Informacion morfometrica en estudios interpoblacionales: una comparación de técnicas basadas en proporciones y coordenadas Procrustes/Interpopulation morphometric studies: a comparison between techniques based on proportions and Procrustes coordinates

  • Lumila Menéndez Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Argentina
  • S. Ivan Perez

Resumen

RESUMEN Tradicionalmente se ha abordado el estudio de la variación morfológica mediante técnicas estadísticas uni y multivariadas aplicadas principalmente a proporciones calculadas sobre distancias lineales entre puntos anatómicos (landmarks). Más recientemente, se ha propuesto el empleo de coordenadas cartesianas superpuestas (coordenadas Procrustes) de landmarks y de puntos sobre contornos y superficies (semilandmarks). El objetivo de este trabajo es comparar los resultados obtenidos a partir del empleo de estas aproximaciones en estudios morfométricos de poblaciones humanas. Para esto estudiamos cráneos de individuos adultos de ambos sexos provenientes de diferentes muestras de Argentina (n=130) empleando coordenadas Procrustes en 3D, proporciones y métodos multivariados. Se compararon los resultados obtenidos a partir del estudio de tres propiedades morfométricas: tamaño, shape y form. Los resultados obtenidos sugieren que las técnicas basadas en coordenadas Procrustes son las más eficientes para estudiar variación en shape entre poblaciones.

ABSTRACT The study of morphological variation has been traditionally approached through univariate and multivariate statistical techniques applied to proportions of linear distances between anatomical points (landmarks). More recently, it has been proposed the use of superimposed Cartesian coordinates (Procrustes coordinates) of landmarks and/or points on contours and surfaces (semilandmarks). The aim of this study is to compare the results obtained from these approaches in morphometric studies of human populations. For this purpose, adult skulls of both sexes coming from different samples of Argentina (n=130) were measured using 3D Procrustes coordinates, proportions and multivariate methods. The results obtained were compared through the study of three morphometric properties: size, shape and form. These results show that the techniques based on Procrustes coordinates prove to be more efficient to study the variation in shape between populations.

Descargas

La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.

Métricas

Cargando métricas ...

Citas

Adams D, Rohlf FJ, Slice D. 2004. Geometric morphometrics: Ten years of progress following the “revolution”. Ital J Zool 71:5-16.

Bernal V, González PN, Perez SI, Pucciarelli HM. 2008. Entierros humanos del noreste de Patagonia: nuevos fechados radiocarbónicos. Magallania 36(2):175-183.

Bookstein FL. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data. Geometry and biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bookstein FL. 1996a. Biometrics, biomathematics and the
morphometric synthesis. Bull Math Biol 58:313-365.

Bookstein FL. 1996b. Combining the tools of geometric morphometrics. En: Marcus LF, Corti M, Loy A, Naylor GJP, Slice DE, editores. Advances in morphometrics. Nato ASI Series, Series A: Life Science, Vol. 284. New York: Plenum. p 131-152.

Bookstein FL. 1996c. Applying landmark methods to biological outline data. En: Mardia KV, Gill CA, Dryden IL, editores. Image fusion and shape variability. Leeds: University of Leeds Press. p 79-87.

Bookstein FL. 1997. Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: morphometrics of group differences in outline shape. Med Im Anal 1:225-243.

Bookstein FL, Streissguth AP, Sampson PD, Connor PD, Barr HM. 2002. Corpus callosum shape and neuropsychological defi cits in adult males with heavy fetal alcohol exposure. Neuroimage 15:233-251.

Buikstra JE, Ubelaker DH. 1994. Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains. Arkansas: Arkansas Archaeological Survey 44.

Corruccini RS. 1987. Shape in morphometrics: Comparative analyses. Am J Phys Anthropol 73:289-303.

Darroch JN, Mosimann JE. 1985. Canonical and principal component of shape. Biométrika 72:241-252.

Gunz P, Mitteroecker P, Bookstein FL. 2005. Semilandmarks in three dimensions. En: Slice DE, editor. Modern morhometrics in Physical Anthropology. Developments in primatology: progress and prospects. Chicago: University of Chicago. p 73-98.

Howells WW. 1973. Cranial variation in man: a study by multivariate analysis of patterns of difference among recent human populations. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge: Cambridge Peabody Museum.

Jungers WL, Falsetti A, Wall CE. 1995. Shape, relative size and size-adjustments in morphometrics. Yearb Phys Anthropol 38:137-161.

Klingenberg CP. 2011. MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Mol Ecol Resour 11:353-357.

Lehmann-Nitsche R. 1910. Catálogo de la Sección Antropológica del Museo de La Plata. Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de La Plata.

Manly BFJ. 1994. Multivariate statistical methods. Londres: Ed. Chapman & Hall.

Martin R, Saller K. 1957. Lehrbuch der Anthropologie. Bd 1. Sttugart: Fischer G Verlag.

Mitteroecker P, Bookstein F. 2011. Linear discrimination, ordination, and the visualization of selection gradients in modern morphometrics. Evol Biol 38:100-114.

Mitteroecker P, Gunz P. 2009. Advances in geometric morphometrics. Evol Biol 36:235-247.

Peres-Neto P, Jackson D. 2001. How well do multivariate data sets match? The advantages of a Procrustean superimposition approach over the Mantel test. Oecologia 129:169-178.

Pucciarelli HM. 2008. Evolución y diversifi cación biológica humana desde la perspectiva craneofuncional. México D.F.: Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

R Developmental Core Team 2011. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Relethford JH. 1994. Craniometric variation among modern human populations. Am J Phys Anthropol 95:53-62.

Rohlf FJ. 1990. Rotational fi t (Procrustes) methods. En: Rohlf FJ, Bookstein FL, editores. Proceedings Michigan morphometrics workshop. Special publication n8 2. Museum of Zoology. Michigan: University of Michigan. p 227-236.

Rohlf FJ.1993. Relative warp analysis and an example of its application to mosquito wings. En: Marcus LF, Bello Rojo E, Garcia-Valdecasas A, editores. Contributions to morphometrics. Madrid: Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales. p 131-159.

Rohlf FJ. 1996. Mophometric spaces, shape components and the effects of linear transformations. En: Marcus LF, Corti M, Loy A, Slice D, Naylor G, editores. Advances in morphometrics. Nueva York: Plenum. p 117-129.

Rohlf FJ, Slice DE. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Zool 39:40-59.

Wagner GP. 1984. On the eigenvalue distribution of genetic and phenotypic dispersion matrices: Evidence for a nonrandom organization of quantitative character variation. J Math Biol 21:77-95.

Williams SE, Slice DE. 2010. Regional shape change in adult facial bone curvature with age. Am J Phys Anthropol 143:437-447.

Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL. 2004. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: A premier. Nueva York: Elsevier Academic Press.
Cómo citar
Menéndez, L., & Perez, S. I. (1). Informacion morfometrica en estudios interpoblacionales: una comparación de técnicas basadas en proporciones y coordenadas Procrustes/Interpopulation morphometric studies: a comparison between techniques based on proportions and Procrustes coordinates. Revista Argentina De Antropología Biológica, 13(1), 105-111. Recuperado a partir de https://revistas.unlp.edu.ar/raab/article/view/411
Sección
Notas Técnicas