Blood mineral concentrations in manatees (Trichechus manatus latirostris and Trichechus manatus manatus).

Limited information is available regarding the role of minerals and heavy metals in the morbidity and mortality of manatees. Whole-blood and serum mineral concentrations were evaluated in apparently healthy, free-ranging Florida (Trichechus manatus latirostris, n = 31) and Belize (Trichechus manatus manatus, n = 14) manatees. Toxicologic statuses of the animals and of their environment had not been previously determined. Mean mineral whole-blood (WB) and serum values in Florida (FL) and Belize (BZ) manatees were determined, and evaluated for differences with respect to geographic location, relative age, and sex. Mean WB and serum silver, boron, cobalt, magnesium, molybdenum, and WB cadmium concentrations were significantly higher in BZ versus FL manatees (P < 0.05). Mean WB aluminum, calcium, manganese, sodium, phosphorus, vanadium, and serum zinc concentrations were significantly lower in BZ versus FL manatees. Adult manatees had significant and higher mean WB aluminum, manganese, sodium, antimony, vanadium, and serum manganese and zinc concentrations compared to juvenile animals. Significant and lower mean WB and serum silver, boron, cobalt, and serum copper and strontium concentrations were present in adults compared to juveniles (P < or = 0.05). Females had significant and higher mean WB nickel and serum barium compared to males (P < or = 0.05). Mean WB arsenic and zinc, and mean serum iron, magnesium, and zinc concentrations fell within toxic ranges reported for domestic species. Results reveal manatee blood mineral concentrations differ with location, age, and sex. Influence from diet, sediment, water, and anthropogenic sources on manatee mineral concentration warrant further investigation.

Determining sexual dimorphism in frog measurement data: integration of statistical significance, measurement error, effect size and biological significance.

Several analytic techniques have been used to determine sexual dimorphism in vertebrate morphological measurement data with no emergent consensus on which technique is superior. A further confounding problem for frog data is the existence of considerable measurement error. To determine dimorphism, we examine a single hypothesis (Ho = equal means) for two groups (females and males). We demonstrate that frog measurement data meet assumptions for clearly defined statistical hypothesis testing with statistical linear models rather than those of exploratory multivariate techniques such as principal components, correlation or correspondence analysis. In order to distinguish biological from statistical significance of hypotheses, we propose a new protocol that incorporates measurement error and effect size. Measurement error is evaluated with a novel measurement error index. Effect size, widely used in the behavioral sciences and in meta-analysis studies in biology, proves to be the most useful single metric to evaluate whether statistically significant results are biologically meaningful. Definitions for a range of small, medium, and large effect sizes specifically for frog measurement data are provided. Examples with measurement data for species of the frog genus Leptodactylus are presented. The new protocol is recommended not only to evaluate sexual dimorphism for frog data but for any animal measurement data for which the measurement error index and observed or a priori effect sizes can be calculated.

Determining sexual dimorphism in frog measurement data: integration of statistical significance, measurement error, effect size and biological significance

Técnicas analíticas variadas têm sido usadas para avaliar o dimorfismo sexual em medidas de vertebrados, mas não há consenso sobre o melhor procedimento. Um problema adicional, no caso dos anfíbios, é a presença de ponderável erro de medida. Para analisar dimorfismo sexual examinamos uma única hipótese (Ho = médias iguais) para dois grupos (fêmeas e machos). Demonstramos que dados de anfíbios preenchem as premissas para hipóteses estatísticas claramente definidas, usando modelos lineares em vez de técnicas exploratórias multivaraiadas, tais como components principais, correlação ou análise de correspondências. Para distinguir significância biológica de significância estatística nas hipóteses, propomos um protocolo incorporando erro de medida e "effect size". O erro de medida é avaliado por meio de um novo índice específico. Demonstramos que "effect size", amplamente usado nas ciências do comportamento e em meta-análises biológicas, é a medida mais útil na discriminação entre significância biológica e significância estatística. São dadas definições de uma ampla gama de "effect sizes" para dados anfibiológicos. São apresentados exemplos com medidas do gênero Leptodactylus. O novo protocolo é recomenadado não apenas no caso de anfíbios, mas em todos os casos de vertebrados em que possam ser calculados erros de medida e "effect sizes" observados ou determinados a priori.