising patches of resources of variable size and quality. To understand the influence of resource availability, insect density, and initial life stage on population regulation in T. castaneum, this study assessed the carrying capacity and population growth rates of T. castaneum populations kept for 20 weeks in a closed environment on four different amounts of diet at four starting population levels, then compared T. castaneum attraction to, reproductive output on, and the volatile profiles of previously-infested (e.g., conditioned) flour. Resource availability (e.g. the amount of flour) interacted with founding population density and life stage to influence T. castaneum population dynamics. In resource-limited patches, carrying capacity estimates were similar across founding densities, but the effect of founding population density on carrying capacity increased with flour availability. The opposite was observed for population growth rate, which tended to be more variable for small patches but stabilized as resource availability increased. Interestingly, both effects were reduced for populations founded as larvae compared to those founded as adults. The volatile profile of conditioned flour was also influenced by the interaction of patch size, density, and life stage. The relative abundance of 1-pentadecene and benzoquinones tended to be reduced in the volatile profiles of large patches, whereas 4,8-dimethyldecanal comprised a higher proportion of the total volatile emissions. Conditioned flour from large patches tended to be more attractive to T. castaneum adults, although this effect decreased as founding density increased. By contrast, when populations were founded as larvae, the volatile profiles of T. castaneum attraction to, and T. castaneum fecundity on conditioned flours were similar. These findings expand our understanding of how resource limitation and density-dependent effects influence T. castaneum population regulation and behavior, with implications for long-term trap monitoring and population thresholds in stored products.
Supplemental Tables are included in the data files and referenced in the published manuscript.
","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/62174720","format":"txt","mediaType":"text/plain","title":"README_Tribolium_Density_MS.txt"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/62174723","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"StartAsAdult_Data.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/62174726","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"StartAsLarvae_Data.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/62174729","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Supplemental Table 1.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/62174732","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Supplemental Table 2.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/62174735","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Supplemental Table 3.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/62174738","format":"xlsx","mediaType":"application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet","title":"Supplemental Table 3.xlsx"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/62174741","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Supplemental Table 4.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/62174744","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"VOC_Analysis_Data.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/62174747","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Wind_Tunnel_Data.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/62174750","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Fecundity_Data.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/62174753","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Nutrient_Data.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/67471635","format":"xlsx","mediaType":"application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet","title":"Supplemental Table 1_adult number g larvae.xlsx"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/67471638","format":"xlsx","mediaType":"application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet","title":"Supplemental Table 2_flour loss glm.xlsx"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/67471641","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/plain","title":"Supplemental Table 3_reproductive output contrasts.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/67471644","format":"xlsx","mediaType":"application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet","title":"Supplemental Table 4_Pairwise_G-Test_DFU_adults.xlsx"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/67471647","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"Supplemental Table 5_VOC peak table.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/68074549","format":"txt","mediaType":"text/plain","title":"README_Tribolium_Density_MS_ADDENDUM.txt"}],"identifier":"10.15482/USDA.ADC/31416551.v3","keyword":["Red Flour Beetle","Triboliiu castaneum","anemotaxis","carrying capacity limitations","density regulation","semiochemicals"],"license":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/","modified":"2026-08-31","programCode":["005:040"],"publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"Agricultural Research Service"},"temporal":"2022-07-01/2025-01-29","title":"Data from: How you start matters: Density, resource size, and life stage impact population levels for pest insects"},"description":"[Note 2026-08-31: File \"README_Tribolium_Density_MS_ADDENDUM.txt\" was added to dataset.]
[Note 2026-08-12: Files \"Supplemental Table 1_adult number g larvae.xlsx\", \"Supplemental Table 2_flour loss glm.xlsx\", \"Supplemental Table 3_reproductive output contrasts.csv\", \"Supplemental Table 4_Pairwise_G-Test_DFU_adults.xlsx\", and \"Supplemental Table 5_VOC peak table.csv\" were added to dataset.]
Tribolium castaneum, the red flour beetle, is a key pest of cereal grains and products that routinely infests food processing facilities. Such facilities represent dynamic environments comprising patches of resources of variable size and quality. To understand the influence of resource availability, insect density, and initial life stage on population regulation in T. castaneum, this study assessed the carrying capacity and population growth rates of T. castaneum populations kept for 20 weeks in a closed environment on four different amounts of diet at four starting population levels, then compared T. castaneum attraction to, reproductive output on, and the volatile profiles of previously-infested (e.g., conditioned) flour. Resource availability (e.g. the amount of flour) interacted with founding population density and life stage to influence T. castaneum population dynamics. In resource-limited patches, carrying capacity estimates were similar across founding densities, but the effect of founding population density on carrying capacity increased with flour availability. The opposite was observed for population growth rate, which tended to be more variable for small patches but stabilized as resource availability increased. Interestingly, both effects were reduced for populations founded as larvae compared to those founded as adults. The volatile profile of conditioned flour was also influenced by the interaction of patch size, density, and life stage. The relative abundance of 1-pentadecene and benzoquinones tended to be reduced in the volatile profiles of large patches, whereas 4,8-dimethyldecanal comprised a higher proportion of the total volatile emissions. Conditioned flour from large patches tended to be more attractive to T. castaneum adults, although this effect decreased as founding density increased. By contrast, when populations were founded as larvae, the volatile profiles of T. castaneum attraction to, and T. castaneum fecundity on conditioned flours were similar. These findings expand our understanding of how resource limitation and density-dependent effects influence T. castaneum population regulation and behavior, with implications for long-term trap monitoring and population thresholds in stored products.
Supplemental Tables are included in the data files and referenced in the published manuscript.
