Is shape in the eye of the beholder? Assessing landmarking error in geometric morphometric analyses on live fish
Geometric morphometrics is widely used to quantify morphological variation between biological specimens, but the fundamental influence of operator bias on data reproducibility is rarely considered, particularly in studies using photographs of live animals taken under field conditions. We examined th...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
PeerJ Inc.
2023-08-01
|
| Series: | PeerJ |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://peerj.com/articles/15545.pdf |
| _version_ | 1797425821413015552 |
|---|---|
| author | Paolo Moccetti Jessica R. Rodger Jonathan D. Bolland Phoebe Kaiser-Wilks Rowan Smith Andy D. Nunn Colin E. Adams Jen A. Bright Hannele M. Honkanen Angus J. Lothian Matthew Newton Domino A. Joyce |
| author_facet | Paolo Moccetti Jessica R. Rodger Jonathan D. Bolland Phoebe Kaiser-Wilks Rowan Smith Andy D. Nunn Colin E. Adams Jen A. Bright Hannele M. Honkanen Angus J. Lothian Matthew Newton Domino A. Joyce |
| author_sort | Paolo Moccetti |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Geometric morphometrics is widely used to quantify morphological variation between biological specimens, but the fundamental influence of operator bias on data reproducibility is rarely considered, particularly in studies using photographs of live animals taken under field conditions. We examined this using four independent operators that applied an identical landmarking scheme to replicate photographs of 291 live Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) from two rivers. Using repeated measures tests, we found significant inter-operator differences in mean body shape, suggesting that the operators introduced a systematic error despite following the same landmarking scheme. No significant differences were detected when the landmarking process was repeated by the same operator on a random subset of photographs. Importantly, in spite of significant operator bias, small but statistically significant morphological differences between fish from the two rivers were found consistently by all operators. Pairwise tests of angles of vectors of shape change showed that these between-river differences in body shape were analogous across operator datasets, suggesting a general reproducibility of findings obtained by geometric morphometric studies. In contrast, merging landmark data when fish from each river are digitised by different operators had a significant impact on downstream analyses, highlighting an intrinsic risk of bias. Overall, we show that, even when significant inter-operator error is introduced during digitisation, following an identical landmarking scheme can identify morphological differences between populations. This study indicates that operators digitising at least a sub-set of all data groups of interest may be an effective way of mitigating inter-operator error and potentially enabling data sharing. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T08:21:40Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-6152a6e8ec5f40aeb3716041724eb169 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2167-8359 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T08:21:40Z |
| publishDate | 2023-08-01 |
| publisher | PeerJ Inc. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PeerJ |
| spelling | doaj.art-6152a6e8ec5f40aeb3716041724eb1692023-12-02T21:45:49ZengPeerJ Inc.PeerJ2167-83592023-08-0111e1554510.7717/peerj.15545Is shape in the eye of the beholder? Assessing landmarking error in geometric morphometric analyses on live fishPaolo Moccetti0Jessica R. Rodger1Jonathan D. Bolland2Phoebe Kaiser-Wilks3Rowan Smith4Andy D. Nunn5Colin E. Adams6Jen A. Bright7Hannele M. Honkanen8Angus J. Lothian9Matthew Newton10Domino A. Joyce11Evolutionary and Ecological Genomics Group, School of Natural Sciences, University of Hull, Hull, United KingdomAtlantic Salmon Trust Fellow, Scottish Centre for Ecology and the Natural Environment, Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United KingdomHull International Fisheries Institute, School of Natural Sciences, University of Hull, Hull, United KingdomScottish Centre for Ecology and the Natural Environment, Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United KingdomScottish Centre for Ecology and the Natural Environment, Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United KingdomHull International Fisheries Institute, School of Natural Sciences, University of Hull, Hull, United KingdomScottish Centre for Ecology and the Natural Environment, Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United KingdomSchool of Natural Sciences, University of Hull, Hull, United KingdomScottish Centre for Ecology and the Natural Environment, Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United KingdomAtlantic Salmon Trust Fellow, Scottish Centre for Ecology and the Natural