High-Density Morphometric Analysis of Shape and Integration: The Good, the Bad, and the Not-Really-a-Problem

Goswami, A., Watanabe, A., Felice, R. N., Bardua, C., Fabre, A.-C., & Polly, P. D.

High-Density Morphometric Analysis of Shape and Integration: The Good, the Bad, and the Not-Really-a-Problem

2019

Oxford University Press

Amphibians anatomy & histology
Anatomic Landmarks anatomy & histology
Animals
Biological Evolution
Birds anatomy & histology
Index Medicus
Models, Anatomic
Phenotype
Reptiles anatomy & histology
Skull anatomy & histology

English

The field of comparative morphology has entered a new phase with the rapid generation of high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) data. With freely available 3D data of thousands of species, methods for quantifying morphology that harness this rich phenotypic information are quickly emerging. Among these techniques, high-density geometric morphometric approaches provide a powerful and versatile framework to robustly characterize shape and phenotypic integration, the covariances among morphological traits. These methods are particularly useful for analyses of complex structures and across disparate taxa, which may share few landmarks of unambiguous homology. However, high-density geometric morphometrics also brings challenges, for example, with statistical, but not biological, covariances imposed by placement and sliding of semilandmarks and registration methods such as Procrustes superimposition. Here, we present simulations and case studies of high-density datasets for squamates, birds, and caecilians that exemplify the promise and challenges of high-dimensional analyses of phenotypic integration and modularity. We assess: (1) the relative merits of “big” high-density geometric morphometrics data over traditional shape data; (2) the impact of Procrustes superimposition on analyses of integration and modularity; and (3) differences in patterns of integration between analyses using high-density geometric morphometrics and those using discrete landmarks. We demonstrate that for many skull regions, 20–30 landmarks and/or semilandmarks are needed to accurately characterize their shape variation, and landmark-only analyses do a particularly poor job of capturing shape variation in vault and rostrum bones. Procrustes superimposition can mask modularity, especially when landmarks covary in parallel directions, but this effect decreases with more biologically complex covariance patterns. The directional effect of landmark variation on the position of the centroid affects recovery of covariance patterns more than landmark number does. Landmark-only and landmark-plus-sliding-semilandmark analyses of integration are generally congruent in overall pattern of integration, but landmark-only analyses tend to show higher integration between adjacent bones, especially when landmarks placed on the sutures between bones introduces a boundary bias. Allometry may be a stronger influence on patterns of integration in landmark-only analyses, which show stronger integration prior to removal of allometric effects compared to analyses including semilandmarks. High-density geometric morphometrics has its challenges and drawbacks, but our analyses of simulated and empirical datasets demonstrate that these potential issues are unlikely to obscure genuine biological signal. Rather, high-density geometric morphometric data exceed traditional landmark-based methods in characterization of morphology and allow more nuanced comparisons across disparate taxa. Combined with the rapid increases in 3D data availability, high-density morphometric approaches have immense potential to propel a new class of studies of comparative morphology and phenotypic integration.

Integrative and Comparative Biology, Volume 11, Issue 7, 2019, pages 669–683

PDF