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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists
Quinn, G. P., & Keough, M. J. (2002) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511806384 · Cited by 10,674
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793
The worldwide leaf economics spectrum
Wright, I. J., Reich, P. B., Westoby, M., Ackerly, D. D., Baruch, Z., Bongers, F., Cavender-Bares, J., Chapin, T., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Diemer, M., et al. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02403 · Cited by 9,021
Self-citationPITMAN, E. J. G. (1939) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/31.1-2.9 · Cited by 480
Two Guidelines for Bootstrap Hypothesis Testing
Hall, P., & Wilson, S. R. (1991) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2532163 · Cited by 471
Brain Size Scaling and Body Composition in Mammals
Schoenemann, P. T. (2004) · Brain, Behavior and Evolution · doi:10.1159/000073759 · Cited by 67
Cited by
C:N:P stoichiometry in soil: is there a “Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass?
Cleveland, C. C., & Liptzin, D. (2007) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1007/s10533-007-9132-0 · Cited by 2,365
Ecological models and data in R
Bolker, B. M. (2008) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4g37 · Cited by 1,297
“∗Model II regression is a big topic (Warton et al., 2006); in special cases like this one (dynamic data with only measurement error) where we can assume that the variances in”
BackgroundUse and misuse of the reduced major axis for line‐fitting
Smith, R. J. (2009) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.21090 · Cited by 724
Physiological and structural tradeoffs underlying the leaf economics spectrum
Onoda, Y., Wright, I. J., Evans, J. R., Hikosaka, K., Kitajima, K., Niinemets, Ü., Poorter, H., Tosens, T., & Westoby, M. (2017) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.14496 · Cited by 722
Self-citationSensitivity of leaf size and shape to climate: global patterns and paleoclimatic applications
Peppe, D. J., Royer, D. L., Cariglino, B., Oliver, S. Y., Newman, S., Leight, E., Enikolopov, G., Fernandez‐Burgos, M., Herrera, F., Adams, J. M., et al. (2011) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03615.x · Cited by 616
Self-citation
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.