Determining sexual dimorphism in frog measurement data: Integration of statistical significance, measurement error, effect size and biological significance

Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias

Volumn 77, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 45-76

  Hayek, Lee Ann C ^a   Heyer, W Ronald ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF PALEOBIOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Effect size; Frogs; Measurement error index; Sexual dimorphism; Statistics

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA; ANURA; LEPTODACTYLUS; VERTEBRATA;

EID: 13444270751     PISSN: 00013765     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/s0001-37652005000100005     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. BUTLER MA AND LOSOS JB. 2002. Multivariate sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in greater Antillean Anolis lizards. Ecol Monogr 72: 541-559.
2. COHEN J. 1977. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Revised edition. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, San Francisco: Academic Press, Inc., 474 p.
3. DUELLMAN WE AND TRUEB L. 1986. Biology of amphibians. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 670 p.
4. HAYEK LC, HEYER WR AND GASCON C. 2001. Frog morphometrics: A cautionary tale. Alytes 18: 153-177.
5. HAYES JP AND STEIDL RJ. 1997. Statistical power analysis and amphibian population trends. Conserv Biol 11: 273-275.
6. HEYER WR. 1978. Systematics of the fuscus group of the frog genus Leptodactylus (Amphibia, Leptodactylidae). Nat Hist Mus Los Angeles County Sci Bull 29:1-85.
7. HEYER WR. 1994. Variation within the Leptodactylus podicipinus-wagneri complex of frogs (Amphibia: Leptodactylidae). Smithsonian Contrib Zool 546: 1-124.
8. HEYER WR. 2005. Variation and taxonomic clarification of the large species of the Leptodactylus pentadactylus species group (Amphibia: Leptodactylidae) from Middle America, northern South America, and Amazonia. Arq Zool. (In press).
9. HEYER WR AND MUÑOZ AM. 1999. Validation of Eleutherodactylus crepitans Bokermann, 1965, notes on the types and type locality of Telatrema [sic] heterodactylum Miranda-Ribeiro, 1937, and description of a new species of Eleutherodactylus from Mato Grosso, Brazil (Amphibia: Anura: Leptodactylidae). Proc Biol Soc Washington 112: 1-18.
10. MAPSTONE BD. 1995. Scalable decision rules for environmental impact studies: Effect size, type I and type II errors. Ecol Applic 5: 401-410.
11. PETERMAN RM. 1990. The importance of reporting statistical power: The forest decline and acidic deposition example, Ecology 71: 2024-2027.
12. REED JM AND BLAUSTEIN AR. 1995. Assessment of "nondeclining" amphibian populations using power analysis. Conserv Biol 9: 1299-1300.
13. SHINE R. 1979. Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in the Amphibia. Copeia 1979: 297-306.
14. SOKAL RR AND ROHLF FJ. 1969. Biometry. The principles and practice of statistics in biological research. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Company, 776 p.
15. TAYLOR BL AND GERRODETTE T. 1993. The uses of statistical power in conservation biology: The vaquita and northern spotted owl. Conserv Biol 7: 489-500.
16. TOFT CA AND SHEA PJ. 1983. Detecting community-wide patterns: Estimating power strengthens statistical inference. Am Natur 122: 618-625.
17. WELKOWITZ J, EWEN RB AND COHEN J. 1982. Introductory statistics for behavioral sciences. Third edition. New York & other cities: Academic Press, 369 p.
18. WILKINSON L AND COWARD M. 2000. Linear models I: Linear regression. In: SYSTAT 10, Statistics I. Chicago: SPSS Ine, p. I-399-I-430.
19. YEZERINAC SM, LOUGHEED SC AND HANDFORD P. 1992. Measurement error and morphometric studies: Statistical power and observer experience. Syst Biol 41: 471-482.
20. ZIELINSKI WJ AND STAUFFER HB. 1996. Monitoring Martes populations in California: Survey design and power analysis. Ecol Applic 6: 1254-1267.