Dataset Information

A comparison of two methods for estimating measurement repeatability in morphometric studies.

ABSTRACT: Measurement repeatability is often reported in morphometric studies as an index of the contribution of measurement error to trait measurements. However, the common method of remeasuring a mounted specimen fails to capture some components of measurement error and could therefore yield inflated repeatability estimates. Remounting specimens between successive measurements is likely to provide more realistic estimates of repeatability, particularly for structures that are difficult to measure.Using measurements of 22 somatic and genitalic traits of the neriid fly Telostylinus angusticollis, we compared repeatability estimates obtained via remeasurement of a specimen that is mounted once (single-mounted method) versus remeasurement of a specimen that is remounted between measurements (remounted method). We also asked whether the difference in repeatability estimates obtained via the two methods depends on trait size, trait type (somatic vs. genitalic), sclerotization, or sex.Repeatability estimates obtained via the remounted method were lower than estimates obtained via the single-mounted method for each of the 22 traits, and the difference between estimates obtained via the two methods was generally greater for small structures (such as genitalic traits) than for large structures (such as legs and wings). However, the difference between estimates obtained via the two methods did not depend on trait type (genitalic or somatic), tissue type (soft or sclerotized) or sex.Remounting specimens between successive measurements can provide more accurate estimates of measurement repeatability than remeasuring from a single mount, especially for small structures that are difficult to measure.

SUBMITTER: Wylde Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7820162 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison of two methods for estimating measurement repeatability in morphometric studies.

Wylde Zachariah Z Bonduriansky Russell R

Ecology and evolution 20210106 2

Measurement repeatability is often reported in morphometric studies as an index of the contribution of measurement error to trait measurements. However, the common method of remeasuring a mounted specimen fails to capture some components of measurement error and could therefore yield inflated repeatability estimates. Remounting specimens between successive measurements is likely to provide more realistic estimates of repeatability, particularly for structures that are difficult to measure.Using ...[more]

PMID: 33520164

Similar Datasets

Project description:We compared the repeatability, reproducibility (intra- and inter-measurer similarity), separative power and subjectivity (measurer effect on results) of four morphometric methods frequently used in ichthyological research, the "traditional" caliper-based (TRA) and truss-network (TRU) distance methods and two geometric methods that compare landmark coordinates on the body (GMB) and scales (GMS). In each case, measurements were performed three times by three measurers on the same specimen of three common cyprinid species (roach Rutilus rutilus (Linnaeus, 1758), bleak Alburnus alburnus (Linnaeus, 1758) and Prussian carp Carassius gibelio (Bloch, 1782)) collected from three closely-situated sites in the Lake Balaton catchment (Hungary) in 2014. TRA measurements were made on conserved specimens using a digital caliper, while TRU, GMB and GMS measurements were undertaken on digital images of the bodies and scales. In most cases, intra-measurer repeatability was similar. While all four methods were able to differentiate the source populations, significant differences were observed in their repeatability, reproducibility and subjectivity. GMB displayed highest overall repeatability and reproducibility and was least burdened by measurer effect. While GMS showed similar repeatability to GMB when fish scales had a characteristic shape, it showed significantly lower reproducability (compared with its repeatability) for each species than the other methods. TRU showed similar repeatability as the GMS. TRA was the least applicable method as measurements were obtained from the fish itself, resulting in poor repeatability and reproducibility. Although all four methods showed some degree of subjectivity, TRA was the only method where population-level detachment was entirely overwritten by measurer effect. Based on these results, we recommend a) avoidance of aggregating different measurer's datasets when using TRA and GMS methods; and b) use of image-based methods for morphometric surveys. Automation of the morphometric workflow would also reduce any measurer effect and eliminate measurement and data-input errors.

Dataset Information

A comparison of two methods for estimating measurement repeatability in morphometric studies.

Publications

A comparison of two methods for estimating measurement repeatability in morphometric studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets