AustralieFrV1, PascalFrancis, Corpus, bibRecord, 005409

Measures of reproductive allometry are sensitive to sampling bias

Identifieur interne : 005409 ( PascalFrancis/Corpus ); précédent : 005408; suivant : 005410

Measures of reproductive allometry are sensitive to sampling bias

Auteurs : X. Bonnet ; R. Shine ; O. Lourdais ; G. Naulleau

Source :

Functional ecology : (Print) [ 0269-8463 ] ; 2003.

RBID : Pascal:03-0179424

Descripteurs français

Pascal (Inist)
- Allométrie, Echantillonnage, Erreur systématique, Effort reproduction, Taille corporelle, Effet maternel, Investissement parental, Budget énergétique, Fécondité, Ophidia.

English descriptors

KwdEn :
- Allometry, Bias, Body size, Energy budget, Fecundity, Maternal effect, Ophidia, Parental investment, Reproductive effort, Sampling.

Abstract

1. In both interspecific and intraspecific comparisons, maternal body size is the strongest predictor of fecundity for many kinds of animals. However, it has not been widely appreciated that the usual empirical descriptors of this relationship (correlation coefficient, slope and P-value of the linear regression between maternal body size and offspring number) are sensitive to a factor that is very labile and subject to methodological bias: the degree of maternal investment, specifically the ratio of litter mass to maternal body mass (relative clutch mass, RCM). 2. Samples of females used to assess reproductive allometry may often be biased with respect to RCM. For example, RCMs may vary through time within a single population as a consequence of prey availability, or may vary geographically among populations. Also, females with low RCMs may be more difficult to capture, or may be discarded by researchers who do not realize that they are reproductive. 3. Our analyses on 173 litters of aspic vipers (Vipera aspis Linne) from central western France show that estimates of reproductive allometry are very sensitive to RCM: samples composed of high-RCM females show a positive and highly significant reproductive allometry, whereas samples composed of low RCM females do not. Conclusions also depend on the method of regression analysis used. This result has strong implications for methodology (i.e. selection of samples, choice of analytical methods and timescales of study) in this field of research.

Notice en format standard (ISO 2709)

Pour connaître la documentation sur le format Inist Standard.