","distribution_titles":["README_Tribolium_Density_MS.txt","StartAsAdult_Data.csv","StartAsLarvae_Data.csv","Supplemental Table 1.csv","Supplemental Table 2.csv","Supplemental Table 3.csv","Supplemental Table 3.xlsx","Supplemental Table 4.csv","VOC_Analysis_Data.csv","Wind_Tunnel_Data.csv","Fecundity_Data.csv","Nutrient_Data.csv","Supplemental Table 1_adult number g larvae.xlsx","Supplemental Table 2_flour loss glm.xlsx","Supplemental Table 3_reproductive output contrasts.csv","Supplemental Table 4_Pairwise_G-Test_DFU_adults.xlsx","Supplemental Table 5_VOC peak table.csv","README_Tribolium_Density_MS_ADDENDUM.txt"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/03ce771c-cc47-472e-9448-d42975c5ffe5","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/03ce771c-cc47-472e-9448-d42975c5ffe5/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":false,"identifier":"10.15482/USDA.ADC/31416551.v3","keyword":["Red Flour Beetle","Triboliiu castaneum","anemotaxis","carrying capacity limitations","density regulation","semiochemicals"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-09-30T21:31:06.890974","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"352b4532-793d-4075-a03f-05b778a3c43a","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/refs/heads/master/usda.png","name":"Department of Agriculture","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"usda"},"parent_identifier":null,"popularity":3,"publisher":"Agricultural Research Service","slug":"data-from-how-you-start-matters-density-resource-size-and-life-stage-impact-population-lev","spatial_centroid":null,"spatial_shape":null,"theme":[],"title":"Data from: How you start matters: Density, resource size, and life stage impact population levels for pest insects","type":"dataset"},{"_score":48.59974,"_sort":[1790803861074,48.59974,1,"07a03d07-67fd-4edf-b170-c6bad8f0820d"],"access_level":"public","dcat":{"@type":"dcat:Dataset","accessLevel":"public","accrualPeriodicity":"R/P1Y","bureauCode":["005:18"],"contactPoint":{"fn":"Ewing, Patrick M.","hasEmail":"mailto:patrick.ewing@usda.gov"},"description":"This data examines the impact of genotype, environment, and crop management practices on oat (Avena sativa L.) grain yield, milling quality, and nutritional content over three growing seasons (2021-2023). Data were collected at the USDA-ARS-managed Eastern South Dakota Soil and Water Research Farm in Brookings, South Dakota. Treatments included three oat varieties with differing plant architectures, planted at three populations, and co-established (or not) with a medium red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) green manure. Data include weather and oat performance - the latter of which includes biomass and grain yield, grain milling quality, and grain nutrient content. Code to analyze the data and produce figures in the peer-reviewed manuscript is also included. Please see the Metadata for column descriptions.
NOTICE
This data examines the impact of genotype, environment, and crop management practices on oat (Avena sativa L.) grain yield, milling quality, and nutritional content over three growing seasons (2021-2023). Data were collected at the USDA-ARS-managed Eastern South Dakota Soil and Water Research Farm in Brookings, South Dakota. Treatments included three oat varieties with differing plant architectures, planted at three populations, and co-established (or not) with a medium red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) green manure. Data include weather and oat performance - the latter of which includes biomass and grain yield, grain milling quality, and grain nutrient content. Code to analyze the data and produce figures in the peer-reviewed manuscript is also included. Please see the Metadata for column descriptions.
NOTICE
[NOTE 2026-09-04: Data files revised]
Crested wheatgrass is widely, and historically, seeded across sagebrush steppe rangelands to increase perennial cover and compete with invasive annual grasses post-fire, however, outcomes vary, likely due to complex combinations of site environmental variables and weather. This study examines variation in vegetation characteristics in post-fire areas associated with crested wheatgrass seeding, and environmental variables, in the northern Great Basin. We selected 124 treatments on Bureau of Land Management lands seeded post-fire with crested wheatgrass over the past two decades in two ecoregions (Snake River Plain, Northern Basin and Range). We selected target 30 m pixels and matched them to 150 reference pixels based on environmental similarity and burn severity within 0.3-3.5 km radius in unseeded areas. We compared change overtime post-seeding in the target pixels to reference pixels with a synthetic control method, comparing pre-fire differences in vegetation between target and reference pixels to post-seeding outcomes. We extracted effect sizes at 5 and 10 years post-fire. We tested for the effects of fire severity, elevation, sand content, and spring precipitation in two time points on seeding effects for each type of cover.
","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/68217097","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"burn_trt_yrs.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/68217100","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"burn_trt_yrs_metadata.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/68217103","format":"csv","mediaType":"text/csv","title":"core_data.csv"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/68217106","format":"txt","mediaType":"text/plain","title":"core_data_metadata.txt"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/68217109","format":"zip","mediaType":"application/zip","title":"tgt_pix_centroid.zip"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/68217112","format":"zip","mediaType":"application/zip","title":"ref_pix_centroid.zip"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","downloadURL":"https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/68217115","format":"zip","mediaType":"application/zip","title":"TrtPoly.zip"}],"identifier":"10.15482/USDA.ADC/30811058.v2","keyword":["bare ground","crested wheatgrass","invasive annual grasses","sagebrush steppe","shrub","synthetic control"],"license":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/","modified":"2026-09-08","programCode":["005:040"],"publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"Agricultural Research Service"},"temporal":"1992-01-01/2023-12-30","title":"Data from: Variability in vegetation outcomes in widespread post-fire non-native perennial grass seedings associated with site environment and weather"},"description":"[NOTE 2026-09-04: Data files revised]
Crested wheatgrass is widely, and historically, seeded across sagebrush steppe rangelands to increase perennial cover and compete with invasive annual grasses post-fire, however, outcomes vary, likely due to complex combinations of site environmental variables and weather. This study examines variation in vegetation characteristics in post-fire areas associated with crested wheatgrass seeding, and environmental variables, in the northern Great Basin. We selected 124 treatments on Bureau of Land Management lands seeded post-fire with crested wheatgrass over the past two decades in two ecoregions (Snake River Plain, Northern Basin and Range). We selected target 30 m pixels and matched them to 150 reference pixels based on environmental similarity and burn severity within 0.3-3.5 km radius in unseeded areas. We compared change overtime post-seeding in the target pixels to reference pixels with a synthetic control method, comparing pre-fire differences in vegetation between target and reference pixels to post-seeding outcomes. We extracted effect sizes at 5 and 10 years post-fire. We tested for the effects of fire severity, elevation, sand content, and spring precipitation in two time points on seeding effects for each type of cover.
