The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Comparative Analysis of Allometry for Sexual Size Dimorphism: Assessing Rensch's Rule
Abstract
Rensch's rule states that sexual size dimorphism (SSD) increases with body size (hyperallometry) in taxa in which males are the larger sex and decreases with body size (hypoallometry) in those in which females are larger. We use the independent contrasts method to assess the validity and generality of Rensch's rule within 21 independent animal taxa. Allometry is estimated as the slope of the major axis regression of contrasts for log(female size) versus contrasts for log(male size). Allometry consistent with Rensch's rule is significant in 33% of the taxa examined across a diverse range of invertebrate and vertebrate taxa. Significant allometry inconsistent with Rensch's rule occurs in only one taxon. Meta-analysis of these results reveals that Rensch's rule is general and highly significant. Only owls have allometry inconsistent with this trend. Rensch's rule is also shown to be associated with male-biased SSD, which is consistent with the hypothesis that sexual selection acting on male size drives the evolution of this pattern of allometry.
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
Analyzing Tables of Statistical Tests
Rice, W. R. (1989) · Evolution · doi:10.2307/2409177 · Cited by 14,571
ANALYZING TABLES OF STATISTICAL TESTS
Rice, W. R. (1989) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1989.tb04220.x · Cited by 14,547
The descent of man and selection in relation to sex
(1907) · The Journal of the Anthropological Society of Tokyo · doi:10.1537/ase1887.22.495 · Cited by 10,892
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
Wasserman, S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,326
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793
The comparative method in evolutionary biology
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-5104 · Cited by 4,931
Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa
Cramp, S. (1977) · Cited by 3,275
(1979) · Poyser eBooks · doi:10.5040/9781472597199 · Cited by 2,198
Procedures for the Analysis of Comparative Data Using Phylogenetically Independent Contrasts
Garland, T., Harvey, P. H., & Ives, A. R. (1992) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/41.1.18 · Cited by 2,151
Grafen, A. (1989) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.1989.0106 · Cited by 2,142
Cited by
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168 · Cited by 1,391
The costs of reproduction in plants
Obeso, J. R. (2002) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00477.x · Cited by 1,377
Body size variation in insects: a macroecological perspective
Chown, S. L., & Gaston, K. J. (2010) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2009.00097.x · Cited by 772
Gurevitch, J., Curtis, P. S., & Jones, M. H. (2001) · Advances in Ecological Research · doi:10.1016/s0065-2504(01)32013-5 · Cited by 421
Metadata
- Authors
- Abouheif, E., & Fairbairn, D. J.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1997-03
- Volume
- 149
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 540-562
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W1973783680
- Cited by
- 433
- References
- 86
- FWCI
- 10.16
- 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: A Comparative Analysis of Allometry for Sexual Size Dimorphism: Assessing Rensch's Rule. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/286004
- The paper
- Abouheif, E., & Fairbairn, D. J. (1997). A Comparative Analysis of Allometry for Sexual Size Dimorphism: Assessing Rensch's Rule. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/286004
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.