A01	`01`	`1`		`@0 0269-8463`
A03		`1`		`@0 Funct. ecol. : (Print)`
A05				`@2 17`
A06				`@2 1`
A08	`01`	`1`	`ENG`	`@1 Measures of reproductive allometry are sensitive to sampling bias`
A11	`01`	`1`		`@1 BONNET (X.)`
A11	`02`	`1`		`@1 SHINE (R.)`
A11	`03`	`1`		`@1 LOURDAIS (O.)`
A11	`04`	`1`		`@1 NAULLEAU (G.)`
A14	`01`			`@1 Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, CNRS @2 79360, Villiers en Bois @3 FRA @Z 1 aut. @Z 3 aut. @Z 4 aut.`
A14	`02`			`@1 Biological Sciences A08, University of Sydney @2 NSW 2006 @3 AUS @Z 1 aut. @Z 2 aut.`
A14	`03`			`@1 Université de Poitiers, 40 avenue du recteur Pineau @2 86022 Poitiers @3 FRA @Z 3 aut.`
A20				`@1 39-49`
A21				`@1 2003`
A23	`01`			`@0 ENG`
A43	`01`			`@1 INIST @2 21184 @5 354000107917710050`
A44				`@0 0000 @1 © 2003 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved.`
A45				`@0 1 p.1/4`
A47	`01`	`1`		`@0 03-0179424`
A60				`@1 P`
A61				`@0 A`
A64	`01`	`1`		`@0 Functional ecology : (Print)`
A66	`01`			`@0 GBR`
C01	`01`		`ENG`	@0 1. In both interspecific and intraspecific comparisons, maternal body size is the strongest predictor of fecundity for many kinds of animals. However, it has not been widely appreciated that the usual empirical descriptors of this relationship (correlation coefficient, slope and P-value of the linear regression between maternal body size and offspring number) are sensitive to a factor that is very labile and subject to methodological bias: the degree of maternal investment, specifically the ratio of litter mass to maternal body mass (relative clutch mass, RCM). 2. Samples of females used to assess reproductive allometry may often be biased with respect to RCM. For example, RCMs may vary through time within a single population as a consequence of prey availability, or may vary geographically among populations. Also, females with low RCMs may be more difficult to capture, or may be discarded by researchers who do not realize that they are reproductive. 3. Our analyses on 173 litters of aspic vipers (Vipera aspis Linne) from central western France show that estimates of reproductive allometry are very sensitive to RCM: samples composed of high-RCM females show a positive and highly significant reproductive allometry, whereas samples composed of low RCM females do not. Conclusions also depend on the method of regression analysis used. This result has strong implications for methodology (i.e. selection of samples, choice of analytical methods and timescales of study) in this field of research.
C02	`01`	`X`		`@0 002A14B02C2B`
C03	`01`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Allométrie @5 01`
C03	`01`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Allometry @5 01`
C03	`01`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Alometría @5 01`
C03	`02`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Echantillonnage @5 02`
C03	`02`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Sampling @5 02`
C03	`02`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Muestreo @5 02`
C03	`03`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Erreur systématique @5 03`
C03	`03`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Bias @5 03`
C03	`03`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Error sistemático @5 03`
C03	`04`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Effort reproduction @5 04`
C03	`04`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Reproductive effort @5 04`
C03	`04`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Esfuerzo reproductivo @5 04`
C03	`05`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Taille corporelle @5 05`
C03	`05`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Body size @5 05`
C03	`05`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Talla corporal @5 05`
C03	`06`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Effet maternel @5 06`
C03	`06`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Maternal effect @5 06`
C03	`06`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Efecto maternal @5 06`
C03	`07`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Investissement parental @5 07`
C03	`07`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Parental investment @5 07`
C03	`07`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Inversión parental @5 07`
C03	`08`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Budget énergétique @5 08`
C03	`08`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Energy budget @5 08`
C03	`08`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Presupuesto energético @5 08`
C03	`09`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Fécondité @5 09`
C03	`09`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Fecundity @5 09`
C03	`09`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Fecundidad @5 09`
C03	`10`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Ophidia @2 NS @5 56`
C03	`10`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Ophidia @2 NS @5 56`
C03	`10`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Ophidia @2 NS @5 56`
C07	`01`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Reproduction @5 20`
C07	`01`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Reproduction @5 20`
C07	`01`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Reproducción @5 20`
C07	`02`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Reptilia @2 NS`
C07	`02`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Reptilia @2 NS`
C07	`02`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Reptilia @2 NS`
C07	`03`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Vertebrata @2 NS`
C07	`03`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Vertebrata @2 NS`
C07	`03`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Vertebrata @2 NS`
N21				`@1 104`
N82				`@1 PSI`

Format Inist (serveur)

