Dental topography is a widely used method for quantifying dental morphology and inferring dietary ecology in animals. Differences in methodology have brought into question the comparability of different studies. Using primate mandibular second molars, we investigated the effects of mesh preparation parameters smoothing, cropping, and triangle count/mesh resolution (herein, resolution) on six topographic variables (Dirichlet normal energy, DNE; orientation patch count rotated, OPCR; relief index, RFI; ambient occlusion, portion de ciel visible, PCV; enamel surface area, SA; tooth size) to determine the effects of smoothing, cropping, and triangle count/resolution on topographic values and the relationship between these values and diet. All topographic metrics are sensitive to smoothing, cropping method, and triangle count/resolution. In general, smoothing decreased DNE, OPCR, RFI, and SA, increased PCV, and had no predictable effect on tooth size. Relative to the basin cut off (BCO) cropping method, the entire enamel cap (EEC) method increased RFI, SA, and size, and had no predictable effect on DNE and OPCR. Smoothing and cropping affected DNE/OPCR and surfaces with low triangle counts more than other metrics and surfaces with high triangle counts. There was a positive correlation between DNE/OPCR and triangle count/resolution, and the rate of increase was weakly correlated to diet. PCV tended to converge or decrease with increases in triangle count/resolution, and RFI, SA, and size converged. Finally, there appears to be no optimal triangle count or resolution for predicting diet from this sample, and constant triangle count appeared to perform better than constant resolution for predicting diet.
Keywords: Research Article; Biology and life sciences; Anatomy; Digestive system; Teeth; Medicine and health sciences; Head; Jaw; Nutrition; Diet; Organisms; Eukaryota; Animals; Vertebrates; Amniotes; Mammals; Primates; Prosimians; Physiology; Digestive physiology; Dentition; Ecology; Community ecology; Trophic interactions; Ecology and environmental sciences; Molars
Dental ecology, the study of interactions between an organism's teeth and its environment, provides a link between teeth, diet, and behavior [[
The relationship between tooth shape and diet is particularly strong in mammals, which chew their food prior to ingestion [[
While highly successful, quantifying relative shearing crest length has two issues: it can only be performed on teeth with preserved shearing crests. This is problematic for worn teeth, and species without prominent shearing crests (e.g. Daubentonia madagascariensis) [[
Four topographic metrics will be focused on here: Dirichlet normal energy (DNE), orientation patch count rotated (OPCR), relief index (RFI), and ambient occlusion (portion de ciel visible, PCV). DNE was first introduced by [[
Mathematically, RFI is the ratio of a tooth's 3D surface area (herein, surface area) to 2D projected area, where projected area is tooth size [[
Ambient occlusion, quantified through PCV, is the newest metric considered here, and has only recently been shown to be correlated to diet in primates: the claims made about PCV throughout this manuscript are tested and defended in [[
To perform dental topographic analyses, 2.5D or 3D scans of teeth or dental molds are acquired, commonly using tactile, laser, white light, or microcomputed tomography (microCT) scanners, at resolutions between 10–100 μm [[
In preparing surfaces, a region of interest is selected. The process of isolating this region is referred to as cropping. The two most popular methods involve 1) isolating the portion of the enamel cap superior to the lowest point on the central basin (herein, basin cut off, BCO), and 2) including the whole, outer surface of the enamel cap (herein, entire enamel cap, EEC). The first dental topographic studies employed 2.5D scanning methods, meaning the entire dental crown was not imaged [[
After surfaces are cropped, they are often resampled. Some dental topographic values, such as DNE and OPC(R) appear to be sensitive to triangle count, while others, like RFI and PCV, appear to be relatively insensitive to triangle count [[
Once a high enough triangle count has been reached, RFI should be unaffected by triangle count, as it will only cause small changes to surface area and tooth size [[
Usually, teeth are resampled to a constant triangle count, as is done with DNE and OPCR, but this is potentially problematic. Larger teeth have lots of features, sometimes more than smaller teeth [[
This problem can be addressed by increasing triangle counts for all teeth, but this is met with another set of problems. First, small teeth (e.g., Microcebus) and teeth scanned with lower resolution scanners (e.g. the NextEngine scanner,
In DNE studies, teeth are usually simplified to 10,000 triangles, but there is no biologically based reason this number was chosen [[
Another potential solution is to analyze teeth at a constant resolution (e.g., 10 triangles/mm
After cropping and resampling, surfaces are generally smoothed to reduce noise and small features. Different programs employ different smoothing algorithms, all of which can significantly affect dental topographic values [[
The main aims of this study are to:
- investigate the effects of smoothing and cropping, and see if these effects change with triangle count/resolution.
- test, separately, the relationship between tooth shape and diet at each triangle count and resolution To see if this relationship changes with triangle count and resolution. To see if it is better to hold triangle count or resolution constant.
- investigate how the relationship between tooth shape and diet changes with triangle count/resolution, Is there an optimal triangle count or resolution for correlating tooth shape to diet? Does the change in DNE/OPCR with triangle count/resolution predict diet better than just comparing DNE/OPCR at a constant triangle count/resolution, as suggested by [
45 ]?
Four dental topographic metrics (DNE, OPCR, RFI, and PCV) are considered, along with two size metrics (surface area and tooth size). While sometimes correlated to each other [[
As dental topography estimates diet through tooth shape, we will investigate how this relationship is affected by triangle count, resolution, cropping, and smoothing. Shape is hypothesized to be more correlated to diet at higher triangle counts/resolutions. No hypotheses are made concerning the relationship between tooth shape and diet as cropping method and smoothing change.
Our sample consisted of 209 primate lower second molars, representing two paraphyletic groups (Prosimii and Platyrrhini), 35 genera, 54 species, and five diets. Unsmoothed surface files of the teeth were downloaded from
Downloaded tooth surface files were already cropped using the EEC cropping method, but were oriented upside-down. Surfaces were uploaded into Geomagic Studio and rotated 180° so the occlusal surface was pointed in the positive z-direction. Teeth were viewed from a lateral side and the Trim with Plane option was used to produce cropped surfaces for the BCO cropping method. This of course means EEC teeth have a higher maximum triangle count than their BCO counterparts. Surfaces were exported and saved in PLY file format.
Two datasets were produced for this study: one where surface files were standardized for triangle count and one where they were standardized for resolution. For the triangle count dataset, surface files were uploaded into AVIZO 8.1, replicated 10 times each, and replications were separately down sampled to 100, 200, 500, 1,000, 2,000, 5,000, 10,000, 20,000, 50,000, and 100,000 triangles, respectively. Each simplified surface was created from the original, unaltered surface downloaded from MorphoSource, and not from an already simplified surface (i.e. the 100,000 triangle surface was not re-simplified to create the 50,000 triangle surface). These values were chosen to encompass triangle counts lower and higher than triangle counts traditionally used [[
For the resolution dataset, teeth were first cropped using either the EEC or BCO cropping method, and the surface area of the cropped surface was measured in MorphoTester [[
After surfaces were simplified to the desired number of triangles, surfaces were saved in PLY file format. The surfaces were then smoothed in Avizo using the smooth surface command (lambda = 0.6, iterations = 100) [[
Four dental topographic metrics were taken per tooth. Three (DNE, OPCR, and RFI) were taken with MorphoTester [[
RFI=ln(sqrt(surfaceareatoothsize))
to rescale the data on RFI. Here, DNE is reported without implicit fair smoothing and with 1% outlier removal (i.e. reporting 99% in Energy x area in Outlier removal). This way of calculating DNE is referred to as DNE1 in [[
All dental topographic metrics could not be calculated for all surfaces due to program limitations and or destruction of the surface during the smoothing process (Fig 1). This was particularly true for extremely low-resolution teeth, as the effects of smoothing on these surfaces can be severe. For example, one Nycticebus bengalensis specimen (AMNH-183827, EEC, resolution = 1 triangle/mm, triangle count = 28) had a surface area of 0.001 and a DNE of 294.244 when the tooth was not smoothed, but during the smoothing process became oversimplified and MorphoTester reported size of 0, meaning RFI, the ratio of surface area to size, could not be calculated. When topographic analyses could not be calculated, that data point was omitted from analyses.
Statistical analyses were performed using R v3.4.2 and RStudio v1.0.136 [[
The effects of smoothing on all dental topographic metrics (DNE, OPCR, RFI, and PCV), surface area, and tooth size were investigated at different triangle counts and resolutions. Surface area and tooth size were investigated as they are used to calculate RFI and tooth size is loosely correlated with diet. The effects of smoothing were quantified by calculating the percent difference between the smoothed and unsmoothed surfaces (e.g. (DNE_smoothed-DNE_unsmoothed) / DNE_smoothed*100). Positive values indicate an increase in topographic value due to smoothing, negative, a decrease.
All data (triangle count and resolution, EEC and BCO) was pooled and divided into 4, roughly equally sized categories based on triangle count: low (< 210 triangles, n = 2101), medium-low (210–1799 triangles, n = 1973), medium-high (1800–9999 triangles, n = 1979), and high (10000 + triangles, n = 2060). This was done because surfaces with low triangle count can experience more erratic changes in shape due preprocessing methodology (c.f. [[
Density plots were created of the percent difference in topographic values between the smoothed and unsmoothed surfaces. The probability that a percent difference was greater than zero was calculated, along with the mean, standard deviation, median, and the 2.5% and 97.5% quantiles to determine the magnitude and consistency of the effects of smoothing. The probability that a percent difference was greater than zero is the p-value indicating whether the percent difference is less than zero. For example, a probability of 0.001 indicates smoothing decreases the topographic value (p = 0.001), while a probability of 0.998 indicates smoothing increases the topographic value (p = 0.002).
