Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,319

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bivariate line‐fitting methods for allometry

Warton, David I., Wright, Ian J., Falster, Daniel S., Westoby, Mark·2006·Biological Reviews

Abstract

Fitting a line to a bivariate dataset can be a deceptively complex problem, and there has been much debate on this issue in the literature. In this review, we describe for the practitioner the essential features of line‐fitting methods for estimating the relationship between two variables: what methods are commonly used, which method should be used when, and how to make inferences from these lines to answer common research questions. A particularly important point for line‐fitting in allometry is that usually, two sources of error are present (which we call measurement and equation error), and these have quite different implications for choice of line‐fitting method. As a consequence, the approach in this review and the methods presented have subtle but important differences from previous reviews in the biology literature. Linear regression, major axis and standardised major axis are alternative methods that can be appropriate when there is no measurement error. When there is measurement error, this often needs to be estimated and used to adjust the variance terms in formulae for line‐fitting. We also review line‐fitting methods for phylogenetic analyses. Methods of inference are described for the line‐fitting techniques discussed in this paper. The types of inference considered here are testing if the slope or elevation equals a given value, constructing confidence intervals for the slope or elevation, comparing several slopes or elevations, and testing for shift along the axis amongst several groups. In some cases several methods have been proposed in the literature. These are discussed and compared. In other cases there is little or no previous guidance available in the literature. Simulations were conducted to check whether the methods of inference proposed have the intended coverage probability or Type I error. We identified the methods of inference that perform well and recommend the techniques that should be adopted in future work.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1464793106007007

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 2,319

Metadata

Authors
Warton, D. I., Wright, I. J., Falster, D. S., & Westoby, M.
Venue
Biological Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-05
Volume
81
Issue
2
Pages
259-291
ISSN
  • 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-7931
  • 1469-185X
OpenAlex
W2056581871
Cited by
2,319
References
7
FWCI
4.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bivariate line‐fitting methods for allometry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s1464793106007007
The paper
Warton, D. I., Wright, I. J., Falster, D. S., & Westoby, M. (2006). Bivariate line‐fitting methods for allometry. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1464793106007007

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.