2D or Not 2D? Testing the Utility of 2D Vs. 3D Landmark Data in Geometric Morphometrics of the Sculpin Subfamily Oligocottinae (Pisces; Cottoidea)

被引:71
|
作者
Buser, Thaddaeus J. [1 ]
Sidlauskas, Brian L. [1 ]
Summers, Adam P. [2 ]
机构
[1] Oregon State Univ, Dept Fisheries & Wildlife, 104 Nash Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA
[2] Univ Washington, Friday Harbor Labs, Dept Biol, Friday Harbor, WA 98250 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
geometric morphometrics; ichthyology; 3D morphometrics; ecomorphology; macroevolution; MORPHOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; R PACKAGE; SHAPE; DIVERSIFICATION; FISHES; SCIURIDAE; RODENTIA; ONTOGENY; ECOLOGY; MODELS;
D O I
10.1002/ar.23752
中图分类号
R602 [外科病理学、解剖学]; R32 [人体形态学];
学科分类号
100101 ;
摘要
We contrast 2D vs. 3D landmark-based geometric morphometrics in the fish subfamily Oligocottinae by using 3D landmarks from CT-generated models and comparing the morphospace of the 3D landmarks to one based on 2D landmarks from images. The 2D and 3D shape variables capture common patterns across taxa, such that the pairwise Procrustes distances among taxa correspond and the trends captured by principal component analysis are similar in the xy plane. We use the two sets of landmarks to test several ecomorphological hypotheses from the literature. Both 2D and 3D data reject the hypothesis that head shape correlates significantly with the depth at which a species is commonly found. However, in taxa where shape variation in the z-axis is high, the 2D shape variables show sufficiently strong distortion to influence the outcome of the hypothesis tests regarding the relationship between mouth size and feeding ecology. Only the 3D data support previous studies which showed that large mouth sizes correlate positively with high percentages of elusive prey in the diet. When used to test for morphological divergence, 3D data show no evidence of divergence, while 2D data show that one clade of oligocottines has diverged from all others. This clade shows the greatest degree of z-axis body depth within Oligocottinae, and we conclude that the inability of the 2D approach to capture this lateral body depth causes the incongruence between 2D and 3D analyses. Anat Rec, 301:806-818, 2018. (c) 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:806 / 818
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Signaling reactions in 2D vs. 3D
    Huang, William Y. C.
    Boxer, Steven G.
    Ferrell, James E.
    BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL, 2024, 123 (03) : 21A - 21A
  • [2] 2D or not 2D That is the Question, but 3D is the, answer
    Cronin, Paul
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2007, 14 (07) : 769 - 771
  • [3] A 2D/3D Data Fusion with Range Estimation on 2D sensor
    Takashi, Matsuzaki
    Hiroshi, Kameda
    Kazuhiko, Yamamoto
    Tatsuo, Fuji
    Ryoji, Maekawa
    2008 PROCEEDINGS OF SICE ANNUAL CONFERENCE, VOLS 1-7, 2008, : 3296 - +
  • [4] 2D vs. 3D Mammography: Observer Study
    Fernandez, James Reza F.
    Hovanessian-Larsen, Linda
    Liu, Brent
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2011: ADVANCED PACS-BASED IMAGING INFORMATICS AND THERAPEUTIC APPLICATIONS, 2011, 7967
  • [5] 2D or 3D?
    Mills, R
    COMPUTER-AIDED ENGINEERING, 1996, 15 (08): : 4 - 4
  • [6] Combining 2D to 2D and 3D to 2D Point Correspondences for Stereo Visual Odometry
    Manthe, Stephan
    Carrio, Adrian
    Neuhaus, Frank
    Campoy, Pascual
    Paulus, Dietrich
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 13TH INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER VISION, IMAGING AND COMPUTER GRAPHICS THEORY AND APPLICATIONS (VISIGRAPP 2018), VOL 5: VISAPP, 2018, : 455 - 463
  • [7] 2D or not 2D?
    Nature Chemistry, 2014, 6 : 747 - 747
  • [8] 2D or not 2D?
    Ross H. McKenzie
    Nature Physics, 2007, 3 : 756 - 758
  • [9] 2D or not 2D
    Fey, SJ
    Larsen, PM
    CURRENT OPINION IN CHEMICAL BIOLOGY, 2001, 5 (01) : 26 - 33
  • [10] 2D or not 2D?
    不详
    NATURE CHEMISTRY, 2014, 6 (09) : 747 - 747