ArticlePloS one2025
The relationship between body condition, body composition, and growth in amphibians.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Body condition of animals is often assumed to reflect advantages in survival or reproduction, but body condition indices may not reflect body composition, or condition may be unrelated to fitness-associated traits. The relationship between body condition indices and composition has rarely been quantified in amphibians, and body condition has not previously been related to growth in adult amphibians. We used laboratory (quantitative magnetic resonance) and field methods to evaluate the relationship between body composition and the four common body condition indices for wildlife studies (body mass index, Fulton's index, scaled mass index, and residual index) in two frog and one salamander species in Montana, USA. We then assessed the relationship between body condition and summertime somatic growth during a 3-yr mark-recapture study of one of our study species (Columbia spotted frogs, Rana luteiventris). Correlation of body condition indices with fat and lean mass differed across species, sexes, and whether components were represented as percentages or were scaled based on size. Scaled mass index, residual index, and Fulton's index were most often well correlated (r > 0.6) with scaled body components, but Fulton's index was strongly correlated with body length. Scaled mass and residual indices predicted scaled fat relatively well and were uncorrelated with body length. Heavier condition predicted higher growth rates of Columbia spotted frogs, regardless of the index used. Frogs of heavy body condition (90th percentile residual index) grew 0.04 and 0.05 mm/day greater than frogs of light condition (10th percentile) for average length males and females, respectively. Frogs of short body length (10th percentile) grew 0.11 and 0.19 mm/day more than long (90th percentile) males and females, respectively. By examining the relationship between body condition indices and body composition and revealing a link between condition and future growth, our results provide an empirical basis for choosing the most appropriate condition index, as well as a potential link to fitness-related traits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.