The same protocol was followed to investigate the effects of cropping. Percent difference was calculated as (EEC-BCO)/EEC*100. While preprocessing the data, there were some instances where using the BCO brought the total number of triangles below 100,000. In these instances, the EEC 100,000 value was removed from the dataset for the cropping analysis, as there was no corresponding BCO value to compare it to. As PCV was not calculated for the BCO surfaces, it was not included in this analysis.
Paired Mann-Whitney U-tests were not performed to investigate differences due to smoothing and/or cropping, as they compare the central tendencies of the two groups, and we are interested in the relative magnitude of the effect smoothing and cropping has on the topographic results. This can be learned from density distributions of the percent differences, but not from Mann-Whitney U-tests.
In [[
Boxplots were created to visualize the differences in dental topographic values for each diet. Separate boxplots were created for each triangle count, resolution, cropping method, and smoothing method (herein, groups) and clade. Each topographic metric was plotted separately, creating 440 boxplots. Averages and standard deviations are reported for each group individually.
One-way ANOVAs and Tukey Honest Significant Difference (HSD) tests were run for each clade and group to determine if topographic metrics varied with dietary category, and if so, how. Linear discriminant function analyses (DFAs) were run for each clade and group to investigate the ability of topographic metrics at predicting diet using the lda function, part of the MASS package, in R [[
As some topographic variables are correlated to one another [[
Linear plots with 95% confidence intervals were constructed of topographic metrics against the natural log of triangle count and resolution for Prosimian, Platyrrhine, EEC, BCO, smoothed and unsmoothed surfaces, separately, using ggplot2 and gridExtra [[
It has been suggested that, for OPCR, the slope of OPCR vs. triangle count curve may be able to distinguish between dietary categories more accurately than the OPCR values themselves [[
When calculating slopes, some very small teeth (e.g. Microcebus griseorufus AMNH-174498) had no reported changes in SA and occlusal area (size) for the 7 highest resolutions, meaning the slopes for these variables was zero, as the data produced horizontal lines. This does not imply there was no change in SA or size, but is a limitation of MorphoTester, which reports at an accuracy of 0.0005 mm
ANOVAs indicate whether there are differences between categories and Tukey HSDs discern which categories are different. To visualize how the differences in dental topographic values, or lack thereof, between dietary categories varied with triangle count and resolution, the p-values indicating the probability of a difference in dental topographic values between each dietary category was plotted against the natural log of triangle count/resolution. If all comparisons between dietary categories yield a larger number of high p-values, this shows there are few differences in dental topographic values between dietary categories at that triangle count/resolution. If the comparisons yield more low p-values, this indicates there are more differences between dietary categories, and this may be a better triangle count/resolution to use for future studies. This is a qualitative, visual way of determining if there is an optimal triangle count or resolution for differentiating teeth into different dietary categories.
Since the point of dental topographic studies is not only to differentiate teeth based on diet, but to predict diet based on dental morphology, the same graphs were created for p-values from the DFAs. If there were consistently low p-values for a given triangle count or resolution, this would indicate these triangle counts and/or resolutions were better at predicting diet from tooth shape.
Raw data can be found in S1 Table. Reducing triangle count and lowering resolution can cause drastic changes in the digital representation of the tooth. These effects are exacerbated by smoothing, particularly at lower resolutions (Fig 1). Small teeth are more affected by smoothing, for a constant resolution, than larger teeth, because they are made up of fewer triangles. Smoothing appears to affect large and small teeth equally when triangle count is held constant.
Smoothing affected topographic variables differently. In general, at low triangle counts (< 210), smoothing caused drastic, inconsistent changes in topographic metrics, as is evidenced by the large means/medians and wide confidence intervals (Fig 2, Table 1). This is because, at low triangle counts, the shape of the surface can change drastically with smoothing (Fig 1). Therefore, teeth with low triangle counts and that are subjected to different smoothing protocols should not be compared.
Table 1: Descriptive statistics for density curves in Fig 1, showing the effects of smoothing. Table 1: Both mean and median are reported as the curves sometimes do not follow a normal distribution. Probabilities < 0.05 indicate a statistically significant result that smoothing decreases the topographic metric (p < 0.05), and probabilities > 0.95 indicate a statistically significant result that smoothing increases the topographic metric (p > 0.95). The 2.5% and 97.5% quantiles are given to represent the 95% confidence interval. Triangle counts of L = low (< 210), ML = medium-low (210–1799), MH = medium-high (1800–9999), and H = high (10000+). Bold p-values are significant for greater than zero, bold and italics for less than zero.
Topographic metric Triangle count Sample size Probability greater than zero Mean Stdev 2.5% quantile Median 97.5% quantile DNE L 2079 0.2097 -914.4 13627.4 -842.9 -86 93.2 ML 2007 0.001 -106.9 60.4 -267.5 -92.3 -24 MH 2019 0.001 -96.2 51.2 -230.4 -80.4 -33 H 2104 0 -240 298.8 -1247.6 -132.4 -32.9 OPCR L 2117 0.2518 -36.2 62.2 -140.7 -43.1 94.8 ML 2007 0.003 -56.8 34.3 -147.1 -50 -11.8 MH 2019 0 -133.1 87.1 -356.2 -105.7 -30.1 H 2103 0 -332.3 418.3 -1686.7 -181.3 -38.7 RFI L 2067 0.1892 -28 4585.3 -985.8 -32.6 1497.2 ML 2007 0.0025 -23.4 21.4 -81.9 -17.9 -3.7 MH 2019 0.0367 -3.5 2.8 -10.8 -2.9 0.2 H 2104 0.1012 -1.8 2.3 -9 -1 0.4 PCV L 1009 0.5857 -5.1 131.7 -18.5 2.5 14.6 ML 1004 0.993 9.3 3.7 2.3 9.2 16.5 MH 1030 0.999 3.8 1.6 1.4 3.6 7.3 H 1092 0.9908 3.7 3.1 0.2 2.5 10.4 Surface area L 2096 0.0663 -12208.1 106131.5 -56341 -22.8 5 ML 2007 0.1375 -5.9 7 -20.7 -4.5 3.1 MH 2019 0.1902 -1.3 1.6 -5.4 -1 1 H 2104 0.1407 -1.6 2.5 -9.5 -0.7 0.3 Size L 2104 0.5238 -9221.1 61256 -116109 1.7 17.4 ML 2007 0.9696 7.2 5.8 0 6.7 18.4 MH 2019 0.9277 1.4 1.3 -0.2 1 4.3 H 2104 0.4658 0 0.3 -0.6 0 0.9
At high triangle counts (10000+), the effects of smoothing decrease. Relative to lower triangle counts, the mean/median percent changes approach zero and the confidence intervals decrease, indicating the effects of smoothing are smaller and more predictable. At these triangle counts, DNE and OPCR always decrease with smoothing (p = 0; Table 1). DNE and OPCR are most affected by smoothing, with the mean/median effects being a 240/132% and 332/181% decrease in DNE/OPCR, respectively (Table 1). DNE and OPCR decrease because smoothing attempts to reduce angles between triangles, causing the surface to appear less "curvy" and complex. The magnitude of change due to smoothing is equal to or much greater than the percent difference between dietary categories in primates [[
At a triangle count of 10000+, RFI, PCV, SA and size are all less affected by smoothing. Smoothing decreases RFI and SA in 89.88% and 85.93% of the cases, and the probabilities of an increase in RFI and SA are not negligible (p = 0.1012 and 0.1407). Smoothing attempts to reduce local shape variability, which tends to cause bumpier surfaces to become more regular and decrease SA. Since RFI is proportional to SA, this generally causes RFI to decrease as well. Small increases in surface area can occur, and changes in surface area are smaller at high triangle counts. Smoothing increases PCV (p = 0.0092), and is just as likely to cause tooth size to increase or decrease, but by a small amount (95% confidence interval: -0.6% to 0.9%).
The magnitudes of the mean/median percent changes in RFI, PCV, SA and size due to smoothing are 1.8/1%, 3.7/2.5%, 1.6/0.7%, and 0/0%. The 95% confidence intervals for all metrics are relatively small, being less than 10.5%, meaning changes in these metrics due to smoothing are small and consistent. As such, our sample suggests RFI, PCV, SA, and size values gathered using different smoothing protocols can be directly compared. Should a transformation be needed, we have provided equations for transforming smoothed values to unsmoothed ones for each cropping method, triangle count, and resolution (see S3 Table). We also provide the coefficient of correlation, p-value, and test statistics so the strength of the correlation can be judged for each situation. However, we stress transformations should only be used when it is truly not possible to gather the data in a standardized manner, and should not be used for DNE or OPCR.
As these results encompass teeth cropped using both cropping methods (EEC and BCO) and across two major primate clades (platyrrhines and prosimians), we believe they are generalizable to all primate dental topographic studies.
As with smoothing, cropping affected topographic metrics differently. SA and tooth size were affected most at low triangle counts, but at triangle counts of 210+, the effects of triangle count were small (Table 2, Fig 3). This is because representing surfaces with such few triangles creates an unrealistic digital representation of the tooth and introduces a large level of error (Fig 1, [[
Table 2: Statistics for density curves in Fig 2, showing the difference between the EEC and BCO cropping methods. Table 2: Both mean and median are reported as the curves sometimes do not follow a normal distribution. Probabilities < 0.05 indicate a statistically significant result that smoothing decreases the topographic metric (p < 0.05), and probabilities > 0.95 indicate a statistically significant result that smoothing increases the topographic metric (p > 0.95). The 2.5% and 97.5% quantiles are given to represent the 95% confidence interval. Triangle counts of L = low (< 210), ML = medium-low (210–1799), MH = medium-high (1800–9999), and H = high (10000+). Bold p-values are significant for greater than zero, bold and italics for less than zero.
