Measuring the magnitude of morphological integration: The effect of differences in morphometric representations and the inclusion of size

Autores
de Andrade Machado, Fabio; Hubbe, Alex; Melo, Diogo; Porto, Arthur; Marroig, Gabriel
Año de publicación
2019
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
The magnitude of morphological integration is a major aspect of multivariate evolution, providing a simple measure of the intensity of association between morphological traits. Studies concerned with morphological integration usually translate phenotypes into morphometric representations to quantify how different morphological elements covary. Geometric and classic morphometric representations translate biological form in different ways, raising the question if magnitudes of morphological integration estimates obtained from different morphometric representations are compatible. Here we sought to answer this question using the relative eigenvalue variance of the covariance matrix obtained for both geometric and classical representations of empirical and simulated datasets. We quantified the magnitude of morphological integration for both shape and form and compared results between representations. Furthermore, we compared integration values between shape and form to evaluate the effect of the inclusion or not of size on the quantification of the magnitude of morphological integration. Results show that the choice of morphological representation has significant impact on the integration magnitude estimate, either for shape or form. Despite this, ordination of the integration values within representations is relatively the same, allowing for similar conclusions to be reached using different methods. However, the inclusion of size in the dataset significantly changes the estimates of magnitude of morphological integration, hindering the comparison of this statistic obtained from different spaces. Morphometricians should be aware of these differences and must consider how biological hypothesis translate into predictions about integration in each particular choice of representation.
Fil: de Andrade Machado, Fabio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia"; Argentina. University of Massachussets; Estados Unidos
Fil: Hubbe, Alex. Universidade Federal da Bahia; Brasil
Fil: Melo, Diogo. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil
Fil: Porto, Arthur. University of Oslo; Noruega
Fil: Marroig, Gabriel. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil
Materia
CANIDAE
COVARIANCE MATRIX
EIGENVALUE VARIANCE
P MATRIX
SKULL
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/123968

id CONICETDig_b22c2010957445b73d05bcae124e31d9
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/123968
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Measuring the magnitude of morphological integration: The effect of differences in morphometric representations and the inclusion of sizede Andrade Machado, FabioHubbe, AlexMelo, DiogoPorto, ArthurMarroig, GabrielCANIDAECOVARIANCE MATRIXEIGENVALUE VARIANCEP MATRIXSKULLhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1The magnitude of morphological integration is a major aspect of multivariate evolution, providing a simple measure of the intensity of association between morphological traits. Studies concerned with morphological integration usually translate phenotypes into morphometric representations to quantify how different morphological elements covary. Geometric and classic morphometric representations translate biological form in different ways, raising the question if magnitudes of morphological integration estimates obtained from different morphometric representations are compatible. Here we sought to answer this question using the relative eigenvalue variance of the covariance matrix obtained for both geometric and classical representations of empirical and simulated datasets. We quantified the magnitude of morphological integration for both shape and form and compared results between representations. Furthermore, we compared integration values between shape and form to evaluate the effect of the inclusion or not of size on the quantification of the magnitude of morphological integration. Results show that the choice of morphological representation has significant impact on the integration magnitude estimate, either for shape or form. Despite this, ordination of the integration values within representations is relatively the same, allowing for similar conclusions to be reached using different methods. However, the inclusion of size in the dataset significantly changes the estimates of magnitude of morphological integration, hindering the comparison of this statistic obtained from different spaces. Morphometricians should be aware of these differences and must consider how biological hypothesis translate into predictions about integration in each particular choice of representation.Fil: de Andrade Machado, Fabio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia"; Argentina. University of Massachussets; Estados UnidosFil: Hubbe, Alex. Universidade Federal da Bahia; BrasilFil: Melo, Diogo. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Porto, Arthur. University of Oslo; NoruegaFil: Marroig, Gabriel. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilWiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc2019-12info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/123968de Andrade Machado, Fabio; Hubbe, Alex; Melo, Diogo; Porto, Arthur; Marroig, Gabriel; Measuring the magnitude of morphological integration: The effect of differences in morphometric representations and the inclusion of size; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Evolution; 73; 12; 12-2019; 2518-25280014-3820CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1111/evo.13864info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/evo.13864info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6895406/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T10:34:16Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/123968instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 10:34:16.829CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Measuring the magnitude of morphological integration: The effect of differences in morphometric representations and the inclusion of size
title Measuring the magnitude of morphological integration: The effect of differences in morphometric representations and the inclusion of size
spellingShingle Measuring the magnitude of morphological integration: The effect of differences in morphometric representations and the inclusion of size
