1999
DOI: 10.1016/s1095-6433(98)10170-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The use of percentages and size-specific indices to normalize physiological data for variation in body size: wasted time, wasted effort?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
297
1

Year Published

2004
2004
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 410 publications
(301 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
3
297
1
Order By: Relevance
“…When VTG was not detected in male fish, we used the detection limit as the VTG value. To avoid biases associated with size-specific indices (Packard and Boardman, 1999;Kang et al, 2002), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the body weight of the medaka as a covariate was used to compare the GSI and HSI values among all experimental groups. The data pertaining to sex ratios were assessed by 2 analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When VTG was not detected in male fish, we used the detection limit as the VTG value. To avoid biases associated with size-specific indices (Packard and Boardman, 1999;Kang et al, 2002), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the body weight of the medaka as a covariate was used to compare the GSI and HSI values among all experimental groups. The data pertaining to sex ratios were assessed by 2 analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Typical indexes attempt to control for body size by taking simple ratios (mass divided by the cube of body size), slope-adjusted ratios (slope of log(body mass) on log(body size)) or residuals (Jakob et al 1996). All of these indexes have been criticized, largely because the true relationship between the two variables is unknown a priori, and each method introduces assumptions that may not be biologically or statistically justified (see Jakob et al 1996;Kotiaho 1999;Packard & Boardman 1999;Green 2000;Darlington & Smulders 2001;García-Bertou 2001). To confound matters, there is no assurance that fresh weight is always a good indicator of fat reserves, or that fat reserves are a good indicator of fitness.…”
Section: What Is Condition?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…0.05). The common regression coefficient was computed (see the electronic supplementary data S2), and in the case where this was significantly different from 0, it was used to standardize all data for the covariate [40] following log 10 -transformation of the data. Corrections for the covariate are normally made to the grand mean, but given that the data have been log transformed, proportionality across the covariate is maintained and adjustment of BMR and leak rates were therefore made to a standard value.…”
Section: (G) Statistical Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%