Topographic metric Triangle count Sample size Percent greater than zero Mean Stdev 2.5% quantile Median 97.5% quantile DNE L 2000 0.837 14.9 599.7 -50.2 38.9 100 ML 2012 0.7381 15 27.2 -34.5 18.2 68.1 MH 1988 0.6398 4.5 24.8 -54.5 11.2 39.8 H 2230 0.7552 17 32.9 -53 18.7 84.8 OPCR L 1984 0.6003 11.3 42.2 -48.2 6.4 84.9 ML 2012 0.3434 -10.5 22.1 -64 -5.7 25.9 MH 1988 0.3732 -10.9 25.4 -71 -5.6 29.3 H 2229 0.6348 9 35.7 -64.9 6.2 87.4 RFI L 1970 0.9919 51.5 32.2 10.8 49.9 100.8 ML 2012 0.9985 39.9 15.8 12.8 38.4 74.1 MH 1988 0.9985 35.7 12.8 12.8 35.5 58.5 H 2230 0.9991 36.9 12.5 13.2 36.6 60 Surface area L 1987 0.9472 -458.1 6732.9 -305.6 35.8 79.7 ML 2012 0.9985 34.3 8.9 16.5 34.2 50.6 MH 1988 0.9985 32.7 8 16.4 32.8 46.2 H 2230 0.9991 33.8 8 16.9 33.7 47.6 Size L 1993 0.7336 -784 8899.5 -1611 5.5 58.1 ML 2012 0.9707 6.7 4.7 -0.3 6.2 16.6 MH 1988 0.9945 5.7 3.5 0.7 5.2 13.8 H 2230 0.9991 5.3 3.5 0.7 4.4 13.6
Both DNE and OPCR were highly affected by cropping. Regardless of triangle count, the average change due to difference in cropping methods was close to zero, with the mean/medians ranging from 4.5–38.9% for DNE and -10.9 to 11.3% for OPCR (Table 2). At high triangle counts, the 95% confidence interval were wide at -53% to 84.8% for DNE and -64.9% to 87.4% for OPCR, implying that, although the average effect is close to zero, it is not consistently so. Consistent with some previous studies [[
As the BCO method uses a subset of the triangles used by the EEC method, at higher triangle counts (210+), teeth had higher SA, sizes, and RFIs when cropped with the EEC compared to the BCO (p = 0.0009–0.0293). The 95% confidence intervals were narrower than for DNE and OPCR, being 13.2–60%, 16.9–47.6%, and 0.7–13.6% for RFI, SA and size, respectively, at triangle counts of 10000+. We do not recommend RFI and SA values gathered with the EEC and BCO cropping methods be directly compared. First, because the confidence intervals are wide, and second, when EEC is used, RFI and SA are descriptors of tooth shape and size, but when BCO are used, they are descriptors of cusp shape and size, respectively. Since they are measuring different aspects of dental morphology, they should not be directly compared. As before, we have provided transformations for all topographic variables in cases where original data cannot be accessed (S3 Table).
The two five-way ANOVAs were run investigating the effect of diet, clade, smoothing, cropping, and triangle count/resolution on the topographic metrics, one for triangle count and resolution, separately. There was a significant relationship between all individual factors and all topographic metrics, except for triangle count and size (Table 3, Table 4). Nearly all higher-level interactions were significant with DNE, OPCR, RFI and PCV, but few were with SA and size. Because of this, subsequent analyses were carried out for each group and clade, separately.
Table 3: Five-way ANOVA testing the influence of diet, clade, smoothing, cropping, and triangle count on dental topographic values. Table 3: In the factor column, d = diet, g = group (clade), s = smoothing, cm = cropping method, tc = triangle count. F-values are given followed by p-values in parentheses. P-values of 0 are ≤0.0005. Bold and italics indicates p < 0.05.
Factor DF DNE OPCR RFI PCV Surface area Size d 4 127.282 (0) 291.35 (0) 1479.95 (0) 143.589 (0) 1832.089 (0) 1634.25 (0) g 1 748.236 (0) 779.502 (0) 1074.784 (0) 170.662 (0) 1457.093 (0) 778.898 (0) s 1 4965.285 (0) 5104.69 (0) 1266.728 (0) 846.061 (0) 16.474 (0) 14.177 (0) cm 1 1428.359 (0) 1632.55 (0) 24017.689 (0) 2139.23 (0) 1670.42 (0) 25.151 (0) tc 1 28044.369 (0) 26495.271 (0) 761.158 (0) --- 33.647 (0) 0.728 (0.394) d x g 3 83.49 (0) 28.457 (0) 18.412 (0) 21.855 (0) 1029.752 (0) 763.577 (0) d x s 4 165.929 (0) 197.858 (0) 5.858 (0) 0.696 (0.595) 1.013 (0.399) 0.838 (0.501) g x s 1 624.648 (0) 734.053 (0) 2.652 (0.103) 16.052 (0) 0.624 (0.43) 0.654 (0.419) d x cm 4 111.901 (0) 115.244 (0) 352.001 (0) --- 82.613 (0) 2.048 (0.085) g x cm 1 279.544 (0) 526.494 (0) 204.768 (0) --- 99.276 (0) 0.081 (0.775) s x cm 1 1501.917 (0) 1913.089 (0) 15.826 (0) --- 0.077 (0.782) 0.004 (0.951) d x tc 4 549.026 (0) 616.228 (0) 0.729 (0.572) 4.532 (0.001) 2.346 (0.052) 0.789 (0.532) g x tc 1 2506.026 (0) 2485.307 (0) 18.654 (0) 82.1 (0) 1.924 (0.165) 1.13 (0.288) s x tc 1 13488.688 (0) 14179.981 (0) 224.365 (0) 5.257 (0.022) 0.361 (0.548) 5.315 (0.021) cm x tc 1 7690.758 (0) 8361.752 (0) 7.884 (0.005) --- 5.583 (0.018) 0.053 (0.818) d x g x s 3 43.325 (0) 21.726 (0) 1.462 (0.223) 3.276 (0.02) 0.288 (0.834) 0.311 (0.817) d x g x cm 3 41.085 (0) 35.687 (0) 12.162 (0) --- 41.04 (0) 0.212 (0.888) d x s x cm 4 133.977 (0) 136.898 (0) 0.629 (0.642) --- 0.007 (1) 0.008 (1) g x s x cm 1 340.5 (0) 558.468 (0) 0.555 (0.456) --- 0.09 (0.765) 0.016 (0.899) d x g x tc 3 204.386 (0) 88.571 (0) 1.048 (0.37) 7.948 (0) 1.439 (0.229) 0.393 (0.758) d x s x tc 4 528.5 (0) 408.586 (0) 7.25 (0) 9.875 (0) 0.396 (0.811) 0.312 (0.87) g x s x tc 1 2279.226 (0) 2474.083 (0) 2.545 (0.111) 11.224 (0.001) 0.312 (0.577) 0.267 (0.606) d x cm x tc 4* 483.212 (0) 360.633 (0) 2.213 (0.065) 0.546 (0.651) 0.288 (0.886) 0.027 (0.999) g x cm x tc 1 1488.442 (0) 2187.61 (0) 7.293 (0.007) --- 1.509 (0.219) 0.009 (0.925) s x cm x tc 1 7874.414 (0) 8845.623 (0) 55.5 (0) --- 1.979 (0.16) 0.001 (0.977) d x g x s x cm 3 42.069 (0) 35.039 (0) 0.027 (0.994) --- 0.007 (0.999) 0.009 (0.999) d x g x s x tc 3 126.941 (0) 77.252 (0) 0.244 (0.866) --- 0.028 (0.994) 0.114 (0.952) d x g x cm x tc 3 162.632 (0) 117.446 (0) 0.418 (0.74) --- 0.19 (0.903) 0.015 (0.998) d x s x cm x tc 4 509.243 (0) 401.756 (0) 0.493 (0.741) --- 0.139 (0.968) 0.004 (1) g x s x cm x tc 1 1528.631 (0) 2229.395 (0) 1.765 (0.184) --- 0.427 (0.513) 0 (0.996) d x g x s x cm x tc 3 156.011 (0) 109.876 (0) 0.596 (0.618) --- 0.027 (0.994) 0.003 (1)
1 *degree of freedom for PCV is 3
Table 4: Five-way ANOVA testing the influence of diet, clade, smoothing, cropping, and resolution on dental topographic values. Table 4: In the factor column, d = diet, g = group (clade), s = smoothing, cm = cropping method, r = resolution. F-values are given followed by p-values in parentheses. P-values of 0 are ≤0.0005. Bold and italics indicates p < 0.05.
