Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Cranial anatomy, palaeoneurology, palaeobiology and stratigraphic age of the large-bodied ornithopod, <i>Muttaburrasaurus langdoni</i> Bartholomai and Molnar, 1981, from the mid-Cretaceous of Australia.

PeerJ·2026
Same author

Phylogenetic analysis of the New Guinean forest wallabies, Dorcopsis and Dorcopsulus reveals cryptic divergent lineages impacted by highland and lowland barriers.

Molecular phylogenetics and evolution·2026
Same author

Balancing High Densities and Conservation Targets to Optimise Koala Management Strategies.

Ecology and evolution·2026
Same author

Diversification of kangaroos and broader turnover among marsupial terrestrial herbivores coincided with emerging aridification then incipient grasslands.

Molecular phylogenetics and evolution·2026
Same author

Phylogenetic Inference from Atomised 3D Morphometric Data: a Case Study using Kangaroos.

Systematic biology·2025
Same author

Comparative Anatomy Supports the Evolution of Nocturnality in the Extinct Hawaiian Ibis Apteribis.

Integrative and comparative biology·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Feb 23, 2026

Dissection, MicroCT Scanning and Morphometric Analyses of the Baculum
04:32

Dissection, MicroCT Scanning and Morphometric Analyses of the Baculum

Published on: March 19, 2017

7.9K

Sharing is caring? Measurement error and the issues arising from combining 3D morphometric datasets.

Carmelo Fruciano1, Mélina A Celik1, Kaylene Butler2

  • 1School of Earth, Environmental and Biological Sciences Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Qld Australia.

Ecology and Evolution
|September 15, 2017
PubMed
Summary

Measurement error in geometric morphometrics can be substantial, especially when combining data from different devices or operators. Careful landmark selection and automated methods can reduce this error, which can impact phylogenetic signal estimates more than phylogenetic uncertainty.

Keywords:
geometric morphometricsmeasurement errorphotogrammetryphylogenetic signal

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: Three-Dimensional Cephalometric Landmark Annotation Demonstration on Human Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scans
10:23

Author Spotlight: Three-Dimensional Cephalometric Landmark Annotation Demonstration on Human Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scans

Published on: September 8, 2023

3.8K
Author Spotlight: An Efficient and Robust Software for Automated Fusion of Multiple Preclinical Imaging Modalities
07:13

Author Spotlight: An Efficient and Robust Software for Automated Fusion of Multiple Preclinical Imaging Modalities

Published on: October 27, 2023

1.7K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Feb 23, 2026

Dissection, MicroCT Scanning and Morphometric Analyses of the Baculum
04:32

Dissection, MicroCT Scanning and Morphometric Analyses of the Baculum

Published on: March 19, 2017

7.9K
Author Spotlight: Three-Dimensional Cephalometric Landmark Annotation Demonstration on Human Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scans
10:23

Author Spotlight: Three-Dimensional Cephalometric Landmark Annotation Demonstration on Human Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scans

Published on: September 8, 2023

3.8K
Author Spotlight: An Efficient and Robust Software for Automated Fusion of Multiple Preclinical Imaging Modalities
07:13

Author Spotlight: An Efficient and Robust Software for Automated Fusion of Multiple Preclinical Imaging Modalities

Published on: October 27, 2023

1.7K

Area of Science:

  • Ecology and evolutionary biology
  • Quantitative morphology

Background:

  • Geometric morphometrics is widely used in ecology and evolution, with increasing data sharing for larger sample sizes and statistical power.
  • Sharing morphometric data raises concerns about non-biological variation (measurement error) and its impact on analyses.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To quantify measurement error in 3D geometric morphometric datasets from combined devices and operators.
  • To assess bias and the effect of measurement error on phylogenetic signal estimation.
  • To compare error from manual digitization versus an automated method.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of an empirical 3D geometric morphometric dataset.
  • Quantification of error from multiple devices and operators.
  • Testing for bias in landmark digitization.
  • Evaluation of an automated landmark digitization method.
  • Assessment of measurement error's impact on phylogenetic signal and uncertainty.

Main Results:

  • Substantial measurement error observed when combining data from different devices and operators.
  • Small but significant nonrandom error (bias) detected.
  • Excluding difficult-to-digitize landmarks significantly reduces measurement error.
  • Automated methods show low error with dimensionality reduction.
  • Measurement error can affect phylogenetic signal estimates more than phylogenetic uncertainty.

Conclusions:

  • Landmark choice and measurement error estimation are crucial in geometric morphometrics.
  • Measurement error can limit cross-study comparisons using different devices or operators.
  • Assumptions about measurement error's impact on phylogenetic scale and automated method performance may not hold true.