Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30619578›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2018

Applying generalized allometric regressions to predict live body mass of tropical and temperate arthropods.

Esra H Sohlström, Lucas Marian, Andrew D Barnes, Noor F Haneda, Stefan Scheu, Björn C Rall, Ulrich Brose, Malte Jochum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Arthropod species loss underpins biomass declines.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Esra H SohlströmGerman Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig Leipzig Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5717-1757
Lucas MarianJ. F. Blumenbach Institute for Zoology & Anthropology University of Goettingen Goettingen Germany.
Andrew D BarnesGerman Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig Leipzig Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6499-381X
Noor F HanedaFaculty of Forestry, Department of Silviculture Bogor Agricultural University Bogor Indonesia.
Stefan ScheuJ. F. Blumenbach Institute for Zoology & Anthropology University of Goettingen Goettingen Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4350-9520
Björn C RallGerman Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig Leipzig Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3191-8389
Ulrich BroseGerman Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig Leipzig Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9156-583X
Malte JochumGerman Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig Leipzig Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8728-1145

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ecological implications of body size extend from the biology of individual organisms to ecosystem-level processes. Measuring body mass for high numbers of invertebrates can be logistically challenging, making length-mass regressions useful for predicting body mass with minimal effort. However, standardized sets of scaling relationships covering a large range in body length, taxonomic groups, and multiple geographical regions are scarce. We collected 6,212 arthropods from 19 higher-level taxa in both temperate and tropical locations to compile a comprehensive set of linear models relating live body mass to a range of predictor variables. We measured live weight (hereafter, body mass), body length and width of each individual and conducted linear regressions to predict body mass using body length, body width, taxonomic group, and geographic region. Additionally, we quantified prediction discrepancy when using parameters from arthropods of a different geographic region. Incorporating body width into taxon- and region-specific length-mass regressions yielded the highest prediction accuracy for body mass. Using regression parameters from a different geographic region increased prediction discrepancy, causing over- or underestimation of body mass depending on geographical origin and whether body width was included. We present a comprehensive range of parameters for predicting arthropod body mass and provide guidance for selecting optimal scaling relationships. Given the importance of body mass for functional invertebrate ecology and the paucity of adequate regressions to predict arthropod body mass from different geographical regions, our study provides a long-needed resource for quantifying live body mass in invertebrate ecology research.

Indexed as

allometric scalingbody sizeinsectsinvertebrateslength–mass regression

Identifiers

PMID30619578
PMCPMC6308897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.