Factor DF DNE OPCR RFI PCV Surface area Size d 4 181.748 (0) 289.563 (0) 319.835 (0) 67.566 (0) 1590.518 (0) 1453.767 (0) g 1 450.227 (0) 469.955 (0) 501.109 (0) 151.738 (0) 1323.522 (0) 728.294 (0) s 1 1559.974 (0) 2332.933 (0) 480.694 (0) 263.52 (0) 79.597 (0) 10.741 (0.001) cm 1 532.537 (0) 123.84 (0) 10470.333 (0) 1190.934 (0) 1479.428 (0) 27.187 (0) r 1 12326.275 (0) 14984.379 (0) 431.841 (0) --- 72.013 (0) 13.619 (0) d x g 3 49.083 (0) 102.496 (0) 9.5 (0) 3.136 (0.024) 928.815 (0) 701.657 (0) d x s 4 62.25 (0) 101.599 (0) 25.699 (0) 4.496 (0.001) 0.202 (0.938) 2.432 (0.045) g x s 1 210.193 (0) 266.711 (0) 1.568 (0.211) 0.071 (0.789) 0 (0.988) 1.983 (0.159) d x cm 4 14.507 (0) 7.342 (0) 135.535 (0) --- 82.214 (0) 1.996 (0.092) g x cm 1 34.696 (0) 17.033 (0) 80.184 (0) --- 103.511 (0) 0 (0.987) s x cm 1 59.832 (0) 61.021 (0) 251.953 (0) --- 0.055 (0.814) 0.365 (0.546) d x r 4 284.535 (0) 410.837 (0) 12.656 (0) 2.786 (0.025) 0.185 (0.946) 0.94 (0.44) g x r 1 935.962 (0) 685.373 (0) 0.067 (0.796) 31.772 (0) 0.46 (0.498) 0.578 (0.447) s x r 1 2686.977 (0) 3747.154 (0) 115.241 (0) 8.837 (0.003) 23.518 (0) 4.75 (0.029) cm x r 1 625.949 (0) 240.716 (0) 106.635 (0) --- 0.002 (0.965) 0.084 (0.772) d x g x s 3 34.597 (0) 53.405 (0) 0.706 (0.548) 1.084 (0.354) 0.049 (0.986) 1.256 (0.288) d x g x cm 3 1.921 (0.124) 2.517 (0.056) 2.877 (0.035) --- 43.109 (0) 0.252 (0.86) d x s x cm 4 7.249 (0) 4.023 (0.003) 2.671 (0.03) --- 0.128 (0.972) 0.067 (0.992) g x s x cm 1 24.853 (0) 17.916 (0) 0.03 (0.863) --- 0.004 (0.95) 0.001 (0.97) d x g x r 3 96.678 (0) 146.756 (0) 0.734 (0.531) 7.455 (0) 0.014 (0.998) 0.482 (0.695) d x s x r 4 113.634 (0) 143.739 (0) 8.436 (0) 2.116 (0.076) 0.027 (0.999) 0.942 (0.438) g x s x r 1 522.798 (0) 381.391 (0) 0.373 (0.541) 0.004 (0.949) 0.038 (0.845) 0.82 (0.365) d x cm x r 4* 37.636 (0) 14.055 (0) 1.302 (0.267) 0.343 (0.794) 0.041 (0.997) 0.027 (0.999) g x cm x r 1 89.096 (0) 30.216 (0) 0.402 (0.526) --- 0.003 (0.954) 0.002 (0.963) s x cm x r 1 252.596 (0) 101.944 (0) 94.314 (0) --- 0 (0.997) 0.163 (0.686) d x g x s x cm 3 6.638 (0) 4.024 (0.007) 2.298 (0.075) --- 0.043 (0.988) 0.018 (0.997) d x g x s x r 3 67.517 (0) 88.332 (0) 0.183 (0.908) --- 0.034 (0.992) 0.492 (0.688) d x g x cm x r 3 12.826 (0) 4.657 (0.003) 1.123 (0.338) --- 0.016 (0.997) 0.006 (0.999) d x s x cm x r 4 14.292 (0) 5.796 (0) 0.919 (0.452) --- 0.067 (0.992) 0.029 (0.998) g x s x cm x r 1 77.192 (0) 30.204 (0) 0.071 (0.79) --- 0.024 (0.878) 0.001 (0.973) d x g x s x cm x r 3 9.998 (0) 6.996 (0) 0.871 (0.455) --- 0.03 (0.993) 0.007 (0.999)
2 *degrees of freedom for PCV is 3
These differences in dietary categories were visualized with boxplots. 44 sets of 10 boxplots were created: four sets of 10 (EEC smoothed, EEC unsmoothed, BCO smoothed, BCO unsmoothed) for each topographic metric for triangle count and resolution separately. No boxplots were created for PCV using the BCO cropping method as those data were not gathered. Only 6 sets of boxplots are shown here, one set of 10 for DNE, OPCR, RFI, PCV, SA, and size (EEC, smoothed; Figs 4–9): all other boxplots can be found in the Supplementary Information section (S1 Fig). Descriptive statistics (sample size, mean, and standard deviation) were calculated for each topographic metric, subdivided by group and clade. As the descriptive statistics do not provide any new information that cannot be visualized by the boxplots, all descriptive statistics have been placed in the Supplementary Information section (S4 Table).
At the highest triangle counts (
As with DNE, the relationship between diet and OPCR changes with resolution. The relationship between OPCR and diet remains relatively constant once a triangle count of 10,000 is reached, and roughly holds constant regardless of smoothing or cropping method (Fig 5). However, as with DNE, unsmoothed BCO seems to be providing a unique set of results (S1 Fig, S4 Table). For both DNE and OPCR, when resolution, and not triangle count, is held constant, the relationship between DNE/OPCR and diet is consistent regardless of smoothing or cropping method once a high enough resolution is reached (about 5 triangles/mm
Regardless of triangle count/resolution and clade, RFI always had the same relationship with diet: insectivores had the highest RFI values, followed by folivores, omnivores, frugivores, and then hard object feeders (Fig 6, S1 Fig, S4 Table). The same is true for PCV, which could be because of the previously reported high correlation between RFI and PCV [[
Both SA and tooth size showed the same pattern of results regardless of smoothing and cropping method (Figs 8 and 9). This is not surprising given the relatively low level of sensitivity of SA and size to smoothing and cropping methods (Figs 2 and 3). Within prosimians, folivores, hard object feeders, omnivores, and frugivores tend to have the largest teeth, and insectivores tend to have smaller teeth. In platyrrhines, folivores have the largest teeth, followed by frugivores and hard object feeders, and then omnivores.
One-way ANOVAs were run for each group and clade, separately, to investigate the relationship between tooth shape and size and diet. As it is not feasible to present the results of all 880 ANOVAs in this paper, results are presented in the Supplementary Information section (S5 Table) and summarized here. Out of the 440 ANOVAs where triangle count was held constant, 421 (95.9% of the ANOVAs) yielded p-values below 0.05, 408 (92.7%) yielded p-values less than 0.01, and 373 (84.8%) yielded p-values less than 0.0005. This suggests the means of DNE, OPCR, RFI, PCV, SA, and size were significantly different between dietary categories when smoothing, cropping method, and triangle count were held constant. When resolution was held constant, only 424 (96.4%) of the ANOVAs yielded p-values less than 0.05, 419 (95.2%) yielded p-values greater than 0.01, and 399 (90.7%) yielded p-values greater than 0.0005 (Table 5). Similar to triangle count, this suggests the means of DNE, OPCR, RFI, PCV, SA, and size were significantly different between dietary categories when smoothing, cropping method, and resolution were held constant. Additionally, triangle count and resolution yielded approximately the same number of ANOVAs with significant results.
Table 5: 880 one-way ANOVAs were run to test for differences due to dietary category, one for each combination of topographic metric, smoothing, cropping method, and triangle count/resolution. Table 5: ANOVAs are divided between those run keeping triangle count constant (
p < 0.05 p < 0.01 p < 0.0005 Triangle Count DNE 430 (97.7%) 426 (96.8%) 416 (94.5%) OPCR 432 (98.2%) 425 (96.6%) 406 (92.3%) RFI 440 (100%) 440 (100%) 438 (99.5%) PCV 439 (99.8%) 437 (99.3%) 433 (98.4%) SA 440 (100%) 440 (100%) 440 (100%) Size 440 (100%) 440 (100%) 440 (100%) Resolution DNE 430 (97.7%) 428 (97.3%) 426 (96.8%) OPCR 440 (100%) 440 (100%) 438 (99.5%) RFI 436 (99.1%) 435 (98.9%) 433 (98.4%) PCV 438 (99.5%) 436 (99.1%) 433 (98.4%) SA 440 (100%) 440 (100%) 440 (100%) Size 440 (100%) 440 (100%) 440 (100%)
Therefore, average DNE, OPCR, RFI, PCV, SA, and tooth size nearly always differed between dietary categories in regardless of clade, smoothing, cropping method, and triangle count/resolution, if those factors are held constant. Further, SA and tooth size seemed to perform as good, if not better, than DNE and OPCR (Table 5).
To determine which dietary categories were statistically different, Tukey HSD tests were run in combination with each of the one-way ANOVAS. Feasibility issues preclude the presentation of the 880 Tukey HSD tests in the text, but results are presented in the Supplementary Information section (S5 and S6 Tables, S2 Fig) and summarized here in Tables 6 and 7. Regardless of triangle count, resolution, or p-value, there was always a significant difference between insectivores and folivores in SA and size. In the constant resolution, but not constant triangle count dataset, there was also always a significant difference between these groups in OPCR. There was also never or nearly never a difference in SA or size between insectivores and hard object feeders and omnivores, and between hard object feeders and frugivores in tooth size. Other notable results in the triangle count dataset include nearly consistent differences in RFI in the insectivore-frugivore, insectivore-hard object feeder, insectivore-omnivore, folivore-frugivore, folivore-hard object feeder, and omnivore-hard object feeder, and a nearly consistent difference in PCV between insectivores and all other primates. For the resolution dataset, nearly consistent differences existed in OPCR between folivores and omnivores, and similar results were seen in differences in RFI.
