Landmark-based geometric morphometrics as a complementary tool for female identification of Euplatypus compositus and Euplatypus parallelus
Article Sidebar
Abstract Views: 0
File Views: 0
Main Article Content
Abstract
Abstract. Chatpiyaphat K, Rizali A, Rahardjo BT, Wang J, Ye X, Sittichaya W, Johnson AJ, Hulcr J, Tarno H. 2026. Landmark-based geometric morphometrics as a complementary tool for female identification of Euplatypus compositus and Euplatypus parallelus. Biodiversitas 27 (4): d270439. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d270439. Identification of female Platypodinae ambrosia beetles is often difficult due to strong sexual dimorphism and limited diagnostic characters, particularly in Euplatypus compositus and Euplatypus parallelus, two closely related species in the southern United States with overlapping habitats and highly similar female morphology. Although the presence or absence of a pronotal mycangial pit is diagnostic, this structure can be obscured by specimen damage. We evaluated landmark-based geometric morphometrics (GM) as a complementary method for distinguishing females of the two species. A total of 46 specimens were analyzed for the pronotum (E. compositus n: 17; E. parallelus n: 29) and 43 for the elytra (E. compositus n: 16; E. parallelus n: 27). Multivariate regression revealed significant allometric scaling in pronotum shape (R²: 18.9%, p: 0.001), whereas elytral shape showed no detectable allometric effect (R²: 0.7%, p: 0.867). Cross-validated discriminant analysis (LOOCV in XYOM) indicated stronger species discrimination for the pronotum (84.8% accuracy; TAU: 67%) than for the elytra (76.7% accuracy; TAU: 50%), and repeated stratified k-fold cross-validation in R confirmed more robust and consistent discrimination for the pronotum but weaker and more variable performance for the elytra. Geometric morphometrics can detect subtle interspecific differences not apparent through visual inspection and may serve as a complementary identification approach when specimens are well preserved. However, this study demonstrates discriminatory potential under controlled conditions only. Because species identity is confounded with geographic origin and collection history, the observed shape differences, while consistent with species-level variation, cannot be attributed to species identity alone with full confidence. Validation using broader, more balanced sampling remains necessary.
Article Details
Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Adams DC, Otárola-Castillo E. 2013. Geomorph: An R package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data. Methods Ecol Evol 4: 393-399. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12035.
Atkinson TH. 2004. Ambrosia Beetles, Platypus spp. (Insecta: Coleoptera: Platypodidae) (EENY-174). University of Florida IFAS Extension, Forida, US. https://ask.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/IN331.
Bookstein FL. 1991. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Drake AG, Klingenberg CP. 2008. The pace of morphological change: Historical transformation of skull shape in St Bernard dogs. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 275 (1630): 71-76. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1169.
Dujardin S, Dujardin JP. 2019. Geometric morphometrics in the cloud. Infect Genet Evol 70: 189-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2019.02.018.
Gümüş EM, Ergün A. 2015. Report of a pest risk analysis for Platypus parallelus (Fabricius, 1801) for Turkey. EPPO Bull 45: 112-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/epp.12190.
Jordal BH. 2014. Platypodinae. In: Leschen R, Beutel R (eds). Handbook of Zoology. Arthropoda: Insecta: Coleoptera, Morphology and Systematics (Phytophaga). De Gruyter Press, Berlin/New York.
Kirkendall LR, Atkinson TH. 2024. What we do and don’t know about Neotropical pinhole borers (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Platypodinae). Nor J Entomol Suppl 4: 25-92.
Laojun S, Changbunjong T, Kaewthamasorn M, Charnwichai P, Kaewmee S, Wichit S, Chaiphongpachara T. 2025a. Accurate identification of medically important Aedes mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand through DNA barcoding, wing geometric morphometrics, and machine learning. Curr Res Parasitol Vector Borne Dis 8: 100334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpvbd.2025.100334.
Laojun S, Changbunjong T, Kamoltham T, Chaiphongpachara T. 2025b. An integrative approach to DNA barcoding, geometric morphometrics, and machine learning for field identification of Culex mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae), with implications for vector-borne disease surveillance. Acta Trop 271: 107885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2025.107885.
Laojun S, Changbunjong T, Sumruayphol S, Chaiphongpachara T. 2024a. Outline-based geometric morphometrics: Wing cell differences for mosquito vector classification in the Tanaosri mountain range, Thailand. Acta Trop 250: 107093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2023.107093.
Laojun S, Changbunjong T, Sumruayphol S, Pimsuka S, Chaiphongpachara T. 2024b. Wing geometric morphometrics and DNA barcoding to distinguish three closely related species of Armigeres mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Thailand. Vet Parasitol 325: 110092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2023.110092.
Mayers CG, Harrington TC, Biedermann PH. 2022. Mycangia define the diverse ambrosia beetle-fungus symbioses. In: Schultz TR, Gawne R, McGhee GR (eds). The convergent evolution of agriculture in humans and insects. MIT Press, Cambridge.
McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Stafford SG. 2000. Multivariate Statistics for Wildlife and Ecology Research. Springer, New York.
Ospina-Garcés SM, Ibarra-Juarez LA, Escobar F, Lira-Noriega A. 2021. Evaluating sexual dimorphism in the ambrosia beetle Xyleborus affinis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) using geometric morphometrics. Fla Entomol 104 (2): 61-70. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.104.0201.
Rodrigues A, Johnson AJ, Joseph RA, Li Y, Keyhani NO, Stanley EL, Hulcr J. 2023. Fungal symbiont community and absence of detectable mycangia in invasive Euplatypus ambrosia beetles. Symbiosis 90 (3): 305-319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13199-023-00938-4.
Rohlf FJ. 2002. Geometric morphometrics in systematics. In: Macleod N, Forey P (eds). Morphology, Shape and Phylogenetics. Taylor and Francis, London.
Sarıkaya AD, Okutaner AY, Sarıkaya Ö. 2019. Geometric morphometric analysis of pronotum shape in two isolated populations of Dorcadion anatolicum Pic, 1900 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Turkey. Turk J Entomol 43 (3): 263-270. https://doi.org/10.16970/entoted.525860.
Smith-Pardo AH, Lupoli R, Benítez HA. 2025. Geometric morphometrics as a diagnostic tool for cryptic agricultural pests: Insights from Nezarini stink bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). J Entomol Sci 61 (2): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.18474/JES25-29.
Sumruayphol S, Chaiphongpachara T. 2019. Geometric morphometrics as a tool for three species identification of the firefly (Coleoptera: Lampyridae) in Thailand. Biodiversitas 20 (8): 2388-2395. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d200837.
Szara T, Kamiński MJ, Gündemir O. 2025. Exploring desert-adapted beetles with 3D geometric morphometrics. Sci Rep 15: 22824. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-05967-1.
Zhang M, Ruan Y, Wan X, Tong Y, Yang X, Bai M. 2019. Geometric morphometric analysis of the pronotum and elytron in stag beetles: Insight into its diversity and evolution. ZooKeys 833: 21. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.833.26164.