The DOI matches its Crossref record.
RESTITUTION OF MASS–SIZE RESIDUALS: VALIDATING BODY CONDITION INDICES
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.
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
Cited by
Peig, J., & Green, A. J. (2009) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17643.x · Cited by 1,906
Use 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
The paradigm of body condition: a critical reappraisal of current methods based on mass and length
Peig, J., & Green, A. J. (2010) · Functional Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01751.x · Cited by 706
The evolution of growth trajectories: what limits growth rate?
Dmitriew, C. M. (2011) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2010.00136.x · Cited by 599
Capacity of mosquitoes to transmit malaria depends on larval environment
Moller-Jacobs, L. L., Murdock, C. C., & Thomas, M. B. (2014) · Parasites & Vectors · doi:10.1186/s13071-014-0593-4 · Cited by 180
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.