Table 6: Sum of number of Tukey HSD comparisons that yielded significant results (p < 0.05, 0.01, and 0.005) followed by percent of all Tukey HSD tests in parentheses for the triangle count dataset. Table 6: P-values adjusted for multiple comparisons using the TukeyHSD() function in R. ins = insectivore, fol = folivore, frug = frugivore, omn = omnivore, and hof = hard object feeder. Regardless of clade, smoothing, cropping method, or triangle count, tooth size never differed between hard object feeders and frugivores, and surface area and tooth size never differentiate between insectivores and hard object feeders, and nearly never differentiated between insectivores and omnivores.
ins-fol ins-frug ins-hof ins-omn fol-frug fol-hof fol-omn omn-frug omn-hof hof-frug DNE Sample size 40 40 40 40 80 80 80 80 80 80 p < 0.05 14 (35%) 33 (82.5%) 34 (85%) 31 (77.5%) 51 (63.8%) 63 (78.8%) 18 (22.5%) 37 (46.3%) 49 (61.3%) 24 (30%) p < 0.01 12 (30%) 33 (82.5%) 32 (80%) 29 (72.5%) 48 (60%) 53 (66.3%) 13 (16.3%) 27 (33.8%) 42 (52.5%) 20 (25%) p < 0.0005 7 (17.5%) 30 (75%) 26 (65%) 25 (62.5%) 26 (32.5%) 42 (52.5%) 5 (6.3%) 13 (16.3%) 25 (31.3%) 20 (25%) OPCR Sample size 40 40 40 40 80 80 80 80 80 80 p < 0.05 6 (15%) 26 (65%) 15 (37.5%) 7 (17.5%) 31 (38.8%) 44 (55%) 24 (30%) 21 (26.3%) 36 (45%) 36 (45%) p < 0.01 2 (5%) 21 (52.5%) 12 (30%) 6 (15%) 27 (33.8%) 43 (53.8%) 11 (13.8%) 13 (16.3%) 29 (36.3%) 31 (38.8%) p < 0.0005 0 (0%) 14 (35%) 8 (20%) 2 (5%) 18 (22.5%) 33 (41.3%) 4 (5%) 6 (7.5%) 20 (25%) 18 (22.5%) RFI Sample size 40 40 40 40 80 80 80 80 80 80 p < 0.05 24 (60%) 40 (100%) 39 (97.5%) 38 (95%) 78 (97.5%) 77 (96.3%) 47 (58.8%) 58 (72.5%) 74 (92.5%) 37 (46.3%) p < 0.01 20 (50%) 39 (97.5%) 38 (95%) 38 (95%) 77 (96.3%) 76 (95%) 26 (32.5%) 56 (70%) 72 (90%) 37 (46.3%) p < 0.0005 20 (50%) 39 (97.5%) 37 (92.5%) 38 (95%) 76 (95%) 74 (92.5%) 18 (22.5%) 34 (42.5%) 39 (48.8%) 35 (43.8%) PCV Sample size 20 20 20 20 40 40 40 40 40 40 p < 0.05 19 (95%) 18 (90%) 17 (85%) 18 (90%) 18 (45%) 32 (80%) 6 (15%) 27 (67.5%) 35 (87.5%) 32 (80%) p < 0.01 19 (95%) 17 (85%) 17 (85%) 15 (75%) 14 (35%) 32 (80%) 4 (10%) 23 (57.5%) 34 (85%) 31 (77.5%) p < 0.0005 13 (65%) 15 (75%) 17 (85%) 13 (65%) 12 (30%) 28 (70%) 2 (5%) 17 (42.5%) 32 (80%) 27 (67.5%) SA Sample size 40 40 40 40 80 80 80 80 80 80 p < 0.05 40 (100%) 40 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 40 (50%) 40 (50%) 78 (97.5%) 40 (50%) 40 (50%) 34 (42.5%) p < 0.01 40 (100%) 8 (20%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 40 (50%) 40 (50%) 78 (97.5%) 40 (50%) 24 (30%) 17 (21.3%) p < 0.0005 40 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 40 (50%) 40 (50%) 43 (53.8%) 40 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Tooth size Sample size 40 40 40 40 80 80 80 80 80 80 p < 0.05 40 (100%) 40 (100%) 0 (0%) 2 (5%) 40 (50%) 40 (50%) 78 (97.5%) 41 (51.3%) 40 (50%) 0 (0%) p < 0.01 40 (100%) 40 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 40 (50%) 40 (50%) 76 (95%) 40 (50%) 40 (50%) 0 (0%) p < 0.0005 40 (100%) 35 (87.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 40 (50%) 40 (50%) 41 (51.3%) 40 (50%) 40 (50%) 0 (0%)
Table 7: Sum of number of Tukey HSD comparisons that yielded significant results (p < 0.05, 0.01, and 0.005) followed by percent of all Tukey HSD tests in parentheses for the resolution dataset. Table 7: P-values adjusted for multiple comparisons using the TukeyHSD() function in R. ins = insectivore, fol = folivore, frug = frugivore, omn = omnivore, and hof = hard object feeder.
ins-fol ins-frug ins-hof ins-omn fol-frug fol-hof fol-omn omn-frug omn-hof hof-frug DNE Sample size 40 40 40 40 80 80 80 80 80 80 p < 0.05 28 (70%) 4 (10%) 7 (17.5%) 2 (5%) 63 (78.8%) 63 (78.8%) 69 (86.3%) 26 (32.5%) 4 (5%) 27 (33.8%) p < 0.01 18 (45%) 1 (2.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 60 (75%) 58 (72.5%) 67 (83.8%) 19 (23.8%) 3 (3.8%) 23 (28.8%) p < 0.0005 10 (25%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 51 (63.8%) 40 (50%) 58 (72.5%) 8 (10%) 1 (1.3%) 16 (20%) OPCR Sample size 40 40 40 40 80 80 80 80 80 80 p < 0.05 40 (100%) 14 (35%) 1 (2.5%) 0 (0%) 61 (76.3%) 46 (57.5%) 80 (100%) 45 (56.3%) 33 (41.3%) 16 (20%) p < 0.01 40 (100%) 8 (20%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 54 (67.5%) 39 (48.8%) 80 (100%) 40 (50%) 21 (26.3%) 11 (13.8%) p < 0.0005 40 (100%) 3 (7.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 36 (45%) 38 (47.5%) 74 (92.5%) 27 (33.8%) 10 (12.5%) 3 (3.8%) RFI Sample size 40 40 40 40 80 80 80 80 80 80 p < 0.05 13 (32.5%) 35 (87.5%) 34 (85%) 33 (82.5%) 71 (88.8%) 69 (86.3%) 65 (81.3%) 42 (52.5%) 61 (76.3%) 36 (45%) p < 0.01 12 (30%) 35 (87.5%) 31 (77.5%) 32 (80%) 70 (87.5%) 69 (86.3%) 51 (63.8%) 37 (46.3%) 54 (67.5%) 36 (45%) p < 0.0005 11 (27.5%) 33 (82.5%) 28 (70%) 30 (75%) 66 (82.5%) 63 (78.8%) 30 (37.5%) 21 (26.3%) 39 (48.8%) 31 (38.8%) PCV Sample size 20 20 20 20 40 40 40 40 40 40 p < 0.05 9 (45%) 13 (65%) 12 (60%) 11 (55%) 27 (67.5%) 31 (77.5%) 22 (55%) 11 (27.5%) 28 (70%) 27 (67.5%) p < 0.01 7 (35%) 11 (55%) 12 (60%) 11 (55%) 25 (62.5%) 30 (75%) 18 (45%) 10 (25%) 21 (52.5%) 26 (65%) p < 0.0005 4 (20%) 8 (40%) 11 (55%) 8 (40%) 18 (45%) 29 (72.5%) 12 (30%) 7 (17.5%) 14 (35%) 22 (55%) SA Sample size 40 40 40 40 80 80 80 80 80 80 p < 0.05 40 (100%) 38 (95%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 40 (50%) 40 (50%) 80 (100%) 39 (48.8%) 36 (45%) 34 (42.5%) p < 0.01 40 (100%) 7 (17.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 40 (50%) 40 (50%) 80 (100%) 37 (46.3%) 22 (27.5%) 16 (20%) p < 0.0005 40 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 40 (50%) 40 (50%) 43 (53.8%) 37 (46.3%) 1 (1.3%) 0 (0%) Size Sample size 40 40 40 40 80 80 80 80 80 80 p < 0.05 40 (100%) 38 (95%) 0 (0%) 1 (2.5%) 40 (50%) 40 (50%) 80 (100%) 40 (50%) 36 (45%) 4 (5%) p < 0.01 40 (100%) 38 (95%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 40 (50%) 40 (50%) 79 (98.8%) 39 (48.8%) 36 (45%) 2 (2.5%) p < 0.0005 40 (100%) 35 (87.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 40 (50%) 40 (50%) 42 (52.5%) 38 (47.5%) 36 (45%) 0 (0%)
Across all 60 comparisons with a p-value of 0.05, the triangle count dataset had a larger percentage of statistically significant differences between dietary categories than the resolution dataset 34 times, a smaller percentage 15 times, and the same percentage 11 times. This implies keeping a constant triangle count instead of a constant resolution could be beneficial because it results in a larger percentage of differences in dietary categories. However, the simplest surfaces in the resolution dataset (i.e., 1 triangle/mm
Linear discriminant function analyses were run to test the ability to predict dietary category based on topographic metrics. In general, platyrrhines had a larger number of higher rates of correct classification than prosimians, regardless of smoothing, cropping, triangle count/resolution or topographic metric, as is evidenced by the bottom halves of Table 8 and Table 9 being more highlighted than the top halves. For constant triangle count, 91 of the 220 (41.4%) and 98 of the 220 (44.5%) of the cases using that were smoothed and unsmoothed, respectively, and 99 of the 240 (41.3%) and 90 of the 200 (45%) cases using EEC and BCO, respectively, had classification success rates greater than 50%. This suggests, that when triangle count is held constant, the number of higher rates of classification is not affected by smoothing or cropping. For constant resolution, 75 of the 220 (34.1%) and 108 of the 220 (49.1%) of the cases using that were smoothed and unsmoothed, respectively, and 96 of the 240 (40%) and 87 of the 200 (43.5%) cases using EEC and BCO, respectively, had classification success rates greater than 50%. This suggests, that when resolution is held constant, leaving the surfaces unsmoothed may lead to more high rates of correct classification, but the number of higher rates of classification is not affected by smoothing.
