↓ Skip to main content

Wing morphometrics as a tool in species identification of forensically important blow flies of Thailand

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Wing morphometrics as a tool in species identification of forensically important blow flies of Thailand
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13071-017-2163-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Narin Sontigun, Kabkaew L. Sukontason, Barbara K. Zajac, Richard Zehner, Kom Sukontason, Anchalee Wannasan, Jens Amendt

Abstract

Correct species identification of blow flies is a crucial step for understanding their biology, which can be used not only for designing fly control programs, but also to determine the minimum time since death. Identification techniques are usually based on morphological and molecular characters. However, the use of classical morphology requires experienced entomologists for correct identification; while molecular techniques rely on a sound laboratory expertise and remain ambiguous for certain taxa. Landmark-based geometric morphometric analysis of insect wings has been extensively applied in species identification. However, few wing morphometric analyses of blow fly species have been published. We applied a landmark-based geometric morphometric analysis of wings for species identification of 12 medically and forensically important blow fly species of Thailand. Nineteen landmarks of each right wing of 372 specimens were digitised. Variation in wing size and wing shape was analysed and evaluated for allometric effects. The latter confirmed the influence of size on the shape differences between species and sexes. Wing shape variation among genera and species were analysed using canonical variates analysis followed by a cross-validation test. Wing size was not suitable for species discrimination, whereas wing shape can be a useful tool to separate taxa on both, genus and species level depending on the analysed taxa. It appeared to be highly reliable, especially for classifying Chrysomya species, but less robust for a species discrimination in the genera Lucilia and Hemipyrellia. Allometry did not affect species separation but had an impact on sexual shape dimorphism. A landmark-based geometric morphometric analysis of wings is a useful additional method for species discrimination. It is a simple, reliable and inexpensive method, but it can be time-consuming locating the landmarks for a large scale study and requires non-damaged wings for analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Master 12 11%
Researcher 9 8%
Lecturer 7 6%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 39 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 7%
Environmental Science 5 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 47 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,935,459
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#3,101
of 5,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,045
of 310,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#105
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,780 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.