","distribution_titles":["burn_trt_yrs.csv","burn_trt_yrs_metadata.csv","core_data.csv","core_data_metadata.txt","tgt_pix_centroid.zip","ref_pix_centroid.zip","TrtPoly.zip"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/204e2b8d-1f6b-4af1-a4ca-f3b1759c6756","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/204e2b8d-1f6b-4af1-a4ca-f3b1759c6756/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":false,"identifier":"10.15482/USDA.ADC/30811058.v2","keyword":["bare ground","crested wheatgrass","invasive annual grasses","sagebrush steppe","shrub","synthetic control"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-09-30T21:30:56.437469","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"352b4532-793d-4075-a03f-05b778a3c43a","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/refs/heads/master/usda.png","name":"Department of Agriculture","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"usda"},"parent_identifier":null,"popularity":0,"publisher":"Agricultural Research Service","slug":"data-from-variability-in-vegetation-outcomes-in-widespread-post-fire-non-native-perennial-","spatial_centroid":null,"spatial_shape":null,"theme":[],"title":"Data from: Variability in vegetation outcomes in widespread post-fire non-native perennial grass seedings associated with site environment and weather","type":"dataset"},{"_score":3.520217,"_sort":[1790803240214,3.520217,2,"6c61f8c3-5627-4086-af57-00e6e537f626"],"access_level":"public","dcat":{"accessLevel":"public","bureauCode":["010:24"],"contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"NPS IRMA Help","hasEmail":"mailto:NRSS_DataStore@nps.gov"},"description":"Inventory of intertidal fish in Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve tabular data 2001-2005.Coastal and Fisheries staff from Olympic National Park conducted a 3-day inventory of intertidal fishes adjacent to the shoreline of Ebey\u2019s Landing National Historical Reserve. Beach seine sampling was employed in all intertidal habitats on both the Admiralty Inlet and Penn Cove shorelines. A total of 31 locations were sampled, resulting in documentation of 28 species. The habitats in both of these regions include sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder beaches. Fish community composition in both regions was dominated by juvenile salmon, particularly chum salmon smolts, however the communities in each region were significantly different from each other. These differences likely reflect the physical habitat differences between the open coastline of Admiralty Inlet and the protected Penn Cove.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"NCCN EBLA intertidal fish inventory 2001-2005 tabular data: NCCN_IntertdlFish_FIa07_2001-2005_DISTRIBUTION.zip","downloadURL":"https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/530666?Reference=2206422","format":"zip","mediaType":"application/zip","title":"NCCN_IntertdlFish_FIa07_2001-2005_DISTRIBUTION.zip"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","description":"Original FGDC metadata used to create this reference. Be aware that some of the fields, including file paths, may be out of date. This file should only be used for understanding additional documentation that is not already managed by Data Store","downloadURL":"https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/543418?Reference=2206422","format":"xml","mediaType":"application/xml","title":"OriginalMetadata_NPSDataStoreCode_2206422.xml"}],"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/NPS_DataStore_2206422","issued":"2014-01-16T00:00:00Z","keyword":["Abundance","Alaska pollock","Alaskan stickleback","Ammodytes hexapterus","Anoplagonus inermis","Biology","Biota","Chinook salmon","Clark's trout","Clevelandia ios","Clinocottus acuticeps","Community","Cottus asper","Cymatogaster aggregata","EBLA","Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve","Ecological Framework: Biological Integrity | Focal Species or Communities | Fishes","Ecological Framework: Biological Integrity | Focal Species or Communities | Intertidal Communities","Enophrys bison","Environment","Gadus chalcogrammus","Gasterosteus aculeatus","Hypomesus pretiosus","Icelinus borealis","Intertidal Fish","Inventory","Isopsetta isolepis","Leptocottus armatus","Microgadus proximus","Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus","NCCN","North Coast and Cascades Network Network","Oligocottus maculosus","Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii","Oncorhynchus keta","Oncorhynchus kisutch","Oncorhynchus tshawytscha","Ophiodon elongatus","Osmeridae","Pacific Northwest","Pacific sand lance","Pacific sandfish","Pacific staghorn sculpin","Pacific tomcod","Pholis ornata","Platichthys stellatus","Resource Management","Salmo clarki","Syngnathus leptorhynchus","Theragra chalcogramma","Trichodon trichodon","Washington","Wildlife","Yellowstone cutthroat","arrow goby","baitfish","bay pipefish","beach seining","buffalo sculpin","butter sole","chum salmon","coastal cutthroat","coastal cutthroat trout","coho salmon","cutthroat trout","great sculpin","king salmon","lake trout","lingcod","northern sculpin","prickly sculpin","red-throated trout","saddleback gunnel","sea trout","sharpnose sculpin","shiner perch","short-tailed trout","silver salmon","slendernosed pipefish","smelts","smooth alligatorfish","starry flounder","surf smelt","threespine stickleback","tidepool sculpin","walleye pollock"],"landingPage":"https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2206422","modified":"2014-01-16T00:00:00Z","programCode":["010:118","010:119"],"publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"National Park Service"},"spatial":"-122.77,48.15,-122.62,48.26","temporal":"2001-01-01/2005-01-01","theme":["Tabular Dataset"],"title":"Intertidal Fish Inventory of Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve tabular data"},"description":"Inventory of intertidal fish in Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve tabular data 2001-2005.Coastal and Fisheries staff from Olympic National Park conducted a 3-day inventory of intertidal fishes adjacent to the shoreline of Ebey\u2019s Landing National Historical Reserve. Beach seine sampling was employed in all intertidal habitats on both the Admiralty Inlet and Penn Cove shorelines. A total of 31 locations were sampled, resulting in documentation of 28 species. The habitats in both of these regions include sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder beaches. Fish community composition in both regions was dominated by juvenile salmon, particularly chum salmon smolts, however the communities in each region were significantly different from each other. These differences likely reflect the physical habitat differences between the open coastline of Admiralty Inlet and the protected Penn Cove.","distribution_titles":["NCCN_IntertdlFish_FIa07_2001-2005_DISTRIBUTION.zip","OriginalMetadata_NPSDataStoreCode_2206422.xml"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/e9fea6b0-b06c-4462-b8f3-2f0aa490a43a","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/e9fea6b0-b06c-4462-b8f3-2f0aa490a43a/raw","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"http://datainventory.doi.gov/id/dataset/NPS_DataStore_2206422","keyword":["Abundance","Alaska pollock","Alaskan stickleback","Ammodytes hexapterus","Anoplagonus inermis","Biology","Biota","Chinook salmon","Clark's trout","Clevelandia ios","Clinocottus acuticeps","Community","Cottus asper","Cymatogaster aggregata","EBLA","Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve","Ecological Framework: Biological Integrity | Focal Species or Communities | Fishes","Ecological Framework: Biological Integrity | Focal Species or Communities | Intertidal Communities","Enophrys bison","Environment","Gadus chalcogrammus","Gasterosteus aculeatus","Hypomesus pretiosus","Icelinus borealis","Intertidal Fish","Inventory","Isopsetta isolepis","Leptocottus armatus","Microgadus proximus","Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus","NCCN","North Coast and Cascades Network Network","Oligocottus maculosus","Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii","Oncorhynchus keta","Oncorhynchus kisutch","Oncorhynchus tshawytscha","Ophiodon elongatus","Osmeridae","Pacific Northwest","Pacific sand lance","Pacific sandfish","Pacific staghorn sculpin","Pacific tomcod","Pholis ornata","Platichthys stellatus","Resource Management","Salmo clarki","Syngnathus leptorhynchus","Theragra chalcogramma","Trichodon trichodon","Washington","Wildlife","Yellowstone cutthroat","arrow goby","baitfish","bay pipefish","beach