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

Abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Comparing ant morphology measurements from microscope and online AntWeb.org 2D z‐stacked images

“…Our results complement the existing literature on factors that may influence the measurement results of morphometric studies (David et al, 1999 ; Seifert, 2002 ; Wylde & Bonduriansky, 2021 ), and may help guide the development of future online image databases. In light of this, we believe that the virtual access and examination of specimens preserved in scientific collections will facilitate research in insect morphology.…”

“…Our results complement the existing literature on factors that may influence the measurement results of morphometric studies (David et al, 1999;Seifert, 2002;Wylde & Bonduriansky, 2021), and may help guide the development of future online image databases.…”

“…We advocate that more than simply testing the agreement between different approaches/methods is a necessity to evaluate true measurement reproducibility. This is because relatively high repeatability (estimated even with state of the art statistical approaches: Nakagawa & Schielzeth, 2010 ; Wolak et al, 2012 ; Wylde & Bonduriansky, 2021 ) alone would not ensure free interchangeability between or mixing of measurements made using different methods. Assuming significant and high repeatability, there are still a couple of other problems to be considered.…”

“…Such problems can be easily overcome by using software to take measurements from high‐resolution digital images. However, different measurement methods may also yield discrepant results (Wylde & Bonduriansky, 2021 ), especially when examining minor characters prevalent in insects.…”