Abstract
Researchers using geometric morphometric methods can be confronted with a need to combine separate landmark configurations from the same research subjects as a more holistic description of organismal morphology. Combining configurations might be valid if single configurations represent separate anatomical structures that can change position with respect to each other or have been shown to be phenotypically integrated, and researchers would prefer to recognize these structures as one set, rather than multiple sets. However, generalized Procrustes analysis (GPA) scales separate configurations to unit size, meaning that in combination, some attempt to relativize the size of configurations should be made. A few recent studies have calculated the relative size of separate configurations in different ways but there has been no formal consideration for the implications of a priori judgments for how configuration sizes should be weighted, before the synthesis presented here. We offer a general solution for weighting separate configuration centroid sizes when combining them, which captures the intention of different methods thus far proposed. We also demonstrate that under various conditions, weighting via normalized centroid size is fraught with problems, and should be avoided. By contrast, an unweighted approach that seeks to maintain landmark densities in separate configurations provides reliable results. Nevertheless, researchers should realize that combining configurations creates new configurations with landmark covariances that are arbitrary with respect to any real anatomical features. As such, combining landmark configurations should not be a haphazard enterprise under any circumstances.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, D. C. (1999). Methods for shape analysis of landmark data from articulated structures. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 1, 959–970.
Adams, D. C., Collyer, M. L., & Kaliontzopoulou, A. (2020). Geomorph: Software for geometric morphometric analyses. R package version 3.2.1. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=geomorph.
Adams, D. C., & Otárola-Castillo, E. (2013). geomorph: An R package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 393–399.
Adams, D. C., Rohlf, F. J., & Slice, D. E. (2013). A field comes of age: Geometric morphometrics in the 21st century. Hystrix, 24, 7–14.
Bardua, C., Felice, R. N., Watanabe, A., Fabre, A. C., & Goswami, A. (2019). A practical guide to sliding and surface semilandmarks in morphometric analyses. Integrative Organismal Biology, 1(1), 1–34.
Bookstein, F. L. (1991). Morphometric tools for landmark data: Geometry and biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bookstein, F. L. (1997). Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: Morphometrics of group differences in outline shape. Medical Image Analysis, 1, 225–243.
Collyer, M. L., & Adams, D. C. (2018). RRPP: An R package for fitting linear models to high-dimensional data using residual randomization. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 1772–1779.
Collyer, M. L., & Adams, D. C. (2020). RRPP: Linear model evaluation with randomized residuals in a permutation procedure, version 0.5.2. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://cran.r-project.org/package=RRPP.
Davis, M. A., Douglas, M. R., Collyer, M. L., & Douglas, M. E. (2016). Deconstructing a species-complex: Geometric morphometric and molecular analyses define species in the Western Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis). PLoS ONE, 11(1), e0211753.
Dryden, I. L., & Mardia, K. V. (2016). Statistical shape analysis: With applications in r (Vol. 995). Hoboken: Wiley.
Goswami, A., Watanabe, A., Felice, R. N., Bardua, C., Fabre, A. C., & Polly, P. D. (2019). High-density morphometric analysis of shape and integration: The good, the bad, and the not-really-a-problem. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 59(3), 669–683.
Hsu, P. L., & Robbins, H. (1947). Complete convergence and the law of large numbers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 33(2), 25–31.
Klingenberg, C. P. (2010). Evolution and development of shape: Integrating quantitative approaches. Berlin: Nature Publishing Group.
Levis, N. A., Schooler, M. L., Johnson, J. R., & Collyer, M. L. (2016). Non-adaptive phenotypic plasticity: The effects of terrestrial and aquatic herbicides on larval salamander morphology and swim speed. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 118(3), 569–581.
Olson, E. C., & Miller, R. L. (1958). Morphological integration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Profico, A., Piras, P., Buzi, C., Del Bove, A., Melchionna, M., Senczuk, G., et al. (2019). Seeing the wood through the trees. Combining shape information from different landmark configurations. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy, 30, 157–165.
Rohlf, F. J., & Slice, D. E. (1990). Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Zoology, 39, 40–59.
Thompson, D. W. (1917). On growth and form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vidal-Garcı’a, M., Bandara, L., & Keogh, J. S. (2018). ShapeRotator: An r tool for standardized rigid rotations of articulated three-dimensional structures with application for geometric morphometrics. Ecology and Evolution, 8(9), 4669.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank A. Profico, P. Piras, C. Buzi, A. Del Bove, M. Melchionna, G. Senczuk, V. Varano, A. Veneziano, P. Raia, and G. Manzi, for inspiring the update to the geomorph R function, combine.subsets, to offer centroid size normalization or user-defined weights as alternatives to calculating relative centroid sizes. We received insightful reviews of a previous version by A. Kaliontzopoulou, E. Baken, B. Juarez, E. Glynne, and two anonymous reviewers, and we thank them for their efforts to improve this manuscript. This work was sponsored in part by National Science Foundation Grants DEB-1737895 and DBI-1902694 (to MLC) and DEB-1556379 and DBI-1902511 (to DCA). All analyses in this paper were performed in R, using geomorph (Adams et al. 2020; Adams and Otárola-Castillo 2013) and RRPP (Collyer and Adams 2018, 2020) libraries. The combine.subsets function in geomorph has all landmark combining options used in this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no known conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Collyer, M.L., Davis, M.A. & Adams, D.C. Making Heads or Tails of Combined Landmark Configurations in Geometric Morphometric Data. Evol Biol 47, 193–205 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-020-09503-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-020-09503-z