seining","buffalo sculpin","butter sole","chum salmon","coastal cutthroat","coastal cutthroat trout","coho salmon","cutthroat trout","great sculpin","king salmon","lake trout","lingcod","northern sculpin","prickly sculpin","red-throated trout","saddleback gunnel","sea trout","sharpnose sculpin","shiner perch","short-tailed trout","silver salmon","slendernosed pipefish","smelts","smooth alligatorfish","starry flounder","surf smelt","threespine stickleback","tidepool sculpin","walleye pollock"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-09-30T21:20:40.214223","organization":{"aliases":["dept"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"143529f7-2eef-4a07-b227-93ac9e84fad8","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/master/doi.png","name":"Department of the Interior","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"doi"},"parent_identifier":null,"popularity":2,"publisher":"National Park Service","slug":"intertidal-fish-inventory-of-ebeys-landing-national-historical-reserve-tabular-data","spatial_centroid":{"lat":48.194,"lon":-122.71},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-122.77,48.15],[-122.77,48.26],[-122.62,48.26],[-122.62,48.15],[-122.77,48.15]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["Tabular Dataset"],"title":"Intertidal Fish Inventory of Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve tabular data","type":"dataset"},{"_score":13.134426,"_sort":[1790801672812,13.134426,10,"6fb419d7-9511-4360-b3f0-6216d44e5e4e"],"access_level":"public","dcat":{"@type":"dcat:Dataset","accessLevel":"public","accrualPeriodicity":"R/P1M","contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters","hasEmail":"mailto:frs_support@epa.gov"},"describedByType":"application/octet-stream","description":"This web feature service contains location and facility identification information from EPA's Facility Registry System (FRS) for the subset of facilities that link to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) System. TRI is a publicly available EPA database reported annually by certain covered industry groups, as well as federal facilities. It contains information about more than 650 toxic chemicals that are being used, manufactured, treated, transported, or released into the environment, and includes information about waste management and pollution prevention activities. FRS identifies and geospatially locates facilities, sites or places subject to environmental regulations or of environmental interest. Using vigorous verification and data management procedures, FRS integrates facility data from EPA's national program systems, other federal agencies, and State and tribal master facility records and provides EPA with a centrally managed, single source of comprehensive and authoritative information on facilities. This data set contains the subset of FRS integrated facilities that link to TRI facilities once the TRI data has been integrated into the FRS database. Additional information on FRS is available at the EPA website https://www.epa.gov/enviro/facility-registry-service-frs. These data are considered sensitive and are restricted to internal use only. The download file and map service are accessible only on the EPA intranet. EPA Category: Mission Sensitive, NARA Category: Critical Infrastructure.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","describedByType":"application/octet-stream","downloadURL":"https://v18ovhrtay724.aa.ad.epa.gov/FRS/downloads/ESF10.gdb.zip","format":"ZIP","mediaType":"application/zip","title":"Zipped File Geodatabase (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://igeo.epa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/OEI/FRS_ESF10/MapServer","describedByType":"application/octet-stream","mediaType":"text/html","title":"ArcGIS Server Map Services (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"}],"identifier":"https://edg.epa.gov/WAFer_harvest/ISO/frs-internet_FRS_ER_TRI_metadata.xml","isPartOf":"EPA Facility Registry Service Collection","issued":"2016-06-29T00:00:00.000+00:00","keyword":["New Hampshire","South Dakota","Indiana","Massachusetts","Alaska","Wisconsin","United States (US) (USA)","Utah","Puerto Rico","New Mexico","Iowa","conterminous United States (CONUS)","Hawaii","Tennessee","Mississippi","Maine","Arkansas","North Dakota","Oklahoma","Georgia","Nebraska","Texas","Rhode Island","Pennsylvania","New York","Alabama","Ohio","Oregon","Minnesota","California","Florida","Washington","Maryland","North Carolina","Kansas","Montana","Wyoming","Vermont","Virgin Islands","Arizona","American Samoa","South Carolina","Colorado","Nevada","District of Columbia","Washington DC","Virginia","Idaho","Louisiana","West Virginia","Missouri","Illinois","Connecticut","Delaware","Michigan","Kentucky","New Jersey","Facilities","Waste","Sites","Remediation","Resources","Environmental Management","Cleanup","Contaminant","Compliance","Regulatory","Emergency Response","Toxics","ESF10"],"language":[],"license":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/","modified":"2026-09-29T09:24:27.000+00:00","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. EPA Office of Environmental Information (OEI)"},"temporal":"2020-12-12T00:00:00+00:00/2020-12-12T00:00:00+00:00","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS): ER_TRI"},"description":"This web feature service contains location and facility identification information from EPA's Facility Registry System (FRS) for the subset of facilities that link to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) System. TRI is a publicly available EPA database reported annually by certain covered industry groups, as well as federal facilities. It contains information about more than 650 toxic chemicals that are being used, manufactured, treated, transported, or released into the environment, and includes information about waste management and pollution prevention activities. FRS identifies and geospatially locates facilities, sites or places subject to environmental regulations or of environmental interest. Using vigorous verification and data management procedures, FRS integrates facility data from EPA's national program systems, other federal agencies, and State and tribal master facility records and provides EPA with a centrally managed, single source of comprehensive and authoritative information on facilities. This data set contains the subset of FRS integrated facilities that link to TRI facilities once the TRI data has been integrated into the FRS database. Additional information on FRS is available at the EPA website https://www.epa.gov/enviro/facility-registry-service-frs. These data are considered sensitive and are restricted to internal use only. The download file and map service are accessible only on the EPA intranet. EPA Category: Mission Sensitive, NARA Category: Critical Infrastructure.","distribution_titles":["Zipped File Geodatabase (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)","ArcGIS Server Map Services (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/972b7de0-6490-470b-b5b7-43c9aaf1eff4","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/972b7de0-6490-470b-b5b7-43c9aaf1eff4/raw","harvest_record_transformed":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/972b7de0-6490-470b-b5b7-43c9aaf1eff4/transformed","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"https://edg.epa.gov/WAFer_harvest/ISO/frs-internet_FRS_ER_TRI_metadata.xml","keyword":["New Hampshire","South Dakota","Indiana","Massachusetts","Alaska","Wisconsin","United States (US) (USA)","Utah","Puerto Rico","New Mexico","Iowa","conterminous United States (CONUS)","Hawaii","Tennessee","Mississippi","Maine","Arkansas","North Dakota","Oklahoma","Georgia","Nebraska","Texas","Rhode Island","Pennsylvania","New York","Alabama","Ohio","Oregon","Minnesota","California","Florida","Washington","Maryland","North Carolina","Kansas","Montana","Wyoming","Vermont","Virgin Islands","Arizona","American Samoa","South Carolina","Colorado","Nevada","District of Columbia","Washington DC","Virginia","Idaho","Louisiana","West Virginia","Missouri","Illinois","Connecticut","Delaware","Michigan","Kentucky","New Jersey","Facilities","Waste","Sites","Remediation","Resources","Environmental Management","Cleanup","Contaminant","Compliance","Regulatory","Emergency Response","Toxics","ESF10"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-09-30T20:54:32.812290","organization":{"aliases":["EPA"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"82b85475-f85d-404a-b95b-89d1a42e9f6b","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/refs/heads/master/epa.png","name":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"epa"},"parent_identifier":null,"popularity":10,"publisher":"U.S. EPA Office of Environmental Information (OEI)","slug":"epa-facility-registry-service-frs-er_tri","spatial_centroid":null,"spatial_shape":null,"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS): ER_TRI","type":"dataset"},{"_score":28.644905,"_sort":[1790801672056,28.644905,8,"377f56f8-58ef-4f8b-bb46-f78317e7fdf7"],"access_level":"public","dcat":{"@type":"dcat:Dataset","accessLevel":"public","contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection","hasEmail":"mailto:frs_support@epa.gov"},"describedByType":"application/octet-stream","description":"To improve public health and the environment, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) collects information about facilities, sites, or places subject to environmental regulation or of environmental interest. These data are considered sensitive and are restricted to internal use only. The download file and map service are accessible only on the EPA intranet. EPA Category: Mission Sensitive, NARA Category: Critical Infrastructure.