IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0014386.html

Landmark-based morphometrics with fewer landmarks: Some examples for medical entomology

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-Pierre Dujardin
  • Patchara Sriwichai
  • Yudthana Samung
  • Jiraporn Ruangsittichai
  • Suchada Sumruayphol
  • Sébastien Dujardin

Abstract

Geometric morphometrics based on two-dimensional landmarks is a powerful tool for distinguishing morphologically similar or cryptic taxa, an important asset in the fight against medically and veterinary important arthropods. While it is commonly assumed that increasing the number of landmarks should improve discriminatory power by capturing more shape information, our findings challenge this assumption. In terms of shape discrimination (thus excluding size variation), we demonstrate that small subsets of landmarks can equal or even outperform full sets of landmarks. Fifteen examples of comparisons between closely related species were considered. These examples are drawn from published data covering six insect families: Culicidae, Glossinidae, Muscidae, Psychodidae, Reduviidae and Tabanidae. To assess the relevance of smaller subsets of landmarks, we compared the accuracy scores of unsupervised classification using full sets of landmarks (10–22 points) with those obtained using smaller subsets. To eliminate the potential influence of chance on reclassification scores, we validated our results by accounting for correct reclassifications due to chance alone. The strategy for selecting relevant landmark subsets employed two different approaches. The first relied on each landmark’s contribution to the total distance between shapes, thus establishing a hierarchy among them. The second, more comprehensive approach compared the reclassification scores of large random samples of landmarks, from the smallest subsets (3 landmarks) to the full set. From a public health perspective, the value of our approach lies in simplifying the tasks required for entomological surveillance: it could accelerate morphometric identification for large surveillance datasets, improve standardization among users, and reduce noise introduced by problematic landmarks. These gains are particularly relevant for distinguishing medically important but morphologically similar taxa, or when molecular tools are unavailable or too resource-intensive. The statistical procedures have been integrated into the XYOM online software, providing accessible tools for efficient landmark selection and improved morphometric analysis.Author summary: Landmark-based geometric morphometrics describes shape in direct relation to the number of landmarks used. It is commonly assumed that increasing the number of landmarks allows for more information about shape, and when discriminating between groups or taxa, this strategy is expected to improve classification accuracy. Our results challenge this assumption. We demonstrate that subsets of landmarks, as small as three or four, can equal or even outperform the species classification obtained by the full set of landmarks, and we propose two methods for identifying them. We discuss the possible causes of these counterintuitive results and the perspectives they could open up for morphometric studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-Pierre Dujardin & Patchara Sriwichai & Yudthana Samung & Jiraporn Ruangsittichai & Suchada Sumruayphol & Sébastien Dujardin, 2026. "Landmark-based morphometrics with fewer landmarks: Some examples for medical entomology," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(6), pages 1-16, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0014386
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0014386
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0014386
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0014386&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0014386?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0014386. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.