NO :	PASCAL 03-0179424 INIST
ET :	Measures of reproductive allometry are sensitive to sampling bias
AU :	BONNET (X.); SHINE (R.); LOURDAIS (O.); NAULLEAU (G.)
AF :	Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, CNRS/79360, Villiers en Bois/France (1 aut., 3 aut., 4 aut.); Biological Sciences A08, University of Sydney/NSW 2006/Australie (1 aut., 2 aut.); Université de Poitiers, 40 avenue du recteur Pineau/86022 Poitiers/France (3 aut.)
DT :	Publication en série; Niveau analytique
SO :	Functional ecology : (Print); ISSN 0269-8463; Royaume-Uni; Da. 2003; Vol. 17; No. 1; Pp. 39-49; Bibl. 1 p.1/4
LA :	Anglais
EA :	1. In both interspecific and intraspecific comparisons, maternal body size is the strongest predictor of fecundity for many kinds of animals. However, it has not been widely appreciated that the usual empirical descriptors of this relationship (correlation coefficient, slope and P-value of the linear regression between maternal body size and offspring number) are sensitive to a factor that is very labile and subject to methodological bias: the degree of maternal investment, specifically the ratio of litter mass to maternal body mass (relative clutch mass, RCM). 2. Samples of females used to assess reproductive allometry may often be biased with respect to RCM. For example, RCMs may vary through time within a single population as a consequence of prey availability, or may vary geographically among populations. Also, females with low RCMs may be more difficult to capture, or may be discarded by researchers who do not realize that they are reproductive. 3. Our analyses on 173 litters of aspic vipers (Vipera aspis Linne) from central western France show that estimates of reproductive allometry are very sensitive to RCM: samples composed of high-RCM females show a positive and highly significant reproductive allometry, whereas samples composed of low RCM females do not. Conclusions also depend on the method of regression analysis used. This result has strong implications for methodology (i.e. selection of samples, choice of analytical methods and timescales of study) in this field of research.
CC :	002A14B02C2B
FD :	Allométrie; Echantillonnage; Erreur systématique; Effort reproduction; Taille corporelle; Effet maternel; Investissement parental; Budget énergétique; Fécondité; Ophidia
FG :	Reproduction; Reptilia; Vertebrata
ED :	Allometry; Sampling; Bias; Reproductive effort; Body size; Maternal effect; Parental investment; Energy budget; Fecundity; Ophidia
EG :	Reproduction; Reptilia; Vertebrata
SD :	Alometría; Muestreo; Error sistemático; Esfuerzo reproductivo; Talla corporal; Efecto maternal; Inversión parental; Presupuesto energético; Fecundidad; Ophidia
LO :	INIST-21184.354000107917710050
ID :	03-0179424