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","describedByType":"application/octet-stream","downloadURL":"https://v18ovhrtay724.aa.ad.epa.gov/FRS/downloads/ESF10.gdb.zip","format":"ZIP","mediaType":"application/zip","title":"Zipped File Geodatabase (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://igeo.epa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/OEI/FRS_ESF10/MapServer","describedByType":"application/octet-stream","mediaType":"text/html","title":"ArcGIS Server Map Services (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"}],"identifier":"https://edg.epa.gov/WAFer_harvest/ISO/frs-internet_FRS_ER_STATE_ID_metadata.xml","isPartOf":"EPA Facility Registry Service Collection","issued":"2016-06-29T00:00:00.000+00:00","keyword":["Alaska","Puerto Rico","United States","Washington DC","American Samoa","Virgin Islands","Facilities","Permits","Contaminant","Compliance","Regulatory","Cleanup","Environment","Air","ESF10","ESF3"],"language":[],"license":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/","modified":"2026-09-29T09:24:04.000+00:00","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters"},"spatial":"-12.68151645,6.65223303,-138.21454852,61.7110157","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS): ER_STATE_ID"},"description":"To improve public health and the environment, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) collects information about facilities, sites, or places subject to environmental regulation or of environmental interest. These data are considered sensitive and are restricted to internal use only. The download file and map service are accessible only on the EPA intranet. EPA Category: Mission Sensitive, NARA Category: Critical Infrastructure.","distribution_titles":["Zipped File Geodatabase (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)","ArcGIS Server Map Services (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/703a0963-897f-4055-8feb-a58a56712564","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/703a0963-897f-4055-8feb-a58a56712564/raw","harvest_record_transformed":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/703a0963-897f-4055-8feb-a58a56712564/transformed","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"https://edg.epa.gov/WAFer_harvest/ISO/frs-internet_FRS_ER_STATE_ID_metadata.xml","keyword":["Alaska","Puerto Rico","United States","Washington DC","American Samoa","Virgin Islands","Facilities","Permits","Contaminant","Compliance","Regulatory","Cleanup","Environment","Air","ESF10","ESF3"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-09-30T20:54:32.056407","organization":{"aliases":["EPA"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"82b85475-f85d-404a-b95b-89d1a42e9f6b","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/refs/heads/master/epa.png","name":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"epa"},"parent_identifier":null,"popularity":8,"publisher":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters","slug":"epa-facility-registry-service-frs-er_state_id","spatial_centroid":{"lat":28.675746097999998,"lon":-62.894729278},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-12.68151645,6.65223303],[-12.68151645,61.7110157],[-138.21454852,61.7110157],[-138.21454852,6.65223303],[-12.68151645,6.65223303]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS): ER_STATE_ID","type":"dataset"},{"_score":28.644905,"_sort":[1790801671284,28.644905,7,"fa1e4301-1b10-442c-b35c-e11f0fd1f39f"],"access_level":"public","dcat":{"@type":"dcat:Dataset","accessLevel":"public","contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection","hasEmail":"mailto:frs_support@epa.gov"},"describedByType":"application/octet-stream","description":"To improve public health and the environment, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) collects information about facilities, sites, or places subject to environmental regulation or of environmental interest. These data are considered sensitive and are restricted to internal use only. The download file and map service are accessible only on the EPA intranet. EPA Category: Mission Sensitive, NARA Category: Critical Infrastructure.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","describedByType":"application/octet-stream","downloadURL":"https://v18ovhrtay724.aa.ad.epa.gov/FRS/downloads/ESF10.gdb.zip","format":"ZIP","mediaType":"application/zip","title":"Zipped File Geodatabase (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://igeo.epa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/OEI/FRS_ESF10/MapServer","describedByType":"application/octet-stream","mediaType":"text/html","title":"ArcGIS Server Map Services (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"}],"identifier":"https://edg.epa.gov/WAFer_harvest/ISO/frs-internet_FRS_ER_SIC_metadata.xml","isPartOf":"EPA Facility Registry Service Collection","issued":"2016-06-29T00:00:00.000+00:00","keyword":["Alaska","Puerto Rico","United States","Washington DC","American Samoa","Virgin Islands","Facilities","Permits","Contaminant","Compliance","Regulatory","Cleanup","Environment","Air","ESF10","ESF3"],"language":[],"license":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/","modified":"2026-09-29T09:24:00.000+00:00","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters"},"spatial":"-12.68151645,6.65223303,-138.21454852,61.7110157","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS): ER_SIC"},"description":"To improve public health and the environment, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) collects information about facilities, sites, or places subject to environmental regulation or of environmental interest. These data are considered sensitive and are restricted to internal use only. The download file and map service are accessible only on the EPA intranet. EPA Category: Mission Sensitive, NARA Category: Critical Infrastructure.","distribution_titles":["Zipped File Geodatabase (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)","ArcGIS Server Map Services (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/92433976-5c46-43ba-b1ca-6dfcf5cfb26e","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/92433976-5c46-43ba-b1ca-6dfcf5cfb26e/raw","harvest_record_transformed":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/92433976-5c46-43ba-b1ca-6dfcf5cfb26e/transformed","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"https://edg.epa.gov/WAFer_harvest/ISO/frs-internet_FRS_ER_SIC_metadata.xml","keyword":["Alaska","Puerto Rico","United States","Washington DC","American Samoa","Virgin Islands","Facilities","Permits","Contaminant","Compliance","Regulatory","Cleanup","Environment","Air","ESF10","ESF3"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-09-30T20:54:31.284988","organization":{"aliases":["EPA"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"82b85475-f85d-404a-b95b-89d1a42e9f6b","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/refs/heads/master/epa.png","name":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"epa"},"parent_identifier":null,"popularity":7,"publisher":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters","slug":"epa-facility-registry-service-frs-er_sic","spatial_centroid":{"lat":28.675746097999998,"lon":-62.894729278},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-12.68151645,6.65223303],[-12.68151645,61.7110157],[-138.21454852,61.7110157],[-138.21454852,6.65223303],[-12.68151645,6.65223303]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS): ER_SIC","type":"dataset"},{"_score":28.644905,"_sort":[1790801669024,28.644905,9,"0a8915db-1790-4008-b019-072b2610e29a"],"access_level":"public","dcat":{"@type":"dcat:Dataset","accessLevel":"public","contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection","hasEmail":"mailto:frs_support@epa.gov"},"describedByType":"application/octet-stream","description":"To improve public health and the environment, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) collects information about facilities, sites, or places subject to environmental regulation or of environmental interest. These data are considered sensitive and are restricted to internal use only. The download file and map service are accessible only on the EPA intranet. EPA Category: Mission Sensitive, NARA Category: Critical Infrastructure.