ArticleScientific reports2025
Exploring desert-adapted beetles with 3D geometric morphometrics.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sexual Dimorphism in the Pronotum and Elytra ofInsects · 2026Article
- 3D Geometric Morphometric Analysis on Sexual Dimorphism in the Sella Turcica in Romanov Sheep Using CT Scan.Veterinary medicine and science · 2026Article
- Research Trends, Hotspots and Future Perspectives of Geometric Morphometrics in Entomology: A Scientometric Review.Insects · 2026Review
- Patellar shape diversity as a functional indicator of locomotor specialization in selected ruminant species.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Darkling beetles (Tenebrionidae) are a diverse and ecologically significant group, particularly in arid environments, yet their taxonomy remains problematic due to scarcity of phylogenetic contributions and robust morphological investigations. This study applies 3D geometric morphometrics to evaluate the taxonomic validity and morphological differentiation among three closely related sandworm beetle taxa: Gonopus deplanatus, G. tibialis kalaharicus, and G. tibialis punctatus. Seventy-nine museum-preserved specimens were digitized using a 3D scanner, with multiple scans taken from six different orientations to ensure comprehensive surface reconstruction. Twenty-one anatomical landmarks were assigned to the prothorax (12 landmarks) and pterothorax (9 landmarks), targeting significant taxonomic features like pronotal width, elytral curvature, and the structure of the prosternal process. Based on this dataset, the size and shape variation were analyzed. Results suggest that G. t. punctatus displayed a narrower pronotum and more pronounced prosternal process than G. t. kalaharicus and G. deplanatus, indicating a previously underappreciated taxonomic distinction. For elytra, the differences among taxa were primarily observed in width, curvature, and declivity. Additionally, the stronger correlation between pterothorax shape and size suggests that larger individuals tend to have more pronounced and rounded elytra, potentially influencing thermoregulation or structural reinforcement in response to environmental pressures. These results show the transformative potential of 3D geometric morphometrics in entomological systematics by providing a quantitative framework for distinguishing closely related beetle taxa. These findings suggest that traditional taxonomic criteria may have underestimated the extent of variation between these taxa, underscoring the importance of integrating advanced morphometric approaches into systematic studies. Furthermore, detecting allometric influences in shape variation provides new insights into potential functional and ecological adaptations, which may be linked to the distinct desert environments these beetles inhabit.
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.