✦ LIBER ✦

Conservation Implications of Georaphic Range Size—Body Size Relationships

✍ Scribed by Kevin J. Gaston; Tim M. Blackburn

Book ID: 114435599
Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
Year: 1996
Tongue: English
Weight: 969 KB
Volume: 10
Category: Article
ISSN: 0888-8892
DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020638.x

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES

The interspecific range size–body size r

The interspecific range size–body size relationship in Australian frogs

✍ Brad R. Murray; Grant C. Hose 📂 Article 📅 2005 🏛 Blackwell Publishing 🌐 English ⚖ 223 KB

The magnitude and implications of the re

The magnitude and implications of the relationship between tooth size and body size

✍ S.M. Garn; A.B. Lewis; R.S. Kerewsky 📂 Article 📅 1968 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 233 KB

Bee foraging ranges and their relationsh

Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size

✍ Sarah S. Greenleaf; Neal M. Williams; Rachael Winfree; Claire Kremen 📂 Article 📅 2007 🏛 Springer-Verlag 🌐 English ⚖ 298 KB

Common Patterns in Home Range-Body Size

Common Patterns in Home Range-Body Size Relationships of Birds and Mammals

✍ Stephen H. Jenkins 📂 Article 📅 1981 🏛 University of Chicago Press 🌐 English ⚖ 341 KB

The Dynamics of Abundance-Range Size Rel

The Dynamics of Abundance-Range Size Relationships

✍ Kevin J. Gaston and J. L. Curnutt 📂 Article 📅 1998 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 956 KB

Evolutionary implications of the relatio

Evolutionary implications of the relationship between genome size and body size in flatworms and copepods

✍ Gregory, T Ryan; Hebert, Paul D N; Kolasa, Jurek 📂 Article 📅 2000 🏛 Nature Publishing Group 🌐 English ⚖ 131 KB

Genome and body sizes were measured in 38 species of turbellarian flatworms and 16 species of copepod crustaceans. Significant positive relationships existed between genome size and body size in both groups. The slopes of these regressions indicated that increases in cell volume are reinforced by in