Table 8: Results of the linear discriminant function analyses when triangle count is held constant (Pros. = prosimian, Plat. = platyrrhine). Table 8: Values reported are the cross-validated success rate of correctly classifying diet. Classifications greater than 50% are in bold and colored tan. In general, topographic metrics correctly classify diet in platyrrhines more often than in prosimians.
Clade Cropping method Smoothing Topographic variable Triangle count 100 200 500 1000 2000 5000 10000 20000 50000 100000 Pros. EEC smoothed DNE 33 27.4 34 35.8 43.4 50.9 40.6 42.5 40.6 37.4 Pros. EEC smoothed OPCR 31.1 24.5 29.2 31.1 31.1 19.8 27.4 30.2 33 23.1 Pros. EEC smoothed RFI 28.3 29.2 34.9 38.7 48.1 44.3 43.4 43.4 46.2 47.3 Pros. EEC smoothed PCV 32.1 17.9 30.2 38.7 38.7 50.9 50.9 50.9 54.7 56 Pros. EEC smoothed SA 40.6 36.8 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 36.3 Pros. EEC smoothed Size 41.5 39.6 37.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 40.7 Pros. EEC unsmoothed DNE 43.4 44.3 37.7 41.5 45.3 41.5 39.6 25.5 41.5 28.6 Pros. EEC unsmoothed OPCR 28.3 40.6 43.4 39.6 19.8 27.4 24.5 39.6 26.4 24.2 Pros. EEC unsmoothed RFI 40.6 45.3 44.3 44.3 41.5 46.2 47.2 48.1 52.8 45.1 Pros. EEC unsmoothed PCV 42.5 39.6 38.7 39.6 35.8 49.1 49.1 53.8 51.9 46.2 Pros. EEC unsmoothed SA 38.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 36.3 Pros. EEC unsmoothed Size 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 40.7 Pros. BCO smoothed DNE 29.2 35.8 41.5 51.9 53.8 47.2 52.8 49.1 43.4 28.2 Pros. BCO smoothed OPCR 30.2 31.1 34.9 34.9 34 35.8 35.8 17.9 31.1 28.2 Pros. BCO smoothed RFI 39.6 43.4 47.2 50.9 55.7 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 62 Pros. BCO smoothed SA 38.7 35.8 36.8 36.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 46.5 Pros. BCO smoothed Size 41.5 39.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 45.1 Pros. BCO unsmoothed DNE 40.6 52.8 46.2 42.5 43.4 43.4 34.9 32.1 23.6 29.6 Pros. BCO unsmoothed OPCR 31.1 34 34.9 31.1 30.2 19.8 13.2 29.2 37.7 31 Pros. BCO unsmoothed RFI 56.6 58.5 57.5 57.5 58.5 55.7 54.7 54.7 54.7 62 Pros. BCO unsmoothed SA 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 46.5 Pros. BCO unsmoothed Size 39.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 45.1 Plat. EEC smoothed DNE 44.7 37.9 49.5 75.7 82.5 74.8 59.2 39.8 23.3 40.8 Plat. EEC smoothed OPCR 37.9 37.9 52.4 53.4 46.6 17.5 28.2 32 38.8 52.4 Plat. EEC smoothed RFI 35 45.6 49.5 55.3 59.2 62.1 62.1 60.2 62.1 62.1 Plat. EEC smoothed PCV 27.2 32 40.8 54.4 67 68.9 71.8 68.9 64.1 59.2 Plat. EEC smoothed SA 61.2 60.2 58.3 58.3 62.1 63.1 62.1 62.1 61.2 61.2 Plat. EEC smoothed Size 60.2 55.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 Plat. EEC unsmoothed DNE 64.1 71.8 79.6 69.9 52.4 35.9 35.9 44.7 53.4 54.4 Plat. EEC unsmoothed OPCR 37.9 57.3 38.8 28.2 41.7 61.2 58.3 50.5 60.2 38.8 Plat. EEC unsmoothed RFI 58.3 61.2 59.2 62.1 61.2 61.2 60.2 59.2 57.3 60.2 Plat. EEC unsmoothed PCV 53.4 58.3 71.8 63.1 67 62.1 55.3 45.6 36.9 42.7 Plat. EEC unsmoothed SA 61.2 62.1 62.1 61.2 61.2 60.2 61.2 61.2 60.2 59.2 Plat. EEC unsmoothed Size 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 Plat. BCO smoothed DNE 25.2 48.5 68 74.8 63.1 48.5 19.4 22.3 29.1 36.9 Plat. BCO smoothed OPCR 47.6 55.3 50.5 51.5 39.8 36.9 41.7 43.7 42.7 48.5 Plat. BCO smoothed RFI 49.5 47.6 51.5 56.3 62.1 62.1 63.1 64.1 63.1 60.2 Plat. BCO smoothed SA 62.1 64.1 66 65 63.1 65 65 65 65 65 Plat. BCO smoothed Size 53.4 57.3 57.3 57.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 Plat. BCO unsmoothed DNE 71.8 71.8 61.2 44.7 34 33 34 28.2 33 39.8 Plat. BCO unsmoothed OPCR 45.6 35 30.1 49.5 59.2 58.3 39.8 31.1 23.3 25.2 Plat. BCO unsmoothed RFI 58.3 61.2 61.2 62.1 59.2 58.3 60.2 59.2 59.2 59.2 Plat. BCO unsmoothed SA 64.1 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 Plat. BCO unsmoothed Size 57.3 57.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3
Table 9: Results of the linear discriminant function analyses when resolution is held constant (Pros. = prosimian, Plat. = platyrrhine). Table 9: Values reported are the cross-validated success rate of correctly classifying diet. Classifications greater than 50% are in bold and colored tan. In general, topographic metrics correctly classify diet in platyrrhines more often than in prosimians.
