The island rule and a research agenda for studying ecogeographical patterns

By Mark V. Lomolino, D. Sax, B. Riddle, James H. Brown. 2006

138 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4804898834a25d7175e0d44e1d275b77befedc53

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Ecogeographical rules: elements of a synthesis (2008, methodology): “Others have employed much broader definitions (e.g. Lomolino et al., 2006a,b).”
The Canaries: an important biogeographical meeting place (2008, background): “…of interest among biogeographers in ecogeographical rules such as Bergmann’s rule, Jordan’s rule, and the Island rule (e.g. Meiri & Dayan, 2003; Lomolino et al., 2006; Meiri et al., 2006; ª 2008 The Authors www.blackwellpublishing.com/jbi Journal compilation ª 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd…”
Dinosaurs and the island rule: The dwarfed dinosaurs from Haţeg Island (2010, background): “It is interesting then that modern reviews of the subject (e.g. Foster, 1964; Van Valen, 1973; Case, 1978; Lomolino, 1985; Damuth, 1993; Lomolino, 2005; Lomolino et al., 2006; Raia and Meiri, 2006; Welch, 2009) make little reference to these Victorian and early twentieth century publications by Fors”
Jordan’s and other ecogeographical rules, and the vertebral number in fishes (2008, background): “Lomolino et al. (2006) have recommended a search for a ‘more integrative programme fostering what [they] believe are intricately related patterns’ expressed in a diversity of ecogeographical rules, recognizing that each of these rules ‘has the potential to identify forces influencing the evolution…”
A geometric morphometric approach to the study of ecogeographical and clinal variation in vervet monkeys (2007, unknown): “…of an ecogeographical perspective on inter- and intraspecific morphological differences, particularly size and relative body proportions, has been highlighted by several recent studies and reviews (e.g. Ashton et al., 2000; Meiri & Dayan, 2003; Lomolino et al., 2006; Millien et al., 2006).”