Links to Exploration step

Pascal:03-0179424

Le document en format XML

<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en" level="a">Measures of reproductive allometry are sensitive to sampling bias</title>
<author><name sortKey="Bonnet, X" sort="Bonnet, X" uniqKey="Bonnet X" first="X." last="Bonnet">X. Bonnet</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, CNRS</s1>
<s2>79360, Villiers en Bois</s2>
<s3>FRA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Biological Sciences A08, University of Sydney</s1>
<s2>NSW 2006</s2>
<s3>AUS</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Shine, R" sort="Shine, R" uniqKey="Shine R" first="R." last="Shine">R. Shine</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Biological Sciences A08, University of Sydney</s1>
<s2>NSW 2006</s2>
<s3>AUS</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Lourdais, O" sort="Lourdais, O" uniqKey="Lourdais O" first="O." last="Lourdais">O. Lourdais</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, CNRS</s1>
<s2>79360, Villiers en Bois</s2>
<s3>FRA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="03"><s1>Université de Poitiers, 40 avenue du recteur Pineau</s1>
<s2>86022 Poitiers</s2>
<s3>FRA</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Naulleau, G" sort="Naulleau, G" uniqKey="Naulleau G" first="G." last="Naulleau">G. Naulleau</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, CNRS</s1>
<s2>79360, Villiers en Bois</s2>
<s3>FRA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">INIST</idno>
<idno type="inist">03-0179424</idno>
<date when="2003">2003</date>
<idno type="stanalyst">PASCAL 03-0179424 INIST</idno>
<idno type="RBID">Pascal:03-0179424</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PascalFrancis/Corpus">005409</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a">Measures of reproductive allometry are sensitive to sampling bias</title>
<author><name sortKey="Bonnet, X" sort="Bonnet, X" uniqKey="Bonnet X" first="X." last="Bonnet">X. Bonnet</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, CNRS</s1>
<s2>79360, Villiers en Bois</s2>
<s3>FRA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Biological Sciences A08, University of Sydney</s1>
<s2>NSW 2006</s2>
<s3>AUS</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Shine, R" sort="Shine, R" uniqKey="Shine R" first="R." last="Shine">R. Shine</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>Biological Sciences A08, University of Sydney</s1>
<s2>NSW 2006</s2>
<s3>AUS</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Lourdais, O" sort="Lourdais, O" uniqKey="Lourdais O" first="O." last="Lourdais">O. Lourdais</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, CNRS</s1>
<s2>79360, Villiers en Bois</s2>
<s3>FRA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="03"><s1>Université de Poitiers, 40 avenue du recteur Pineau</s1>
<s2>86022 Poitiers</s2>
<s3>FRA</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Naulleau, G" sort="Naulleau, G" uniqKey="Naulleau G" first="G." last="Naulleau">G. Naulleau</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, CNRS</s1>
<s2>79360, Villiers en Bois</s2>
<s3>FRA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<series><title level="j" type="main">Functional ecology : (Print)</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">Funct. ecol. : (Print)</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0269-8463</idno>
<imprint><date when="2003">2003</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt><title level="j" type="main">Functional ecology : (Print)</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">Funct. ecol. : (Print)</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0269-8463</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Allometry</term>
<term>Bias</term>
<term>Body size</term>
<term>Energy budget</term>
<term>Fecundity</term>
<term>Maternal effect</term>
<term>Ophidia</term>
<term>Parental investment</term>
<term>Reproductive effort</term>
<term>Sampling</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Pascal" xml:lang="fr"><term>Allométrie</term>
<term>Echantillonnage</term>
<term>Erreur systématique</term>
<term>Effort reproduction</term>
<term>Taille corporelle</term>
<term>Effet maternel</term>
<term>Investissement parental</term>
<term>Budget énergétique</term>
<term>Fécondité</term>
<term>Ophidia</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">1. In both interspecific and intraspecific comparisons, maternal body size is the strongest predictor of fecundity for many kinds of animals. However, it has not been widely appreciated that the usual empirical descriptors of this relationship (correlation coefficient, slope and P-value of the linear regression between maternal body size and offspring number) are sensitive to a factor that is very labile and subject to methodological bias: the degree of maternal investment, specifically the ratio of litter mass to maternal body mass (relative clutch mass, RCM). 2. Samples of females used to assess reproductive allometry may often be biased with respect to RCM. For example, RCMs may vary through time within a single population as a consequence of prey availability, or may vary geographically among populations. Also, females with low RCMs may be more difficult to capture, or may be discarded by researchers who do not realize that they are reproductive. 3. Our analyses on 173 litters of aspic vipers (Vipera aspis Linne) from central western France show that estimates of reproductive allometry are very sensitive to RCM: samples composed of high-RCM females show a positive and highly significant reproductive allometry, whereas samples composed of low RCM females do not. Conclusions also depend on the method of regression analysis used. This result has strong implications for methodology (i.e. selection of samples, choice of analytical methods and timescales of study) in this field of research.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<inist><standard h6="B"><pA><fA01 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>0269-8463</s0>
