Removing bias from diversity curves: the effects of spatially organized biodiversity on sampling-standardization

By Andrew M. Bush, Molly J. Markey, C. Marshall. Paleobiology, 2004

113 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

The double mass extinction revisited: reassessing the severity, selectivity, and causes of the end-Guadalupian biotic crisis (Late Permian) (2009, unknown): “Although simple rarefaction may be less realistic than other standardization methods (Alroy et al. 2001; Bush et al. 2004), sampling is uniform enough throughout the Kungurian–Changhsingian interval (Fig.”
Fidelity of variation in species composition and diversity partitioning by death assemblages: time-averaging transfers diversity from beta to alpha levels (2009, background): “…mollusks, freshwater mollusks, reef corals, lacustrine ostracodes, fishes, and land mammals (Behrensmeyer et al. 1979, 2003; Stewart 1991; Butler 1993; Cummins 1994; Pandolfi and Minchin 1996; Pandolfi and Greenstein 1997; Zuschin et al. 2000; Edinger et al. 2001; O’Connell and…”
An Analysis of the History of Marine Animal Diversity (2007, result): “Bush et al. (2004) concluded that the methodologies of Alroy et al. (2001) were incomplete in that the results were strongly influenced by variation in beta (regional) diversity.”
Geographical distribution and extinction risk: lessons from Triassic–Jurassic marine benthic organisms (2007, methodology): “Several methods for subsampling have been devised (Alroy et al., 2001; Bush et al., 2004).”