Back

Choice of 3D morphometric method leads to diverging interpretations of form--function relationships in the carnivoran calcaneus

Wimberly, A. N.; Natale, R.; Higgins, R.; Slater, G.

2022-05-17 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2022.05.16.492149 bioRxiv
Show abstract

AO_SCPLOWBSTRACTC_SCPLOWThree dimensional morphometric methods are a powerful tool for comparative analysis of shape. However, morphological shape is often represented using landmarks selected by the user to describe features of perceived importance, and this may lead to over confident prediction of form-function relationships in subsequent analyses. We used Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) of 13 homologous 3D landmarks and spherical harmonics (SPHARM) analysis, a homology-free method that describes the entire shape of a closed surface, to quantify the shape of the calcaneus, a landmark poor structure that is important in hind-limb mechanics, for 111 carnivoran species spanning 12 of 13 terrestrial families. Both approaches document qualitatively similar patterns of shape variation, including a dominant continuum from short/stout to long/narrow calcanea. However, while phylogenetic generalized linear models indicate that locomotor mode best explains shape from the GPA, the same analyses find that shape described by SPHARM is best predicted by foot posture and body mass without a role for locomotor mode, though effect sizes for all are small. User choices regarding morphometric methods can dramatically impact macroevolutionary interpretations of shape change in a single structure, an outcome that is likely exacerbated when readily landmarkable features are few.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Evolutionary Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.2%
2
Evolution
225 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
8.5%
3
Journal of Anatomy
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
4
Integrative Organismal Biology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
5
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 18%
6.4%
6
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.4%
7
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.6%
8
American Journal of Biological Anthropology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.6%
50% of probability mass above
9
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.6%
10
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
393 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.8%
11
Ecology and Evolution
267 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.8%
12
The American Naturalist
125 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.1%
13
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
14
Evolution & Development
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
15
Journal of Experimental Biology
259 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.0%
16
BMC Ecology and Evolution
51 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.6%
17
Peer Community Journal
281 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
18
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
110 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.6%
19
Biology Open
156 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
20
The Anatomical Record
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
21
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
176 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
22
Global Ecology and Biogeography
47 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
23
Systematic Biology
144 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
24
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
69 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
25
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 77%
0.8%
26
American Journal of Primatology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
27
Evolutionary Ecology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%