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","describedByType":"application/octet-stream","downloadURL":"https://v18ovhrtay724.aa.ad.epa.gov/FRS/downloads/ESF10.gdb.zip","format":"ZIP","mediaType":"application/zip","title":"Zipped File Geodatabase (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://igeo.epa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/OEI/FRS_ESF10/MapServer","describedByType":"application/octet-stream","mediaType":"text/html","title":"ArcGIS Server Map Services (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"}],"identifier":"https://edg.epa.gov/WAFer_harvest/ISO/frs-internet_FRS_ER_NAICS_metadata.xml","isPartOf":"EPA Facility Registry Service Collection","issued":"2016-06-29T00:00:00.000+00:00","keyword":["Alaska","Puerto Rico","United States","Washington DC","American Samoa","Virgin Islands","Facilities","Permits","Contaminant","Compliance","Regulatory","Cleanup","Environment","Air","ESF10","ESF3"],"language":[],"license":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/","modified":"2026-09-29T09:23:56.000+00:00","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters"},"spatial":"-12.68151645,6.65223303,-138.21454852,61.7110157","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS): ER_NAICS"},"description":"To improve public health and the environment, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) collects information about facilities, sites, or places subject to environmental regulation or of environmental interest. These data are considered sensitive and are restricted to internal use only. The download file and map service are accessible only on the EPA intranet. EPA Category: Mission Sensitive, NARA Category: Critical Infrastructure.","distribution_titles":["Zipped File Geodatabase (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)","ArcGIS Server Map Services (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/6eadf074-c5ff-40d3-b254-77fb0f9f36b9","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/6eadf074-c5ff-40d3-b254-77fb0f9f36b9/raw","harvest_record_transformed":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/6eadf074-c5ff-40d3-b254-77fb0f9f36b9/transformed","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"https://edg.epa.gov/WAFer_harvest/ISO/frs-internet_FRS_ER_NAICS_metadata.xml","keyword":["Alaska","Puerto Rico","United States","Washington DC","American Samoa","Virgin Islands","Facilities","Permits","Contaminant","Compliance","Regulatory","Cleanup","Environment","Air","ESF10","ESF3"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-09-30T20:54:29.024341","organization":{"aliases":["EPA"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"82b85475-f85d-404a-b95b-89d1a42e9f6b","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/refs/heads/master/epa.png","name":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"epa"},"parent_identifier":null,"popularity":9,"publisher":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters","slug":"epa-facility-registry-service-frs-er_naics","spatial_centroid":{"lat":28.675746097999998,"lon":-62.894729278},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-12.68151645,6.65223303],[-12.68151645,61.7110157],[-138.21454852,61.7110157],[-138.21454852,6.65223303],[-12.68151645,6.65223303]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS): ER_NAICS","type":"dataset"},{"_score":28.644905,"_sort":[1790801667485,28.644905,1,"58bdea70-d0f2-43e7-995c-6e8986ba9a9c"],"access_level":"public","dcat":{"@type":"dcat:Dataset","accessLevel":"public","contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection","hasEmail":"mailto:frs_support@epa.gov"},"describedByType":"application/octet-stream","description":"To improve public health and the environment, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) collects information about facilities, sites, or places subject to environmental regulation or of environmental interest. These data are considered sensitive and are restricted to internal use only. The download file and map service are accessible only on the EPA intranet. EPA Category: Mission Sensitive, NARA Category: Critical Infrastructure.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","describedByType":"application/octet-stream","downloadURL":"https://v18ovhrtay724.aa.ad.epa.gov/FRS/downloads/ESF10.gdb.zip","format":"ZIP","mediaType":"application/zip","title":"Zipped File Geodatabase (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://igeo.epa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/OEI/FRS_ESF10/MapServer","describedByType":"application/octet-stream","mediaType":"text/html","title":"ArcGIS Server Map Services (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"}],"identifier":"https://edg.epa.gov/WAFer_harvest/ISO/frs-internet_FRS_ER_CONTACTS_metadata.xml","isPartOf":"EPA Facility Registry Service Collection","issued":"2016-06-29T00:00:00.000+00:00","keyword":["Alaska","Puerto Rico","United States","Washington DC","American Samoa","Virgin Islands","Facilities","Permits","Contaminant","Compliance","Regulatory","Cleanup","Environment","Air","ESF10","ESF3"],"language":[],"license":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/","modified":"2026-09-29T09:23:52.000+00:00","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters"},"spatial":"-12.68151645,6.65223303,-138.21454852,61.7110157","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS): ER_CONTACTS"},"description":"To improve public health and the environment, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) collects information about facilities, sites, or places subject to environmental regulation or of environmental interest. These data are considered sensitive and are restricted to internal use only. The download file and map service are accessible only on the EPA intranet. EPA Category: Mission Sensitive, NARA Category: Critical Infrastructure.","distribution_titles":["Zipped File Geodatabase (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)","ArcGIS Server Map Services (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/f9d73e87-1b4d-4f88-92ca-e7b0712ed0e1","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/f9d73e87-1b4d-4f88-92ca-e7b0712ed0e1/raw","harvest_record_transformed":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/f9d73e87-1b4d-4f88-92ca-e7b0712ed0e1/transformed","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"https://edg.epa.gov/WAFer_harvest/ISO/frs-internet_FRS_ER_CONTACTS_metadata.xml","keyword":["Alaska","Puerto Rico","United States","Washington DC","American Samoa","Virgin Islands","Facilities","Permits","Contaminant","Compliance","Regulatory","Cleanup","Environment","Air","ESF10","ESF3"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-09-30T20:54:27.485781","organization":{"aliases":["EPA"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"82b85475-f85d-404a-b95b-89d1a42e9f6b","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/refs/heads/master/epa.png","name":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"epa"},"parent_identifier":null,"popularity":1,"publisher":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters","slug":"epa-facility-registry-service-frs-er_contacts","spatial_centroid":{"lat":28.675746097999998,"lon":-62.894729278},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-12.68151645,6.65223303],[-12.68151645,61.7110157],[-138.21454852,61.7110157],[-138.21454852,6.65223303],[-12.68151645,6.65223303]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS): ER_CONTACTS","type":"dataset"},{"_score":28.551788,"_sort":[1790801666691,28.551788,4,"c1ff7bf1-4e8a-4d7e-bdf7-1bf3f0cfaf6a"],"access_level":"public","dcat":{"@type":"dcat:Dataset","accessLevel":"public","contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection","hasEmail":"mailto:frs_support@epa.gov"},"describedByType":"application/octet-stream","description":"To improve public health and the environment, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) collects information about facilities, sites, or places subject to environmental regulation or of environmental interest. These data are considered sensitive and are restricted to internal use only. The download file and map service are accessible only on the EPA intranet. EPA Category: Mission Sensitive, NARA Category: Critical Infrastructure.