Environment, Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United KingdomScottish Centre for Ecology and the Natural Environment, Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United KingdomEvolutionary and Ecological Genomics Group, School of Natural Sciences, University of Hull, Hull, United KingdomGeometric morphometrics is widely used to quantify morphological variation between biological specimens, but the fundamental influence of operator bias on data reproducibility is rarely considered, particularly in studies using photographs of live animals taken under field conditions. We examined this using four independent operators that applied an identical landmarking scheme to replicate photographs of 291 live Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) from two rivers. Using repeated measures tests, we found significant inter-operator differences in mean body shape, suggesting that the operators introduced a systematic error despite following the same landmarking scheme. No significant differences were detected when the landmarking process was repeated by the same operator on a random subset of photographs. Importantly, in spite of significant operator bias, small but statistically significant morphological differences between fish from the two rivers were found consistently by all operators. Pairwise tests of angles of vectors of shape change showed that these between-river differences in body shape were analogous across operator datasets, suggesting a general reproducibility of findings obtained by geometric morphometric studies. In contrast, merging landmark data when fish from each river are digitised by different operators had a significant impact on downstream analyses, highlighting an intrinsic risk of bias. Overall, we show that, even when significant inter-operator error is introduced during digitisation, following an identical landmarking scheme can identify morphological differences between populations. This study indicates that operators digitising at least a sub-set of all data groups of interest may be an effective way of mitigating inter-operator error and potentially enabling data sharing.https://peerj.com/articles/15545.pdfMeasurement errorBiasLandmarksMorphometricsReplication crisisReproducibility |
| spellingShingle | Paolo Moccetti Jessica R. Rodger Jonathan D. Bolland Phoebe Kaiser-Wilks Rowan Smith Andy D. Nunn Colin E. Adams Jen A. Bright Hannele M. Honkanen Angus J. Lothian Matthew Newton Domino A. Joyce Is shape in the eye of the beholder? Assessing landmarking error in geometric morphometric analyses on live fish PeerJ Measurement error Bias Landmarks Morphometrics Replication crisis Reproducibility |
| title | Is shape in the eye of the beholder? Assessing landmarking error in geometric morphometric analyses on live fish |
| title_full | Is shape in the eye of the beholder? Assessing landmarking error in geometric morphometric analyses on live fish |
| title_fullStr | Is shape in the eye of the beholder? Assessing landmarking error in geometric morphometric analyses on live fish |
| title_full_unstemmed | Is shape in the eye of the beholder? Assessing landmarking error in geometric morphometric analyses on live fish |
| title_short | Is shape in the eye of the beholder? Assessing landmarking error in geometric morphometric analyses on live fish |
| title_sort | is shape in the eye of the beholder assessing landmarking error in geometric morphometric analyses on live fish |
| topic | Measurement error Bias Landmarks Morphometrics Replication crisis Reproducibility |
| url | https://peerj.com/articles/15545.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT paolomoccetti isshapeintheeyeofthebeholderassessinglandmarkingerroringeometricmorphometricanalysesonlivefish AT jessicarrodger isshapeintheeyeofthebeholderassessinglandmarkingerroringeometricmorphometricanalysesonlivefish AT jonathandbolland isshapeintheeyeofthebeholderassessinglandmarkingerroringeometricmorphometricanalysesonlivefish AT phoebekaiserwilks isshapeintheeyeofthebeholderassessinglandmarkingerroringeometricmorphometricanalysesonlivefish AT rowansmith isshapeintheeyeofthebeholderassessinglandmarkingerroringeometricmorphometricanalysesonlivefish AT andydnunn isshapeintheeyeofthebeholderassessinglandmarkingerroringeometricmorphometricanalysesonlivefish AT colineadams isshapeintheeyeofthebeholderassessinglandmarkingerroringeometricmorphometricanalysesonlivefish AT jenabright isshapeintheeyeofthebeholderassessinglandmarkingerroringeometricmorphometricanalysesonlivefish AT hannelemhonkanen isshapeintheeyeofthebeholderassessinglandmarkingerroringeometricmorphometricanalysesonlivefish AT angusjlothian isshapeintheeyeofthebeholderassessinglandmarkingerroringeometricmorphometricanalysesonlivefish AT matthewnewton isshapeintheeyeofthebeholderassessinglandmarkingerroringeometricmorphometricanalysesonlivefish AT dominoajoyce isshapeintheeyeofthebeholderassessinglandmarkingerroringeometricmorphometricanalysesonlivefish |