New perspectives for estimating body condition from mass/length data: The scaled mass index as an alternative method

Oikos

Volumn 118, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 1883-1891

  Peig, Jordi ^a   Green, Andy J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

^b DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION BIOLOGY   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BODY CONDITION; BODY MASS; BODY SIZE; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; FITNESS; LEAST SQUARES METHOD; MAMMAL; SNAKE; THEORETICAL STUDY;

ANIMALIA; MAMMALIA; SERPENTES; STURNIDAE;

EID: 71049148330     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17643.x     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Ardia, D. R. 2005. Super size me: an experimental test for the factors affecting lipid content and the ability of residual body mass to predict lipid stores in nestling European starlings Funct. Ecol. 19 : 414 420.
2. Arnold, T. W. Green, A. J. 2007. On the allometric relationship between size and composition of avian eggs: a reassessment Condor 109 : 705 714.
3. Bohonak, A. J. van der Linde, K. 2004. RMA: software for reduced major axis regression, Java version , accessed 28 March 2008.
4. Cade, B. S. et al. 2008. Estimating fish body condition with quantile regression N. Am. J. Fish Manage. 28 : 349 359.
5. Calder, W. A. 1984. Size, function and life history. Harvard Univ. Press.
6. Fairbairn, D. J. 1997. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: patterns and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 28 : 659 687.
7. Freckleton, R. P. 2002. On the misuse of residuals in ecology: regression of residuals vs multiple regression J. Anim. Ecol. 71 : 542 545.
8. García-Berthou, E. 2001. On the misuse of residuals in ecology: testing regression residuals vs the analysis of covariance J. Anim. Ecol. 70 : 708 711.
9. Gosler, A. G. 1996. Environemnatl and social determinants of winter fat storage in the great tit Parus major J. Anim. Ecol. 65 : 1 17.
10. Green, A. J. 2001. Mass/length residuals: measures of body condition or generators of spurious results? Ecology 82 : 1473 1483.
11. Hayes, J. P. Shonkwiler, J. S. 2001. Morphometric indicators of body condition: worthwhile or wishful thinking? Speakman, J. R. Body composition analysis of animals. A handbook of non-destructive methods. Cambridge Univ. Press 8 38.
12. Hayes, J. P. Shonkwiler, J. S. 2006. Allometry, antilog transformations, and the perils of prediction on the original scale Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 79 : 665 674.
13. Hoppeler, H. Weibel, E. R. 2005. Scaling functions to body size: theories and facts J. Exp. Biol. 208 : 1573 1574.
14. Husak, J. F. 2006. Does speed help you survive? A test with collared lizards of different ages Funct. Ecol. 20 : 174 179.
15. Huxley, J. S. 1932. Problems of relative growth. Dover Publications.
16. Jakob, E. M. et al. 1996. Estimating fitness: a comparison of body condition indices Oikos 77 : 61 67.
17. Kotiaho, J. S. 1999. Estimating fitness: comparison of body condition indices revisited Oikos 87 : 399 400.
18. Krebs, C. J. Singleton, G. R. 1993. Indices of condition for small mammals Aust. J. Zool. 41 : 317 323.
19. LaBarbera, M. 1989. Analyzing body size as a factor in ecology and evolution Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 20 : 97 117.
20. Liker, A. et al. 2008. Lean birds in the city: body size and condition of house sparrows along the urbanization gradient J. Anim. Ecol. 77 : 789 795.
21. Lleonart, J. et al. 2000. Removing allometric effects of body size in morphological analysis J. Theor. Biol. 205 : 85 93.
22. McArdle, B. H. 1988. The structural relationship: regression in biology Can. J. Zool. 66 : 2329 2339.
23. Nagy, K. A. et al. 2002. A condition index for the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 4 : 425 429.
24. O'Dwyer, T. W. et al. 2006. Prolactin, body condition and the cost of good parenting: an interyear study in a long-lived seabird, Gould's petrel (Pterodroma leucoptera) Funct. Ecol. 6 : 806 811.
25. Redfern, C. P. F. et al. 2000. Fat and body condition in migrating redwings Turdus iliacus J. Avian Biol. 31 : 197 205.
26. Seim, E. Sæther, B. E. 1983. On rethinking allometry: which regression model to use? J. Theor. Biol. 104 : 161 168.
27. Schulte-Hostedde, A. I. et al. 2001. Evaluating body condition in small mammals Can. J. Zool. 79 : 1021 1029.
28. Schulte-Hostedde, A. I. et al. 2005. Restitution of mass-size residuals: validating body condition indices Ecology 86 : 155 163.
29. Smith, R. J. 1992. Logarithmic transformation bias in allometry Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 90 : 215 228.
30. Sokal, R. R. Rohlf, F. J. 1995. Biometry. W. H. Freeman.
31. Stevenson, R. D. Woods, W. A. 2006. Condition indices for conservation: new uses for evolving tools Integr. Comp. Biol. 46 : 1169 1190.
32. Thompson, D. W. 1961. On growth and form. Cambridge Univ. Press.
33. Thorpe, R. S. 1975. Quantitative handling of characters useful in snake systematics with particular reference to intraspecific variation in the ringed snake Natrix natrix (L.) Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 7 : 27 43.
34. Toïgo, C. et al. 2006. How does environmental variation influence body mass, body size, and body condition? Roe deer as a case study Ecography 29 : 301 308.
35. Warton, D. I. et al. 2006. Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry Biol. Rev. 81 : 259 291.
36. Weatherhead, P. J. Brown, G. P. 1996. Measurement versus estimation of body condition in snakes Can. J. Zool. 74 : 1617 1621.