PMC:4264897 / 39634-40780 JSONTXT

{"project":"MyTest","denotations":[{"id":"25512844-23637808-26483255","span":{"begin":760,"end":764},"obj":"23637808"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"_base","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/testbase"},{"prefix":"UniProtKB","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/"},{"prefix":"uniprot","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/"}],"text":"In conclusion, we showed that the scaling relationship between different body mass components and different measurement of body size varies between species and between the sexes with a species. We strongly recommend that biologists not assume that a particular index is a reliable indicator of body condition but rather they empirically verify the reliability of the condition index. We also show that the best description of the scaling relationship between body mass and body size in both cricket species was produced by SMA, rather than OLS, regression and our values for b SMA from our reference populations should be used by biologists when calculating in G. texensis and A. domesticus. Finally, our re-analysis of the data presented in Kelly and Tawes (2013) illustrates well the dangers of analyzing body condition using methods that are based on least squares in the y -plane. Both R i and ANCOVA suggested that body condition was significantly affected by a different treatment factor while suggested no treatment effects. Thus, depending on the method employed, very different biological conclusions would be drawn from the same data."}

{"project":"2_test","denotations":[{"id":"25512844-23637808-26483255","span":{"begin":760,"end":764},"obj":"23637808"}],"text":"In conclusion, we showed that the scaling relationship between different body mass components and different measurement of body size varies between species and between the sexes with a species. We strongly recommend that biologists not assume that a particular index is a reliable indicator of body condition but rather they empirically verify the reliability of the condition index. We also show that the best description of the scaling relationship between body mass and body size in both cricket species was produced by SMA, rather than OLS, regression and our values for b SMA from our reference populations should be used by biologists when calculating in G. texensis and A. domesticus. Finally, our re-analysis of the data presented in Kelly and Tawes (2013) illustrates well the dangers of analyzing body condition using methods that are based on least squares in the y -plane. Both R i and ANCOVA suggested that body condition was significantly affected by a different treatment factor while suggested no treatment effects. Thus, depending on the method employed, very different biological conclusions would be drawn from the same data."}