Allometric analysis beyond heterogeneous regression slopes: Use of the Johnson-Neyman technique in comparative biology

Physiological and Biochemical Zoology

Volumn 76, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 135-140

  White, Craig R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY;

ACCLIMATIZATION; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIRD; DESERT CLIMATE; HEART; HISTOLOGY; MAMMAL; METHODOLOGY; ORGAN SIZE; PHYSIOLOGY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS;

ACCLIMATIZATION; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; BIRDS; DESERT CLIMATE; HEART; LINEAR MODELS; MAMMALS; ORGAN SIZE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICS;

ANIMALIA; AVES; MAMMALIA;

EID: 0037885018     PISSN: 15222152     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/367939     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Abelson R.P. 1953. A note on the Johnson-Neyman technique. Psychometrika 18:213-218.
2. Brown J.H. and G.B. West. 2000. Scaling in Biology. Oxford University Press, New York.
3. Calder W.A., III. 1984. Size, Function, and Life History. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
4. Cochran W.G. 1957. Analysis of covariance: its nature and uses. Biometrics 13:261-281.
5. Dorsey S.G. and K.L. Soeken. 1996. Use of the Johnson-Neyman technique as an alternative to analysis of covariance. Nurs Res 45:363-366.
6. Fisher R.A. 1932. Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.
7. Garland T., Jr., A.W. Dickerman, C.M. Janis, and J.A. Jones. 1993. Phylogenetic analysis of covariance by computer simulation. Syst Biol 42:265-292.
8. Gillanders B.M. 1997. Comparison of growth rates between estuarine and coastal reef populations of Achoerodus viridis (Pisces: Labridae). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 146:283-287.
9. Gould S.J. 1966. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biol Rev 44:587-640.
10. Hendrix L.J., M.W. Carter, and D.T. Scott. 1982. Covariance analyses with heterogeneity of slopes in fixed models. Biometrics 38:641-50.
11. Huitema B.E. 1980. The Analysis of Covariance and Alternatives. Wiley, New York.
12. Huxley J.S. 1932. Problems of Relative Growth. Methuen, London.
13. Johnson P.O. and J. Neyman. 1936. Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Stat Res Mem 1:57-93.
14. Leon A.C., L. Portera, K. Lowell, and D. Rheinheimer. 1998. A strategy to evaluate a covariate by group interaction in an analysis of covariance. Psychopharmacol Bull 34:805-809.
15. Packard G.C. and T.J. Boardman. 1987. The misuse of ratios to scale physiological data that vary allometrically with body size. Pp. 216-239 in M.E. Feder, A.F. Bennett, W.W. Burggren, and R.B. Huey, eds. New Directions in Ecological Physiology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
16. _. 1988. The misuse of ratios, indices, and percentages in ecophysiological research. Physiol Zool 61:1-9.
17. _. 1999. The use of percentages and size-specific indices to normalize physiological data for variation in body size: wasted time, wasted effort? Comp Biochem Physiol A 122:37-44.
18. Peters R.H. 1983. The Ecological Implications of Body Size. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
19. Potthoff R.F. 1964. On the Johnson-Neyman technique and some extensions thereof. Psychometrika 29:241-256.
20. Robson D.S. and G.F. Atkinson. 1960. Individual degrees of freedom for testing homogeneity of regression coefficients in a one-way analysis of covariance. Biometrics 16:593-605.
21. Rogosa D. 1980. Comparing nonparallel regression lines. Psychol Bull 88:307-321.
22. Schmidt-Nielsen K. 1984. Scaling: Why Is Animal Size So Important? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
23. Seymour R.S. and A.J. Blaylock. 2000. The principle of Laplace and scaling of ventricular wall stress and blood pressure in mammals and birds. Physiol Biochem Zool 73:389-405.
24. Zar J.H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.