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","describedByType":"application/octet-stream","downloadURL":"https://v18ovhrtay724.aa.ad.epa.gov/FRS/downloads/ESF10.gdb.zip","format":"ZIP","mediaType":"application/zip","title":"Zipped File Geodatabase (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://igeo.epa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/OEI/FRS_ESF10/MapServer","describedByType":"application/octet-stream","mediaType":"text/html","title":"ArcGIS Server Map Services (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"}],"identifier":"https://edg.epa.gov/WAFer_harvest/ISO/frs-internet_FRS_ER_CHEMICALS_metadata.xml","isPartOf":"EPA Facility Registry Service Collection","issued":"2016-06-29T00:00:00.000+00:00","keyword":["Alaska","Puerto Rico","United States","Washington DC","American Samoa","Virgin Islands","Facilities","Permits","Contaminant","Compliance","Regulatory","Cleanup","Environment","Air","ESF10","ESF3"],"language":[],"license":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/","modified":"2026-09-29T09:24:07.000+00:00","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters"},"spatial":"-12.68151645,6.65223303,-138.21454852,61.7110157","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS): ER_CHEMICALS"},"description":"To improve public health and the environment, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) collects information about facilities, sites, or places subject to environmental regulation or of environmental interest. These data are considered sensitive and are restricted to internal use only. The download file and map service are accessible only on the EPA intranet. EPA Category: Mission Sensitive, NARA Category: Critical Infrastructure.","distribution_titles":["Zipped File Geodatabase (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)","ArcGIS Server Map Services (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/5a913f0c-94d1-4d15-b78b-f40868824720","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/5a913f0c-94d1-4d15-b78b-f40868824720/raw","harvest_record_transformed":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/5a913f0c-94d1-4d15-b78b-f40868824720/transformed","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"https://edg.epa.gov/WAFer_harvest/ISO/frs-internet_FRS_ER_CHEMICALS_metadata.xml","keyword":["Alaska","Puerto Rico","United States","Washington DC","American Samoa","Virgin Islands","Facilities","Permits","Contaminant","Compliance","Regulatory","Cleanup","Environment","Air","ESF10","ESF3"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-09-30T20:54:26.691262","organization":{"aliases":["EPA"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"82b85475-f85d-404a-b95b-89d1a42e9f6b","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/refs/heads/master/epa.png","name":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"epa"},"parent_identifier":null,"popularity":4,"publisher":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters","slug":"epa-facility-registry-service-frs-er_chemicals","spatial_centroid":{"lat":28.675746097999998,"lon":-62.894729278},"spatial_shape":{"coordinates":[[[-12.68151645,6.65223303],[-12.68151645,61.7110157],[-138.21454852,61.7110157],[-138.21454852,6.65223303],[-12.68151645,6.65223303]]],"type":"Polygon"},"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS): ER_CHEMICALS","type":"dataset"},{"_score":11.3370285,"_sort":[1790801665743,11.3370285,3,"e88e8188-68ac-4d78-a133-487bd3f20b90"],"access_level":"public","dcat":{"@type":"dcat:Dataset","accessLevel":"public","accrualPeriodicity":"R/P1M","contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters","hasEmail":"mailto:frs_support@epa.gov"},"describedByType":"application/octet-stream","description":"This web feature service contains location and facility identification information from EPA's Facility Registry System (FRS) for the subset of facilities that link to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) non-NPL sites. Superfund is a program administered by the EPA to locate, investigate, and clean up the worst hazardous waste sites throughout the United States. Before Superfund, Americans were less aware of how dumping chemical wastes might affect public health and the environment. Hazardous wastes were often left in the open, where they seeped into the ground, flowed into rivers and lakes, and contaminated soil and groundwater. Consequently, where these practices were intensive or continuous, there were uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites. These sites include abandoned warehouses, manufacturing facilities, processing plants, and landfills. Citizen concern about the extent of this problem prompted Congress in 1980 to establish the Superfund Program to eliminate the health and environmental threats posed by hazardous waste sites. EPA administers the Superfund program in cooperation with individual states and tribal governmentsFRS integrates facility data from EPA's national program systems, other federal agencies, and State and tribal master facility records and provides EPA with a centrally managed, single source of comprehensive and authoritative information on facilities. This data set contains the subset of FRS integrated facilities that link to CERCLIS non-NPL facilities once the CERCLIS data has been integrated into the FRS database. Additional information on FRS is available at the EPA website https://www.epa.gov/enviro/facility-registry-service-frs. These data are considered sensitive and are restricted to internal use only. The download file and map service are accessible only on the EPA intranet. EPA Category: Mission Sensitive, NARA Category: Critical Infrastructure.","distribution":[{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","describedByType":"application/octet-stream","downloadURL":"https://v18ovhrtay724.aa.ad.epa.gov/FRS/downloads/ESF10.gdb.zip","format":"ZIP","mediaType":"application/zip","title":"Zipped File Geodatabase (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"},{"@type":"dcat:Distribution","accessURL":"https://igeo.epa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/OEI/FRS_ESF10/MapServer","describedByType":"application/octet-stream","mediaType":"text/html","title":"ArcGIS Server Map Services (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"}],"identifier":"https://edg.epa.gov/WAFer_harvest/ISO/frs-internet_FRS_ER_CERCLIS_metadata.xml","isPartOf":"EPA Facility Registry Service Collection","issued":"2016-06-29T00:00:00.000+00:00","keyword":["Iowa","Pennsylvania","Hawaii","Arizona","Utah","Montana","North Carolina","Rhode Island","conterminous United States (CONUS)","North Dakota","California","New Jersey","Washington","Mississippi","Tennessee","Indiana","Oregon","Michigan","Washington DC","Colorado","Minnesota","Wisconsin","Texas","Missouri","Arkansas","Nevada","Massachusetts","Virgin Islands","Oklahoma","Ohio","Maine","New Hampshire","Kansas","Louisiana","New Mexico","American Samoa","Idaho","Alaska","Illinois","Florida","Alabama","Maryland","Puerto Rico","South Carolina","Nebraska","Virginia","New York","Kentucky","Connecticut","United States (US) (USA)","Wyoming","West Virginia","South Dakota","District of Columbia","Delaware","Vermont","Georgia","020:072","Facilities","Remediation","Toxics","Regulatory","Emergency Response","Sites","Contaminant","Cleanup","Resources","Environmental Management","Compliance","Waste"],"language":[],"license":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/","modified":"2026-09-29T09:24:11.000+00:00","publisher":{"@type":"org:Organization","name":"U.S. EPA Office of Environmental Information (OEI)"},"temporal":"2020-12-12T00:00:00+00:00/2020-12-12T00:00:00+00:00","theme":["geospatial"],"title":"EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS): ER_CERCLIS"},"description":"This web feature service contains location and facility identification information from EPA's Facility Registry System (FRS) for the subset of facilities that link to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) non-NPL