ArticleEcology and evolution2021
Insect morphometry is reproducible under average investigation standards.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The "Chameleon Ant"Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Article
- Morphometric Characteristics and Species Identification of Bed Bugs (Hemiptera: Cimicidae) in Eastern Iran.Journal of arthropod-borne diseases · 2024Article
- Small workers are more persistent when providing and requiring help in a monomorphic ant.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Comparing ant morphology measurements from microscope and online AntWeb.org 2D z-stacked images.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- Classifying fossil Darwin wasps (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) with geometric morphometrics of fore wings.PloS one · 2022Article
- Ectoparasitic fungi Rickia wasmannii infection is associated with smaller body size in Myrmica ants.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Insect morphometry is reproducible under average investigation standards.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Morphometric research is being applied to a growing number and variety of organisms. Discoveries achieved via morphometric approaches are often considered highly transferable, in contrast to the tacit and idiosyncratic interpretation of discrete character states. The reliability of morphometric workflows in insect systematics has never been a subject of focused research, but such studies are sorely needed. In this paper, we assess the reproducibility of morphometric studies of ants where the mode of data collection is a shared routine.We compared datasets generated by eleven independent gaugers, that is, collaborators, who measured 21 continuous morphometric traits on the same pool of individuals according to the same protocol. The gaugers possessed a wide range of morphometric skills, had varying expertise among insect groups, and differed in their facility with measuring equipment. We used intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to calculate repeatability and reproducibility values (i.e., intra- and intergauger agreements), and we performed a multivariate permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) using the Morosita index of dissimilarity with 9,999 iterations.The calculated average measure of intraclass correlation coefficients of different gaugers ranged from
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.