Archaeofaunal Relative Abundance, Sample Size, and Statistical Methods

By M. Cannon. 2001

95 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8d998ebdbef864e09bba6760682233d98862d3bd

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecological Modeling

1. R. Lee Lyman
2. Kenneth M. Ames
3. E. Bartelink
4. J. Broughton
5. K. Lupo
6. J. O'connell
7. Douglas W. Bird
8. D. Meltzer

In Ecology

1. K. Lupo
2. J. Broughton
3. M. Cannon
4. E. Bartelink
5. Douglas W. Bird
6. R. Lee Lyman
7. Kenneth M. Ames
8. J. O'connell

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. R. Lee Lyman
2. Kenneth M. Ames
3. E. Bartelink
4. J. Broughton
5. K. Lupo
6. J. O'connell
7. Douglas W. Bird
8. D. Meltzer

Citations in the corpus

• Early Paleoindian foraging: examining the faunal evidence for large mammal specialization and regional variability in prey choice (2004, background): “There is little reason to think that assemblage sample size will affect our analyses of assemblage composition (Cannon, 2001).”
• Evolutionary Foraging Models in Zooarchaeological Analysis: Recent Applications and Future Challenges (2007, background): “…history, sample size, excavation techniques, analyst methodology, and space and time compression, can significantly and selectively impact faunal abundances and the resulting interpretation (e.g., Cannon 1999, 2001; Cruz-Uribe 1988; Grayson 1984; Grayson et al. 2001; Schmitt and Lupo 1995, 2005).”
• Behavioral Ecology and Archaeology (2006, background): “(See Elston and Zeanah, 2002; Hildebrandt and McGuire, 2002; and sections below on individual constraints and costly signaling theory; also Cannon, 2001; Lyman, 2003a,b; Stiner and Munro, 2002; Ugan and Bright, 2001; for further methodological commentary.)”
• Evolutionary Ecology, Resource Depression, and Niche Construction Theory: Applications to Central California Hunter-Gatherers and Mimbres-Mogollon Agriculturalists (2010, methodology): “The test is analogous to a form of regression analysis in which relative abundance values are weighted according to their associated sample sizes (Cannon 2001b; Zar 1999).”
• On the use of species-area curves to detect the effects of sample size (2007, methodology): “Various methods of studying the relationship between samples of different sizes and a variable of interest continue to be used (e.g., Byrd, 1997), evaluated (e.g., Ringrose, 1993; Sullivan and Tolonen, 1998), modified (e.g., Baxter, 2001), and developed (e.g., Cannon, 2001; Zohar and Belmaker, 200”