</fA01>
<fA03 i2="1"><s0>Funct. ecol. : (Print)</s0>
</fA03>
<fA05><s2>17</s2>
</fA05>
<fA06><s2>1</s2>
</fA06>
<fA08 i1="01" i2="1" l="ENG"><s1>Measures of reproductive allometry are sensitive to sampling bias</s1>
</fA08>
<fA11 i1="01" i2="1"><s1>BONNET (X.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="02" i2="1"><s1>SHINE (R.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="03" i2="1"><s1>LOURDAIS (O.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="04" i2="1"><s1>NAULLEAU (G.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA14 i1="01"><s1>Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, CNRS</s1>
<s2>79360, Villiers en Bois</s2>
<s3>FRA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="02"><s1>Biological Sciences A08, University of Sydney</s1>
<s2>NSW 2006</s2>
<s3>AUS</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="03"><s1>Université de Poitiers, 40 avenue du recteur Pineau</s1>
<s2>86022 Poitiers</s2>
<s3>FRA</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA20><s1>39-49</s1>
</fA20>
<fA21><s1>2003</s1>
</fA21>
<fA23 i1="01"><s0>ENG</s0>
</fA23>
<fA43 i1="01"><s1>INIST</s1>
<s2>21184</s2>
<s5>354000107917710050</s5>
</fA43>
<fA44><s0>0000</s0>
<s1>© 2003 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved.</s1>
</fA44>
<fA45><s0>1 p.1/4</s0>
</fA45>
<fA47 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>03-0179424</s0>
</fA47>
<fA60><s1>P</s1>
</fA60>
<fA61><s0>A</s0>
</fA61>
<fA64 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>Functional ecology : (Print)</s0>
</fA64>
<fA66 i1="01"><s0>GBR</s0>
</fA66>
<fC01 i1="01" l="ENG"><s0>1. In both interspecific and intraspecific comparisons, maternal body size is the strongest predictor of fecundity for many kinds of animals. However, it has not been widely appreciated that the usual empirical descriptors of this relationship (correlation coefficient, slope and P-value of the linear regression between maternal body size and offspring number) are sensitive to a factor that is very labile and subject to methodological bias: the degree of maternal investment, specifically the ratio of litter mass to maternal body mass (relative clutch mass, RCM). 2. Samples of females used to assess reproductive allometry may often be biased with respect to RCM. For example, RCMs may vary through time within a single population as a consequence of prey availability, or may vary geographically among populations. Also, females with low RCMs may be more difficult to capture, or may be discarded by researchers who do not realize that they are reproductive. 3. Our analyses on 173 litters of aspic vipers (Vipera aspis Linne) from central western France show that estimates of reproductive allometry are very sensitive to RCM: samples composed of high-RCM females show a positive and highly significant reproductive allometry, whereas samples composed of low RCM females do not. Conclusions also depend on the method of regression analysis used. This result has strong implications for methodology (i.e. selection of samples, choice of analytical methods and timescales of study) in this field of research.</s0>
</fC01>
<fC02 i1="01" i2="X"><s0>002A14B02C2B</s0>
</fC02>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Allométrie</s0>
<s5>01</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Allometry</s0>
<s5>01</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Alometría</s0>
<s5>01</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Echantillonnage</s0>
<s5>02</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Sampling</s0>
<s5>02</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Muestreo</s0>
<s5>02</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Erreur systématique</s0>
<s5>03</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Bias</s0>
<s5>03</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Error sistemático</s0>
<s5>03</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Effort reproduction</s0>
<s5>04</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Reproductive effort</s0>
<s5>04</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Esfuerzo reproductivo</s0>
<s5>04</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Taille corporelle</s0>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Body size</s0>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Talla corporal</s0>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Effet maternel</s0>
<s5>06</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Maternal effect</s0>
<s5>06</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Efecto maternal</s0>
<s5>06</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Investissement parental</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Parental investment</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Inversión parental</s0>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Budget énergétique</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Energy budget</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Presupuesto energético</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Fécondité</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Fecundity</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Fecundidad</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="10" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Ophidia</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
