Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Dataset . 2019
License: CC 0
Data sources: ZENODO
DRYAD
Dataset . 2019
License: CC 0
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

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

Authors: Machado, Fabio A; Hubbe, Alex; Melo, Diogo; Porto, Arthur; Marroig, Gabriel;

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

Abstract

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 by 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 (shape or form). Morphometricians should be aware of these differences and must consider how biological hypothesis translate into predictions about integration in each particular choice of representation.

Ws.Rdata - Contains names of objects follows:  1) W_(representation)_(with or without size)- W matrices for all species on all representations. 2) W_bar- pooled within-group Geometric Morphometric (with log centroid size) covariance for the full sample. 3) consensus- the consensus shape for the full dataset. 4) msize- mean log(centroid size) 5) dists- vector of interlandmark distances names 6) landmarks - vector of landmark names script.R - script necessary to reproduce simulation results

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    OpenAIRE UsageCounts
    Usage byUsageCounts
    visibility views 4
  • 4
    views
    Powered byOpenAIRE UsageCounts
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
visibility
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
views
OpenAIRE UsageCountsViews provided by UsageCounts
0
Average
Average
Average
4
Related to Research communities