Evolutionary Covariation in Geometric Morphometric Data: Analyzing Integration, Modularity, and Allometry in a Phylogenetic Context
Abstract
Quantifying integration and modularity of evolutionary changes in morphometric traits is crucial for understanding how organismal shapes evolve. For this purpose, comparative studies are necessary, which need to take into account the phylogenetic structure of interspecific data. This study applies several of the standard tools of geometric morphometrics, which mostly have been used in intraspecific studies, in the new context of analyzing integration and modularity based on comparative data. Morphometric methods such as principal component analysis, multivariate regression, partial least squares, and modularity tests can be applied to phylogenetically independent contrasts of shape data. We illustrate this approach in an analysis of cranial evolution in 160 species from all orders of birds. Mapping the shape information onto the phylogeny indicates that there is a significant phylogenetic signal in skull shape. Multivariate regression of independent contrasts of shape on independent contrasts of size reveals clear evolutionary allometry. Regardless of whether or not a correction for allometry is used, evolutionary integration between the face and braincase is strong, and tests reject the hypothesis that the face and braincase are separate evolutionary modules. These analyses can easily be applied to other taxa and can be combined with other morphometric tools to address a wide range of questions about evolutionary patterns and processes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Previous analyses that found the avian cranium to be highly integrated were restricted to smaller clades or excluded large portions of the skull.
“This contrasts with previous analyses that have found the avian cranium to be highly integrated. However, these previous analyses have been restricted to analyzing smaller clades (10, 12) or have excluded large portions of the skull (9).”
From Developmental origins of mosaic evolution in the avian cranium (2018) · cites this paper as [9]
Cites
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793 · see citing works
Cranial modularity shifts during mammalian evolution
Goswami, A. (2006) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/505758 · Cited by 280 · see citing works
Viðarsdóttir, U. S., O'Higgins, P., & Stringer, C. (2002) · Journal of Anatomy · doi:10.1046/j.1469-7580.2002.00092.x · Cited by 274 · see citing works
The evolutionary role of modularity and integration in the Hominoid cranium
Mitteroecker, P., & Bookstein, F. (2008) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00321.x · Cited by 267 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The macroevolutionary consequences of phenotypic integration: from development to deep time
Goswami, A., Smaers, J. B., Soligo, C., & Polly, P. D. (2014) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0254 · Cited by 359 · see citing works
Developmental origins of mosaic evolution in the avian cranium
Felice, R. N., & Goswami, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1716437115 · Cited by 249 · see citing works
“, not subdivided into semiautonomous modules) (9, 10, 12).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAdams, D. C. (2016) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12511 · Cited by 257 · see citing works
The shapes of bird beaks are highly controlled by nondietary factors
Bright, J. A., Marugán-Lobón, J., Cobb, S. N., & Rayfield, E. J. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1602683113 · Cited by 258 · see citing works
Self-citationGoswami, A., & Finarelli, J. A. (2016) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/evo.12956 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Morphological consequences of artificial cranial deformation: Modularity and integration
Püschel, T. A., Friess, M., & Manríquez, G. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0227362 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Cottin, M., Khonsari, R. H., & Friess, M. (2017) · Comptes Rendus Palevol · doi:10.1016/j.crpv.2017.03.001 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
- Authors
- Klingenberg, C. P., & Marugán-Lobón, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Michael Smith Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK; and 2Unidad de Paleontología, Departamento de Biología, C/Darwin 2, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain
- Venue
- Systematic Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2013-05-31
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 591-610
- ISSN
- 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
- 1076-836X
- OpenAlex
- W2124479010
- Cited by
- 415
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 6
- FWCI
- 46.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Systematic Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Comparative Animal Anatomy Studies
- Keywords
- morphological integration, modularity, evolutionary allometry, cranial evolution, skull shape, birds, phylogenetically independent contrasts, phylogenetic signal
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Birds, Biological Evolution, Phylogeny, Skull, Multivariate Analysis, Least-Squares Analysis, Principal Component Analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review