<s5>56</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="10" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Ophidia</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
<s5>56</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="10" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Ophidia</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
<s5>56</s5>
</fC03>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Reproduction</s0>
<s5>20</s5>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Reproduction</s0>
<s5>20</s5>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Reproducción</s0>
<s5>20</s5>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="02" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Reptilia</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="02" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Reptilia</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="02" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Reptilia</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="03" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Vertebrata</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="03" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Vertebrata</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="03" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Vertebrata</s0>
<s2>NS</s2>
</fC07>
<fN21><s1>104</s1>
</fN21>
<fN82><s1>PSI</s1>
</fN82>
</pA>
</standard>
<server><NO>PASCAL 03-0179424 INIST</NO>
<ET>Measures of reproductive allometry are sensitive to sampling bias</ET>
<AU>BONNET (X.); SHINE (R.); LOURDAIS (O.); NAULLEAU (G.)</AU>
<AF>Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, CNRS/79360, Villiers en Bois/France (1 aut., 3 aut., 4 aut.); Biological Sciences A08, University of Sydney/NSW 2006/Australie (1 aut., 2 aut.); Université de Poitiers, 40 avenue du recteur Pineau/86022 Poitiers/France (3 aut.)</AF>
<DT>Publication en série; Niveau analytique</DT>
<SO>Functional ecology : (Print); ISSN 0269-8463; Royaume-Uni; Da. 2003; Vol. 17; No. 1; Pp. 39-49; Bibl. 1 p.1/4</SO>
<LA>Anglais</LA>
<EA>1. In both interspecific and intraspecific comparisons, maternal body size is the strongest predictor of fecundity for many kinds of animals. However, it has not been widely appreciated that the usual empirical descriptors of this relationship (correlation coefficient, slope and P-value of the linear regression between maternal body size and offspring number) are sensitive to a factor that is very labile and subject to methodological bias: the degree of maternal investment, specifically the ratio of litter mass to maternal body mass (relative clutch mass, RCM). 2. Samples of females used to assess reproductive allometry may often be biased with respect to RCM. For example, RCMs may vary through time within a single population as a consequence of prey availability, or may vary geographically among populations. Also, females with low RCMs may be more difficult to capture, or may be discarded by researchers who do not realize that they are reproductive. 3. Our analyses on 173 litters of aspic vipers (Vipera aspis Linne) from central western France show that estimates of reproductive allometry are very sensitive to RCM: samples composed of high-RCM females show a positive and highly significant reproductive allometry, whereas samples composed of low RCM females do not. Conclusions also depend on the method of regression analysis used. This result has strong implications for methodology (i.e. selection of samples, choice of analytical methods and timescales of study) in this field of research.</EA>
<CC>002A14B02C2B</CC>
<FD>Allométrie; Echantillonnage; Erreur systématique; Effort reproduction; Taille corporelle; Effet maternel; Investissement parental; Budget énergétique; Fécondité; Ophidia</FD>
<FG>Reproduction; Reptilia; Vertebrata</FG>
<ED>Allometry; Sampling; Bias; Reproductive effort; Body size; Maternal effect; Parental investment; Energy budget; Fecundity; Ophidia</ED>
<EG>Reproduction; Reptilia; Vertebrata</EG>
<SD>Alometría; Muestreo; Error sistemático; Esfuerzo reproductivo; Talla corporal; Efecto maternal; Inversión parental; Presupuesto energético; Fecundidad; Ophidia</SD>
<LO>INIST-21184.354000107917710050</LO>
<ID>03-0179424</ID>
</server>
</inist>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Asie/explor/AustralieFrV1/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 005409 | SxmlIndent | more

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 005409 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Wicri/Asie
   |area=    AustralieFrV1
   |flux=    PascalFrancis
   |étape=   Corpus
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     Pascal:03-0179424
   |texte=   Measures of reproductive allometry are sensitive to sampling bias
}}

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33.
Data generation: Tue Dec 5 10:43:12 2017. Site generation: Tue Mar 5 14:07:20 2024

	Serveur d'exploration sur les relations entre la France et l'Australie
	Attention, ce site est en cours de développement ! Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts. Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

Serveur d'exploration sur les relations entre la France et l'Australie

Measures of reproductive allometry are sensitive to sampling bias

Measures of reproductive allometry are sensitive to sampling bias

Source :

Descripteurs français

English descriptors

Abstract

Notice en format standard (ISO 2709)

Format Inist (serveur)

Links to Exploration step

Le document en format XML

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri