Sample size and sampling error in geometric morphometric studies of size and shape
By A. Cardini, S. Elton. Zoomorphology, 2007
191 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Geometric morphometric studies are increasingly becoming common in systematics and palaeontology. The samples in such studies are often small, due to the paucity of material available for analysis. However, very few studies have tried to assess the impact of sampling error on analytical results. Here, this issue is addressed empirically using repeated randomized selection experiments to build progressively smaller samples from an original dataset of ∼400 vervet monkey (Cercopithecus aethiops) skulls. Size and shape parameters (including mean size and shape, size and shape variances, angles of allometric trajectories) that are commonly used in geometric morphometric studies, are estimated first in the original sample and then in the random subsamples. Estimates are then compared to give an indication of what is the minimum desirable sample size for each parameter. Mean size, standard deviation of size and variance of shape are found to be fairly accurate even in relatively small samples. In contrast, mean shapes and angles between static allometric trajectories are strongly affected by sampling error. If confirmed in other groups, our findings may have substantial implications for studies of morphological variation in present and fossil species. By performing rarefaction analyses like those presented in our study, morphometricians can be easily provided with important clues on how a simple but crucial factor like sample size can alter results of their studies.
Subfields: Anthropology, Geometry and Topology, Paleontology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d46ea15d07ae74cea389d81045454fdafe94ea61
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Anthropology
In Geometry and Topology
In Paleontology
Citations in the corpus
- Cranial integration and modularity: insights into evolution and development from morphometric data (2013, methodology): “Some studies have used rarefaction methods, subsampling from the original data, to examine the statistical behaviour of estimates of integration and modularity (Polly, 2005; Goswami, 2006a; Cardini and Elton, 2007; Goswami and Polly, 2010b).”
- Does the skull carry a phylogenetic signal? Evolution and modularity in the guenons (2008, background): “…randomized selection experiments in a large sample of C. aethiops, we have shown that the error in the mean shape for samples of ten individuals can be, on average, as large as 37% of the interspecific distance between the mean shapes of C. aethiops and Cercopithecus mitis (Cardini & Elton, 2007).”
- Why the Long Face? Kangaroos and Wallabies Follow the Same ‘Rule’ of Cranial Evolutionary Allometry (CREA) as Placentals (2015, background): “Likely shape will be particularly affected by sampling error (Cardini and Elton 2007; Cardini et al. 2015).”