de Andrade Machado, Fabio
CANIDAE
COVARIANCE MATRIX
EIGENVALUE VARIANCE
P MATRIX
SKULL
title_short Measuring the magnitude of morphological integration: The effect of differences in morphometric representations and the inclusion of size
title_full Measuring the magnitude of morphological integration: The effect of differences in morphometric representations and the inclusion of size
title_fullStr Measuring the magnitude of morphological integration: The effect of differences in morphometric representations and the inclusion of size
title_full_unstemmed Measuring the magnitude of morphological integration: The effect of differences in morphometric representations and the inclusion of size
title_sort Measuring the magnitude of morphological integration: The effect of differences in morphometric representations and the inclusion of size
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv de Andrade Machado, Fabio
Hubbe, Alex
Melo, Diogo
Porto, Arthur
Marroig, Gabriel
author de Andrade Machado, Fabio
author_facet de Andrade Machado, Fabio
Hubbe, Alex
Melo, Diogo
Porto, Arthur
Marroig, Gabriel
author_role author
author2 Hubbe, Alex
Melo, Diogo
Porto, Arthur
Marroig, Gabriel
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv CANIDAE
COVARIANCE MATRIX
EIGENVALUE VARIANCE
P MATRIX
SKULL
topic CANIDAE
COVARIANCE MATRIX
EIGENVALUE VARIANCE
P MATRIX
SKULL
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv The magnitude of morphological integration is a major aspect of multivariate evolution, providing a simple measure of the intensity of association between morphological traits. Studies concerned with morphological integration usually translate phenotypes into morphometric representations to quantify how different morphological elements covary. Geometric and classic morphometric representations translate biological form in different ways, raising the question if magnitudes of morphological integration estimates obtained from different morphometric representations are compatible. Here we sought to answer this question using the relative eigenvalue variance of the covariance matrix obtained for both geometric and classical representations of empirical and simulated datasets. We quantified the magnitude of morphological integration for both shape and form and compared results between representations. Furthermore, we compared integration values between shape and form to evaluate the effect of the inclusion or not of size on the quantification of the magnitude of morphological integration. Results show that the choice of morphological representation has significant impact on the integration magnitude estimate, either for shape or form. Despite this, ordination of the integration values within representations is relatively the same, allowing for similar conclusions to be reached using different methods. However, the inclusion of size in the dataset significantly changes the estimates of magnitude of morphological integration, hindering the comparison of this statistic obtained from different spaces. Morphometricians should be aware of these differences and must consider how biological hypothesis translate into predictions about integration in each particular choice of representation.
Fil: de Andrade Machado, Fabio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia"; Argentina. University of Massachussets; Estados Unidos
Fil: Hubbe, Alex. Universidade Federal da Bahia; Brasil
Fil: Melo, Diogo. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil
Fil: Porto, Arthur. University of Oslo; Noruega
Fil: Marroig, Gabriel. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil
description The magnitude of morphological integration is a major aspect of multivariate evolution, providing a simple measure of the intensity of association between morphological traits. Studies concerned with morphological integration usually translate phenotypes into morphometric representations to quantify how different morphological elements covary. Geometric and classic morphometric representations translate biological form in different ways, raising the question if magnitudes of morphological integration estimates obtained from different morphometric representations are compatible. Here we sought to answer this question using the relative eigenvalue variance of the covariance matrix obtained for both geometric and classical representations of empirical and simulated datasets. We quantified the magnitude of morphological integration for both shape and form and compared results between representations. Furthermore, we compared integration values between shape and form to evaluate the effect of the inclusion or not of size on the quantification of the magnitude of morphological integration. Results show that the choice of morphological representation has significant impact on the integration magnitude estimate, either for shape or form. Despite this, ordination of the integration values within representations is relatively the same, allowing for similar conclusions to be reached using different methods. However, the inclusion of size in the dataset significantly changes the estimates of magnitude of morphological integration, hindering the comparison of this statistic obtained from different spaces. Morphometricians should be aware of these differences and must consider how biological hypothesis translate into predictions about integration in each particular choice of representation.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-12
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/123968
de Andrade Machado, Fabio; Hubbe, Alex; Melo, Diogo; Porto, Arthur; Marroig, Gabriel; Measuring the magnitude of morphological integration: The effect of differences in morphometric representations and the inclusion of size; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Evolution; 73; 12; 12-2019; 2518-2528
0014-3820
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/123968
identifier_str_mv de Andrade Machado, Fabio; Hubbe, Alex; Melo, Diogo; Porto, Arthur; Marroig, Gabriel; Measuring the magnitude of morphological integration: The effect of differences in morphometric representations and the inclusion of size; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Evolution; 73; 12; 12-2019; 2518-2528
0014-3820
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1111/evo.13864
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/evo.13864
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6895406/
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844614359245914112
score 13.070432