Estimating Fitness: A Comparison of Body Condition Indices

TLDR

Behavioral ecologists need reliable body‑condition estimates to gauge foraging success and fitness. The study compares the reliability and effectiveness of three commonly used body‑condition indices. The authors evaluated the ratio, slope‑adjusted ratio, and residual indices in field and laboratory tests on two divergent spider species, Pardosa milvina and Metepeira incrassata. The ratio and slope‑adjusted indices were confounded by body size, whereas the residual index, after transformation, proved most reliable and is recommended for behavioral studies.

Abstract

Behavioral ecologists might often benefit by the ability to directly measure an animal's body condition as an estimate of foraging success, and ultimately fitness. Here we compare the reliability and effectiveness of three indices of body condition that have been heavily used in the morphometrics literature. We examined the ratio index (body mass/body size), the slope-adjusted ratio index (based on regression slopes generated from a reference population), and the residual index (the residuals of a regression of body mass on body size). We present the results of tests performed in the field and laboratory on two ecologically and evolutionarily divergent spider species : the vagrant wolf spider Pardosa milvina (Araneae, Lycosidae), and the colonial orb-weaver Metepeira incrassata (Araneae, Araneidae). The ratio index correlated with body size, which weakened the strength of conclusions that could be drawn. The slope-adjusted ratio index requires an independent and large data set with which to generate the expected values, and was likewise sensitive to body size. The residual index, with appropriate transformations to achieve homoscedasticity, was the most reliable index because it did not vary with body size, and we recommend its general use in behavioral studies that require a condition estimate.