sites. Superfund is a program administered by the EPA to locate, investigate, and clean up the worst hazardous waste sites throughout the United States. Before Superfund, Americans were less aware of how dumping chemical wastes might affect public health and the environment. Hazardous wastes were often left in the open, where they seeped into the ground, flowed into rivers and lakes, and contaminated soil and groundwater. Consequently, where these practices were intensive or continuous, there were uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites. These sites include abandoned warehouses, manufacturing facilities, processing plants, and landfills. Citizen concern about the extent of this problem prompted Congress in 1980 to establish the Superfund Program to eliminate the health and environmental threats posed by hazardous waste sites. EPA administers the Superfund program in cooperation with individual states and tribal governmentsFRS integrates facility data from EPA's national program systems, other federal agencies, and State and tribal master facility records and provides EPA with a centrally managed, single source of comprehensive and authoritative information on facilities. This data set contains the subset of FRS integrated facilities that link to CERCLIS non-NPL facilities once the CERCLIS data has been integrated into the FRS database. Additional information on FRS is available at the EPA website https://www.epa.gov/enviro/facility-registry-service-frs. These data are considered sensitive and are restricted to internal use only. The download file and map service are accessible only on the EPA intranet. EPA Category: Mission Sensitive, NARA Category: Critical Infrastructure.","distribution_titles":["Zipped File Geodatabase (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)","ArcGIS Server Map Services (Accessible on the EPA Intranet only)"],"harvest_record":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/f80a686d-79ca-4921-8faa-30ca148ed7ae","harvest_record_raw":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/f80a686d-79ca-4921-8faa-30ca148ed7ae/raw","harvest_record_transformed":"https://catalog.data.gov/harvest_record/f80a686d-79ca-4921-8faa-30ca148ed7ae/transformed","has_download":true,"has_spatial":true,"identifier":"https://edg.epa.gov/WAFer_harvest/ISO/frs-internet_FRS_ER_CERCLIS_metadata.xml","keyword":["Iowa","Pennsylvania","Hawaii","Arizona","Utah","Montana","North Carolina","Rhode Island","conterminous United States (CONUS)","North Dakota","California","New Jersey","Washington","Mississippi","Tennessee","Indiana","Oregon","Michigan","Washington DC","Colorado","Minnesota","Wisconsin","Texas","Missouri","Arkansas","Nevada","Massachusetts","Virgin Islands","Oklahoma","Ohio","Maine","New Hampshire","Kansas","Louisiana","New Mexico","American Samoa","Idaho","Alaska","Illinois","Florida","Alabama","Maryland","Puerto Rico","South Carolina","Nebraska","Virginia","New York","Kentucky","Connecticut","United States (US) (USA)","Wyoming","West Virginia","South Dakota","District of Columbia","Delaware","Vermont","Georgia","020:072","Facilities","Remediation","Toxics","Regulatory","Emergency Response","Sites","Contaminant","Cleanup","Resources","Environmental Management","Compliance","Waste"],"last_harvested_date":"2026-09-30T20:54:25.743906","organization":{"aliases":["EPA"],"code_repo_exempt":false,"code_repo_url":null,"description":null,"id":"82b85475-f85d-404a-b95b-89d1a42e9f6b","logo":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/GSA/logo/refs/heads/master/epa.png","name":"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency","organization_type":"Federal Government","slug":"epa"},"parent_identifier":null,"popularity":3,"publisher":"U.S. EPA Office of Environmental Information (OEI)","slug":"epa-facility-registry-service-frs-er_cerclis","spatial_centroid":null,"spatial_shape":null,"theme":["geospatial"],"title":"EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS): ER_CERCLIS","type":"dataset"},{"_score":10.82674,"_sort":[1790796097883,10.82674,1,"7e7e1553-7c18-4182-b747-fa52d813038f"],"access_level":"public","dcat":{"@type":"dcat:Dataset","accessLevel":"public","contactPoint":{"@type":"vcard:Contact","fn":"WakeCountyGovernment","hasEmail":"mailto:gisapps@wake.gov"},"description":"The purpose\u202fof the Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) Program is to promote agricultural values and the general welfare of Wake County by increasing the identity of, and pride in, the agricultural community and its way of life. The program also encourages the economic and financial health of agriculture, horticulture, and forestry through protection from non-farm development and other negative impacts on properly managed farms.\u00a0All parcels are private, agricultural properties and not open to the public for access.This page provides data for the Tree and Shade Canopy performance measure.
Sustainable growth for the City of Tempe is influenced by many factors, including the development and maintenance of our tree canopy. An adequate canopy provides shade, cooling, reduces water evaporation, and is an indication of a healthy and well-maintained environment. As per the Urban Forestry Master Plan, this data represents tree canopy in parks, street right-of-ways, and municipally owned and managed facilities.
The performance measure dashboard is available at 4.11 Tree Coverage
Additional Information
This page provides data for the Tree and Shade Canopy performance measure.
Sustainable growth for the City of Tempe is influenced by many factors, including the development and maintenance of our tree canopy. An adequate canopy provides shade, cooling, reduces water evaporation, and is an indication of a healthy and well-maintained environment. As per the Urban Forestry Master Plan, this data represents tree canopy in parks, street right-of-ways, and municipally owned and managed facilities.
The performance measure dashboard is available at 4.11 Tree Coverage
Additional Information
This page provides data for the Facilities Conditions Index performance measure.
Regular assessments of the condition of city facilities are important. An outcome of the assessments is the Facilities Condition Index (FCI). This index rates facilities based on their current condition. The FCI indicates the ratio of assets repair costs to the replacement value of the entire building. The lower the FCI ratio, the better the condition of the building.
This dataset provides the current FCI value for each city-owned facility. The FCI is generated quarterly for individual facilities and then calculated for the City overall.
The performance measure dashboard is available at 4.14 Facilities Conditions Index
Additional Information
This page provides data for the Facilities Conditions Index performance measure.
Regular assessments of the condition of city facilities are important. An outcome of the assessments is the Facilities Condition Index (FCI). This index rates facilities based on their current condition. The FCI indicates the ratio of assets repair costs to the replacement value of the entire building. The lower the FCI ratio, the better the condition of the building.
This dataset provides the current FCI value for each city-owned facility. The FCI is generated quarterly for individual facilities and then calculated for the City overall.
The performance measure dashboard is available at 4.14 Facilities Conditions Index
Additional Information
The Community Development Process Survey is an evaluation tool showing the City Council and the community our customer satisfaction levels during the course of processing an application. By collecting the survey responses, we can identify areas of satisfaction as well as steps for improvement. This dataset comes from collecting survey responses at each key step in the planning entitlement, plan review, permitting, and inspection processes.
The performance measure dashboard is available at 4.20 Community Development Process Survey
Additional Information
The Community Development Process Survey is an evaluation tool showing the City Council and the community our customer satisfaction levels during the course of processing an application. By collecting the survey responses, we can identify areas of satisfaction as well as steps for improvement. This dataset comes from collecting survey responses at each key step in the planning entitlement, plan review, permitting, and inspection processes.
The performance measure dashboard is available at 4.20 Community Development Process Survey
Additional Information