Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,099

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

RESTITUTION OF MASS–SIZE RESIDUALS: VALIDATING BODY CONDITION INDICES

Schulte-Hostedde, Albrecht I., Zinner, Bertram, Millar, John S., Hickling, Graham J.·2005·Ecology

Abstract

Body condition can have important fitness consequences, but measuring body condition of live animals from wild populations has been the subject of much recent debate. Using the residuals from a regression of body mass on a linear measure of body size is one of the most common methods of measuring condition and has been used in many vertebrate taxa. Recently, the use of this method has been criticized because assumptions are likely violated. We tested several assumptions regarding the use of this method with body composition and morphometric data from five species of small mammals and with statistical simulations. We tested the assumptions that the relationship between body mass and body size is linear, and that the proportion of mass associated with energy reserves is independent of body size. In addition, we tested whether the residuals from reduced major axis (RMA) regression or major axis (MA) regression performed better than the residuals from ordinary least squares (OLS) regression as indices of body condition. We found no evidence of nonlinear relationships between body mass and body size. Relative energy reserves (fat and lean dry mass) were generally independent or weakly dependent on body size. Residuals from MA and RMA regression consistently explained less variation in body composition than OLS regression. Using statistical simulations, we compared the effects of violations of the assumption that true condition and residual indices are independent of body size on the OLS, MA, and RMA procedures and found that OLS performed better than the RMA and MA procedures. Despite recent criticisms of residuals from mass–size OLS regressions, these indices of body condition appear to satisfy critical assumptions. Although some caution is warranted when using residuals, especially when both interindividual variation in body size and measurement error are high, we found no reason to reject OLS residuals as legitimate indices of body condition.

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 · 10.1890/04-0232

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.

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

Cited by

See all 1,099

Metadata

Authors
Schulte-Hostedde, A. I., Zinner, B., Millar, J. S., & Hickling, G. J.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-01
Volume
86
Issue
1
Pages
155-163
ISSN
0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2133158707
Cited by
1,099
References
0
FWCI
30.00
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: RESTITUTION OF MASS–SIZE RESIDUALS: VALIDATING BODY CONDITION INDICES. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/04-0232
The paper
Schulte-Hostedde, A. I., Zinner, B., Millar, J. S., & Hickling, G. J. (2005). RESTITUTION OF MASS–SIZE RESIDUALS: VALIDATING BODY CONDITION INDICES. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0232

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.