Clade Cropping method Smoothing Topographic variable Resolution (triangles/mm2) 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000 Pros. EEC smoothed DNE 21.7 13.2 16 27.4 22.6 30.2 27.4 29.2 34.9 31.1 Pros. EEC smoothed OPCR 38.7 37.7 26.4 21.7 21.7 19.8 36.8 36.8 40.6 35.8 Pros. EEC smoothed RFI 22 22.5 33.3 37.7 31.1 25.5 36.8 38.7 41.5 41.5 Pros. EEC smoothed PCV 18.9 16 36.8 17.9 31.1 22.6 27.4 34.9 45.3 52.8 Pros. EEC smoothed SA 21.7 33 40.6 40.6 37.7 38.7 37.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 Pros. EEC smoothed Size 23.6 35.8 39.6 42.5 39.6 39.6 39.6 39.6 38.7 37.7 Pros. EEC unsmoothed DNE 34 31.1 28.3 34.9 41.5 41.5 37.7 40.6 34.9 30.2 Pros. EEC unsmoothed OPCR 36.8 37.7 44.3 29.2 33 17.9 34.9 45.3 45.3 36.8 Pros. EEC unsmoothed RFI 24.5 24.5 34.9 40.6 45.3 46.2 44.3 43.4 44.3 45.3 Pros. EEC unsmoothed PCV 28.3 29.2 33 24.5 34 32.1 46.2 52.8 53.8 57.5 Pros. EEC unsmoothed SA 38.7 38.7 37.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 Pros. EEC unsmoothed Size 39.6 38.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 Pros. BCO smoothed DNE 24.5 29.2 28.3 32.1 22.6 28.3 28.3 31.1 30.2 34 Pros. BCO smoothed OPCR 34 34.9 24.5 23.6 24.5 34 38.7 38.7 41.5 45.3 Pros. BCO smoothed RFI 17.5 25.2 38.5 44.3 22.6 46.2 54.7 58.5 59.4 60.4 Pros. BCO smoothed SA 37.7 34.9 36.8 36.8 36.8 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.9 Pros. BCO smoothed Size 34.9 37.7 40.6 41.5 39.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 Pros. BCO unsmoothed DNE 30.2 22.6 22.6 31.1 34.9 34 33 30.2 34.9 34 Pros. BCO unsmoothed OPCR 32.1 34 36.8 34 23.6 37.7 35.8 41.5 38.7 31.1 Pros. BCO unsmoothed RFI 37.7 43.4 53.8 58.5 57.5 57.5 58.5 56.6 55.7 59.4 Pros. BCO unsmoothed SA 35.8 35.8 35.8 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.9 Pros. BCO unsmoothed Size 40.6 39.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 Plat. EEC smoothed DNE 21.4 35.9 42.7 62.1 67 28.2 60.2 57.3 37.9 35.9 Plat. EEC smoothed OPCR 42.7 52.4 54.4 46.6 68 48.5 41.7 47.6 48.5 40.8 Plat. EEC smoothed RFI 52.6 29.1 42.7 60.2 56.3 61.2 60.2 61.2 59.2 61.2 Plat. EEC smoothed PCV 47.6 53.4 43.7 51.5 47.6 36.9 55.3 58.3 59.2 56.3 Plat. EEC smoothed SA 50.5 48.5 29.1 62.1 63.1 64.1 63.1 62.1 62.1 60.2 Plat. EEC smoothed Size 46.6 44.7 57.3 58.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 Plat. EEC unsmoothed DNE 69.9 66 61.2 50.5 53.4 38.8 43.7 50.5 54.4 54.4 Plat. EEC unsmoothed OPCR 52.4 57.3 62.1 52.4 52.4 40.8 57.3 58.3 56.3 56.3 Plat. EEC unsmoothed RFI 57.3 45.6 53.4 60.2 61.2 62.1 61.2 61.2 63.1 63.1 Plat. EEC unsmoothed PCV 48.5 56.3 55.3 56.3 56.3 52.4 57.3 57.3 56.3 50.5 Plat. EEC unsmoothed SA 61.2 62.1 61.2 64.1 61.2 62.1 63.1 63.1 63.1 63.1 Plat. EEC unsmoothed Size 56.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 Plat. BCO smoothed DNE 10.7 8.7 61.2 34 57.3 62.1 60.2 60.2 44.7 33 Plat. BCO smoothed OPCR 43.7 57.3 66 46.6 61.2 49.5 47.6 46.6 44.1 41.7 Plat. BCO smoothed RFI 18.8 36.9 58.3 52.4 61.2 54.4 54.4 60.2 62.1 62.1 Plat. BCO smoothed SA 48.5 56.3 62.1 67 66 63.1 64.1 65 65 65 Plat. BCO smoothed Size 43.7 46.6 53.4 58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 Plat. BCO unsmoothed DNE 57.3 60.2 55.3 53.4 54.4 41.7 37.9 38.8 49.5 45.6 Plat. BCO unsmoothed OPCR 56.3 55.3 54.4 54.4 54.4 50.5 50.5 46.6 44.7 46.6 Plat. BCO unsmoothed RFI 53.4 52.4 62.1 64.1 58.3 59.2 58.3 58.3 61.2 60.2 Plat. BCO unsmoothed SA 62.1 66 63.1 64.1 65 65 65 65 65 65 Plat. BCO unsmoothed Size 59.2 56.3 57.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3
Correlations between topographic variables for each combination of smoothing, cropping method, and triangle count/resolution were calculated. The 1000 correlations with their coefficients of correlation, p-values, and test statistics are found in the Supplementary Information section (S7 Table) and summarized in Table 10. When triangle count was held constant, DNE was frequently correlated to OPCR, RFI, and PCV, and RFI was frequently/always correlated to OPCR/PCV. SA and size were infrequently or never correlated to DNE, OPCR, RFI, and PCV, but always correlated to each other. When resolution was held constant, all topographic variables were frequently or always correlated to one another. This variable correlation between topographic variables is consistent with other studies [[
Table 10: Percent of times significant correlations (Bonferroni corrected p-value of 0.05/15 = 0.0033) were found between variables. Table 10: More correlations were found between variables when resolution was held constant.
Triangle count DNE OPCR RFI PCV SA Size DNE --- --- --- --- --- --- OPCR 92.5 --- --- --- --- --- RFI 85 67.5 --- --- --- --- PCV 100 55 100 --- --- --- SA 22.5 35 45 0 --- --- Size 42.5 30 30 5 100 --- Resolution DNE OPCR RFI PCV SA Size DNE --- --- --- --- --- --- OPCR 95 --- --- --- --- --- RFI 90 67.5 --- --- --- --- PCV 90 85 95 --- --- --- SA 92.5 100 70 85 --- --- Size 92.5 100 60 80 100 ---
Coefficients of correlation are plotted against triangle count and resolution in Figs 10 and 11, to give a visualization about how the strength of relationships between variables changes with triangle count and resolution. Unsurprisingly, SA and size are always strongly correlated to each other. Some metrics are always/never correlated to one another (e.g., PCV and SA), while others are correlated at some triangle counts/resolutions. What is particularly interesting is some topographic metrics are significantly positively correlated to each other at some triangle counts/resolutions, and significantly negatively correlated to each other at others (e.g. RFI and OPCR, smoothed, BCO, Fig 10, or PCV and SA/size, smoothed, EEC, Fig 11). Others (e.g., RFI and OPCR with triangle count, or PCV and SA with resolution) begin positively correlated at low triangle counts/resolutions, and end up being negatively correlated.
There is large variability in correlations between metrics, and correlations appear to be stronger when resolution is held constant, compared to triangle count. There are no consistent trends between correlation and triangle count/resolution: this is important when choosing topographic metrics, as correlations between two metrics in one study/clade does not dictate a correlation between metrics in another.
Overall, it appears triangle count and resolution performed similarly, with resolution performing slightly worse. There appears to be more overlap in dietary categories when resolution is held constant (S1 Fig, S4–S6 Tables and there appears to be more differentiation in dietary categories when triangle count, and not resolution, is held constant (Table 6, Table 7). Linear DFAs also appear to yield more significant results more often when triangle count is held constant (see below). The high level of correlations between topographic variables when resolution is held constant indicates the topographic variables are all highly correlated to surface area when resolution is held constant. This implies the topographic metrics may be acting more like form variables (shape and size, together) than shape variables. Because of these reasons, and because it is done more frequently in dental topographic studies, we suggest triangle count, and not resolution, be held constant.
The values for triangle count/resolution increased exponentially, and as such the natural log of triangle count/ resolution was used. Both DNE and OPCR tend to increase exponentially with increases in triangle count/resolution (Figs 12 and 13). Linear plots were created to investigate the effect of triangle count/resolution on topographic variables. Each line type represents a different diet, and each shaded region represents the 95% confidence interval for that diet (see Figs 14 and 15, and S3 Fig). Linear plots were created for each smoothing and cropping method, separately, and only the plots for smoothed, EEC are presented here: other plots are presented in the Supplementary Information (S3 Fig). When triangle count is held constant, the natural log of DNE and OPCR increase linearly with the natural log of triangle count. Not all relationships are perfectly linear (e.g., DNE, platyrrhines, Fig 14), which is consistent with the OPCR results presented in [[
At high triangle counts, SA and size converge on an asymptote for both prosimians and platyrrhines, causing RFI to converge. PCV follows a unique pattern, initially increasing and then steadily decreasing with triangle count. It appears PCV decreases with an increase in triangle count at different rates for different diets, with insectivores/folivores decreasing at a faster rate than frugivores and hard object eaters. This could be because insectivores and folivores have taller cusps and increases in triangle count could lead to an increase in the percentage of triangles more hidden by ambient light relative to those more exposed to ambient light. That is to say, increasing triangle count places relatively more triangles in the basins and on the sides of the tooth, which are more hidden, compared to the tips of the cusps and the crests, which are more exposed, because there is more surface area in the basins and on the sides of the tooth. This pattern is seen in both prosimians and platyrrhines (Fig 14). Unlike DNE and OPCR, PCV does appear to be converging on an asymptote, and more so for hard object feeders than other diets.
When keeping resolution constant, many of the same patterns emerge. At resolutions below 10 triangles/mm
A solid vertical line is drawn at a triangle count of 10000, a triangle count commonly used in DNE studies (e.g., [[
Convergence tests were run to determine at what point RFI and/or PCV values converged, and therefore the minimum triangle count/resolution needed if surfaces with different triangle counts/resolutions were to be compared. We assumed the RFI/PCV value at the highest triangle count/resolution was the most accurate, and calculated the absolute value of the percent difference between that RFI/PCV and all other RFI/PCV values for that individual. RFI and PCV converge faster when triangle count is held constant compared to when resolution is held constant, and RFI and PCV values tend to converge faster in unsmoothed surfaces compared to smoothed surfaces (Figs 16 and 17). [[
When triangle count is held constant, a triangle count of 10000 is generally sufficient to obtain a converged RFI value, and therefore triangle count does not need to be held constant for RFI, as long as a triangle count of 10000 is reached. There is no triangle count at which PCV consistently converges, although the percent difference drops significantly at a triangle count of 50000. As such, we recommend triangle counts of 10000+ for RFI, and for triangle count to be held constant for DNE, OPCR, and PCV analyses. When resolution is held constant and surfaces are not smoothed, resolutions of 20+ and 200+ triangles/mm
It has been suggested that the rate of change in topographic metrics (specifically, OPCR) with respect to triangle count/resolution may be more informative than the value of a topographic metric at a single triangle count/resolution [[
Boxplots of slope and intercept data for smoothed surfaces cropped using EEC are shown in Figs 18 and 19; other boxplots are in S4 Fig. The boxplots suggest there is little dietary difference in slope or intercept for DNE or OPCR: this is supported by one-way ANOVAs, Tukey HSD tests, and linear DFAs, run using the same standards as previously. Results for these tests are presented in the Supplementary Information (S9 Table), and not presented here.
