Size does matter: methodological comments on sieve size and species richness in fishbone assemblages

By I. Zohar, M. Belmaker. 2005

88 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Anthropology, Archeology, Paleontology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1bc77cd7e3522d50d8dcebb099d2afc1001df855

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Anthropology

1. R. Lee Lyman
2. Kenneth M. Ames
3. P. Szpak

In Archeology

1. R. Lee Lyman
2. Kenneth M. Ames
3. P. Szpak

In Paleontology

1. R. Lee Lyman
2. Kenneth M. Ames
3. P. Szpak

Citations in the corpus

• Fish bone chemistry and ultrastructure: implications for taphonomy and stable isotope analysis (2011, methodology): “Stucki, 1988) and recovery methods employed during excavation (e.g. Nagaoka, 2005; Partlow, 2006; Reitz,1988; Stewart andWigen, 2003; Vale and Gargett, 2002; Zohar and Belmaker, 2005).”
• On the use of species-area curves to detect the effects of sample size (2007, methodology): “This in turn prompted a plethora of studies that explored the relationship between sample size and a quantitative variable of interest, most often the number or richness of kinds represented in a sample (e.g., Grayson, 1989, 1991; Jones et al., 1989; Kirch et al., 1987; Leonard, 1989a,b; Lyman, 19”