Inter-observer and intra-observer differences in measuring body length: a test in the common lizard, Zootoca vivipara

The snout-vent length (SVL), a conventional measure of overall body size in lizards and snakes, is used in a wide variety of ecological, evolutionary, and taxonomical studies. Trends in SVL variation are often analysed using data from several researchers (observers), but possible confounding effects due to inter-observer differences in measurement protocols have never been appropriately examined. This study reports inter-observer biases between eleven herpetologists who measured the same specimens of the Eurasian common lizards (21 adult specimens were examined by eight observers and additional 192 specimens by two observers). Intra-observer bias over time (1.5-15 months between measuring sessions) was also estimated. In the vast majority of comparisons, mean difference between the first author and another observer varied from −1.0 to +0.8 mm, or from −1.9 to +1.6% if expressed as a percent of the specimen's SVL value. Some non-regular effects of sex and study sample on the studied bias were revealed, and their possible reasons are discussed. We are advising the researchers who intensively collect SVL and other morphometric data to consider testing intra-observer and inter-observer biases and to establish etalon samples available for re-examinations.

[1]  Christina L. Catlin-Groves,et al.  Within- and Among-Observer Variation in Measurements of Animal Biometrics and their Influence on Accurate Quantification of Common Biometric-Based Condition Indices , 2010 .

[2]  Shai Meiri Length-weight allometries in lizards , 2010 .

[3]  Shai Meiri Evolution and ecology of lizard body sizes , 2008 .

[4]  H. John-Alder,et al.  The evolution of sexual size dimorphism in reptiles , 2007 .

[5]  E. Roitberg,et al.  Variation in sexual size dimorphism within a widespread lizard species , 2007 .

[6]  A. N. Mironovskii Factors determining the comparability of data obtained by estimation of morphometric characters in fish , 2006, Journal of Ichthyology.

[7]  A. Dunham,et al.  Bergmann’s Clines in Ectotherms: Illustrating a Life‐History Perspective with Sceloporine Lizards , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[8]  H. John-Alder,et al.  A COMPARATIVE TEST OF ADAPTIVE HYPOTHESES FOR SEXUAL SIZE DIMORPHISM IN LIZARDS , 2003, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[9]  D. Frynta,et al.  Misinterpretation of character scaling: a tale of sexual dimorphism in body shape of common lizards , 2003 .

[10]  C. Feldman,et al.  BERGMANN'S RULE IN NONAVIAN REPTILES: TURTLES FOLLOW IT, LIZARDS AND SNAKES REVERSE IT , 2003, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[11]  W. Blanckenhorn The Evolution of Body Size: What Keeps Organisms Small? , 2000, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[12]  E. Mouden,et al.  Estimating asymptotic body size and testing geographic variation in Agama impalearis , 1999 .

[13]  J. Palmeirim ANALYSIS OF SKULL MEASUREMENTS AND MEASURERS: CAN WE USE DATA OBTAINED BY VARIOUS OBSERVERS? , 1998 .

[14]  F. Braña Sexual dimorphism in lacertid lizards : male head increase vs female abdomen increase ? , 1996 .

[15]  R. Shine Sexual size dimorphism in snakes revisited , 1994 .

[16]  P. Niewiarowski Chapter 2. Understanding Geographic Life-History Variation in Lizards , 1994 .

[17]  S. Lougheed,et al.  Measurement Error and Morphometric Studies: Statistical Power and Observer Experience , 1992 .

[18]  Julian C. Lee Sources of Extraneous Variation in the Study of Meristic Characters: The Effect of Size and of Inter-Observer Variability , 1990 .

[19]  W. Rice ANALYZING TABLES OF STATISTICAL TESTS , 1989, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[20]  Julian C. Lee Accuracy and Precision in Anuran Morphometrics: Artifacts of Preservation , 1982 .

[21]  S. Dongen,et al.  The effect of preservation on lizard morphometrics – an experimental study , 2009 .

[22]  N. Bulakhova,et al.  Some Aspects of Reproductive Biology of Zootoca vivipara (Jacquin, 1787) in the Asian Part of Its Area , 2005 .

[23]  W. Heyer,et al.  Frog morphometrics : a cautionary tale , 2001 .

[24]  C. Tracy DIFFERENCES IN BODY SIZE AMONG CHUCKWALLA (SAUROMALUS OBESUS) POPULATIONS , 1999 .