Controlling for body size leads to inferential biases in the biological sciences
Abstract Many traits correlate with body size. Studies that seek to uncover the ecological factors that drive evolutionary responses in traits typically examine these responses relative to associated changes in body size using multiple regression analysis. However, it is not well appreciated that in...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press
2020-02-01
|
| Series: | Evolution Letters |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/evl3.151 |
| _version_ | 1797725767030800384 |
|---|---|
| author | Björn Rogell Damian K. Dowling Arild Husby |
| author_facet | Björn Rogell Damian K. Dowling Arild Husby |
| author_sort | Björn Rogell |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Many traits correlate with body size. Studies that seek to uncover the ecological factors that drive evolutionary responses in traits typically examine these responses relative to associated changes in body size using multiple regression analysis. However, it is not well appreciated that in the presence of strongly correlated variables, the partial (i.e., relative) regression coefficients often change sign compared to the original coefficients. Such sign reversals are difficult to interpret in a biologically meaningful way, and could lead to erroneous evolutionary inferences if the true mechanism underlying the sign reversal differed from the proposed mechanism. Here, we use simulations to demonstrate that sign reversal occurs over a wide range of parameter values common in the biological sciences. Further, as a case‐in‐point, we review the literature on brain size evolution; a field that explores how ecological traits relate to the evolution of relative brain size (brain size relative to body size). We find that most studies show sign reversals and thus that the inferences of many studies in this field may be inconclusive. Finally, we propose some approaches to mitigating this issue. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T10:36:00Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d17137fef61e4a628c3b7c6187cd1855 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2056-3744 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T10:36:00Z |
| publishDate | 2020-02-01 |
| publisher | Oxford University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Evolution Letters |
| spelling | doaj.art-d17137fef61e4a628c3b7c6187cd18552023-09-02T08:48:47ZengOxford University PressEvolution Letters2056-37442020-02-0141738210.1002/evl3.151Controlling for body size leads to inferential biases in the biological sciencesBjörn Rogell0Damian K. Dowling1Arild Husby2Department of Zoology Stockholm University Svante Arrhenius väg 18 Stockholm SwedenSchool of Biological Sciences Monash University Clayton Victoria 3800 AustraliaCentre for Biodiversity Dynamics Norwegian University of Science and Technology 7491 Trondheim NorwayAbstract Many traits correlate with body size. Studies that seek to uncover the ecological factors that drive evolutionary responses in traits typically examine these responses relative to associated changes in body size using multiple regression analysis. However, it is not well appreciated that in the presence of strongly correlated variables, the partial (i.e., relative) regression coefficients often change sign compared to the original coefficients. Such sign reversals are difficult to interpret in a biologically meaningful way, and could lead to erroneous evolutionary inferences if the true mechanism underlying the sign reversal differed from the proposed mechanism. Here, we use simulations to demonstrate that sign reversal occurs over a wide range of parameter values common in the biological sciences. Further, as a case‐in‐point, we review the literature on brain size evolution; a field that explores how ecological traits relate to the evolution of relative brain size (brain size relative to body size). We find that most studies show sign reversals and thus that the inferences of many studies in this field may be inconclusive. Finally, we propose some approaches to mitigating this issue.https://doi.org/10.1002/evl3.151Allometrybrain sizecollinearitycomparative methodssexual dimorphism |
| spellingShingle | Björn Rogell Damian K. Dowling Arild Husby Controlling for body size leads to inferential biases in the biological sciences Evolution Letters Allometry brain size collinearity comparative methods sexual dimorphism |
| title | Controlling for body size leads to inferential biases in the biological sciences |
| title_full | Controlling for body size leads to inferential biases in the biological sciences |
| title_fullStr | Controlling for body size leads to inferential biases in the biological sciences |
| title_full_unstemmed | Controlling for body size leads to inferential biases in the biological sciences |
| title_short | Controlling for body size leads to inferential biases in the biological sciences |
| title_sort | controlling for body size leads to inferential biases in the biological sciences |
| topic | Allometry brain size collinearity comparative methods sexual dimorphism |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/evl3.151 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT bjornrogell controllingforbodysizeleadstoinferentialbiasesinthebiologicalsciences AT damiankdowling controllingforbodysizeleadstoinferentialbiasesinthebiologicalsciences AT arildhusby controllingforbodysizeleadstoinferentialbiasesinthebiologicalsciences |