To determine if there existed an "optimal" triangle count/resolution to perform dental topography at, the p-values from the Tukey HSD tests and the linear DFAs were plotted against triangle count and resolution. The p-values for the linear DFAs obtained for the slopes and the intercepts of DNE and OPCR being regressed against triangle count and resolution are plotted on these graphs as horizontal lines, so the predictive ability of slope and intercept at predicting diet could be compared to the predictive ability of the other methods.
Graphs for the p-values from the Tukey HSD tests for smoothed, EEC are presented here (Figs 20, 21, 22, and 23). All other graphs are in the Supplementary Information (S5 Fig). In prosimians, when triangle count is held constant, DNE performs best at triangle counts around 10,000–20,000. Above 20,000, the previously significant differences between omnivores/frugivores and insectivores/folivores loses significance. In general, OPCR consistently does a poor job at differentiating between diets at triangle counts above 1000. There is no improvement in the performance of RFI, PCV, SA, and size once a triangle count of 20000 is reached (Fig 20). In platyrrhines, DNE and OPCR tend to perform worse than the other topographic metrics, and perform better at triangle counts between 1000 and 5000 than at either higher or lower triangle counts. PCV, RFI, SA and size tend to perform better than OPCR and DNE. Interestingly, SA tends to consistently perform the best of all the variables (Fig 21). This is not a variable that has been investigated as a dietary correlate in primates, although differences in the surface area of the tooth roots indicate dietary specializations well [[
Graphs for the p- values for the linear DFAs are presented in Figs 24, 25, 26, and 27. In general, there are not large changes in p-value with triangle count/resolution, and the predictive ability of the different topographic parameters changes sporadically. The exception is of course SA, size, and occasionally RFI, as these metrics tend to converge on a single value.
Overall, these results do not support the idea that there is an "optimal" triangle count or resolution for performing dental topographic studies: triangle count and resolution should be high enough to properly represent the surface, and triangle count/resolution should be held constant for DNE, OPCR, and PCV. It also appears it may be beneficial to keep triangle count, and not resolution, constant in dental topographic studies.
All topographic metrics are sensitive to smoothing, cropping method, and triangle count/resolution. In general, smoothing causes DNE, OPCR, RFI, and SA to decrease, PCV to increase, and is just as likely to cause size to increase or decrease. Relative to the BCO cropping method, EEC causes RFI, SA, and size to increase, and is just as likely to cause DNE and OPCR to increase or decrease, although DNE is slightly more likely to increase. Topographic metrics are more sensitive to smoothing and cropping at low triangle counts compared to high. There is a positive, logarithmic correlation between DNE and OPCR and triangle count/resolution, and the slope/intersection of the regressions between the natural log of DNE/OPCR and triangle count/resolution is no better at predicting diet than topographic values at a constant triangle count/resolution. PCV tends to converge to a constant value or decrease with increases in triangle count/resolution, and RFI, SA, and size converge to a constant value as triangle count/resolution increases. When resolution is held constant, topographic variables are more correlated to each other than when triangle count is held constant. There appears to be no optimal triangle count or resolution for predicting diet, and diet appears to be more correlated to topographic metrics when triangle count, and not resolution, is held constant.
If a dataset exists with a combination of smoothed and unsmoothed surfaces, DNE and OPCR should not be compared. Size can be directly compared between smoothed and unsmoothed surfaces, and no transformation is needed to compare RFI, SA, or PCV. We do not recommend comparing any topographic metrics gathered using the different cropping methods (BCO vs. EEC), but have provided transformation equations in the supplementary material should the original material be inaccessible. We suggest triangle count, and not resolution, be held constant as it tends to yield more desirable results. Further, triangle count should be high enough to digitally represent the entire tooth accurately, and there appears to be no ideal smoothing technique, cropping method, or triangle count for performing topographic analyses. Therefore, all these factors should be held constant in each study.
S1 Table. All data dental topography. Raw data for analyses. (XLSX)
S2 Table. Five-way ANOVA results. Results from five-way ANOVA. (XLSX)
S3 Table. Transformation equations. Transformation equations for smoothing and cropping. (XLSX)
S4 Table. Descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics for data. (XLSX)
S5 Table. One-way ANOVA results. Results from one-way ANOVAs. (XLSX)
S6 Table. Tukey HSD results. Results for Tukey HSD analyses. (XLSX)
S7 Table. Correlations among metrics. Correlations between topographic variables. (XLSX)
S8 Table. Slopes and intercepts. Slopes and intercepts of DNE and OPCR vs. triangle count and resolution. (XLSX)
S9 Table. Statistics for slopes and intercepts. ANOVAS, Tukey HSDs, and DFAs for intercepts and slopes. (XLSX)
S1 Fig. Boxplots. 880 boxplots for topographic values. (PPTX)
S2 Fig. Tukey HSD visualization. Tukey HSD visualized for triangle count and resolution. (PPTX)
S3 Fig. Linear plots. Linear plots, effect of triangle count and resolution on topographic variables. (PPTX)
S4 Fig. Boxplots for slopes and intercepts. . Boxplots for DNE and OPCR slopes and intercepts vs. diet. (PPTX)
S5 Fig. Tukey HSD visualization. Graphical representations of Tukey HSD results. (PPTX)
DIAGRAM: Fig 1: Effect of simplification and smoothing on the largest (top) and smallest (bottom) teeth used in this study, where size is quantified by surface area (SA). The cropping method shown here is EEC, and resolution is defined as triangles/mm2. At a resolution of 1, the Microcebus griseorufus tooth was composed of 4 triangles which, when smoothed, disappeared. Smoothing drastically changes tooth shape at low resolutions, but has a larger effect on smaller teeth than larger teeth. Corresponding triangle counts for the smoothed Varecia variegata surfaces are 247, 2471, 24712, and 247121, and for smoothed Microcebus griseorufus are 4, 45, 449, and 4489.
DIAGRAM: Fig 2: Density plots showing the effect of smoothing on DNE, OPCR, RFI, PCV, surface area (SA), and tooth size. A negative value indicates a decrease in the topographic value due to smoothing. Grey, solid lines are low triangle counts (< 210 triangles), dashed grey is medium-low triangle counts (210–1799 triangles), dashed black lines are medium-high triangle counts (1800–9999 triangles), and solid black lines are high triangle counts (10000+ triangles). For RFI, PCV, SA, and size, as triangle count increases, the effects of smoothing become more predictable, as is evidenced by the narrowing of the density distributions. DNE and OPCR are more sensitive to smoothing than the other metrics.
DIAGRAM: Fig 3: Density plots showing the effect of cropping method on DNE, OPCR, RFI, surface area (SA), and tooth size. PCV was not calculated for surfaces cropped with the BCO method due to time constraints. A negative value indicates an increase in the topographic value going from EEC to BCO. Grey, solid lines are low triangle counts (< 210 triangles), dashed grey is medium-low triangle counts (210–1799 triangles), dashed black lines are medium-high triangle counts (1800–9999 triangles), and solid black lines are high triangle counts (10000+ triangles). In general, RFI, SA, and size values are smaller with BCO compared to EEC. DNE and OPCR are just as likely to increase or decrease. This is because, for a given triangle count, there are more triangles representing the occlusal surface using the BCO method, which can increase DNE and OPCR. But for a given resolution, fewer triangles represent the tooth with the BCO than the EEC, leading to a decrease in DNE and OPCR, which are summative metrics.
DIAGRAM: Fig 4: Boxplots showing prosimian (white) and platyrrhine (grey) DNE values for each diet at different triangle counts (smoothed, EEC). Diets are shown on the x-axis: ins = insectivore, fol = folivore, omn = omnivore, frug = frugivore, and hof = hard object feeder. Results at a triangle count of 10000 are comparable to those from []. Within prosimians, as triangle count increases, there appears to be more separation between dietary categories. At a triangle count of about 1000, the pattern of insectivores having the highest DNE, followed by folivores, omnivores, frugivores, and finally hard object feeders begins to emerge. This pattern generally holds true up until a triangle count of 100000. Within platyrrhines, there is no great distinction between folivores, omnivores, and frugivores up until a triangle count of 10000, but hard object feeders consistently have the dullest teeth (i.e. lowest DNE value). At higher resolutions, however, this changes, and at a triangle count of 100000 hard object feeders have the higher average DNE value, and folivores have the lowest. This pattern is better seen when the BCO cropping method is used, and/or surfaces are unsmoothed (see ).
DIAGRAM: Fig 5: Boxplots showing prosimian (white) and platyrrhine (grey) OPCR values for each diet at different triangle counts (smoothed, EEC). Diets are shown on the x-axis: ins = insectivore, fol = folivore, omn = omnivore, frug = frugivore, and hof = hard object feeder. Results at a triangle count of 10000 are comparable to those from []. As with DNE, the relationship between diet and OPCR changes with resolution. E.g. hard object feeding platyrrhines have the highest OPCR value at a triangle count of 100000, but the lowest at a count of 2000.
DIAGRAM: Fig 6: Boxplots showing prosimian (white) and platyrrhine (grey) RFI values for each diet at different triangle counts (smoothed, EEC). Diets are shown on the x-axis: ins = insectivore, fol = folivore, omn = omnivore, frug = frugivore, and hof = hard object feeder. Results at a triangle count of 10000 are comparable to those from []. Once an adequate triangle count is reached (about 500), a pattern develops in both prosimians and platyrrhines where insectivores have the highest values, followed by folivores, frugivores, and hard object feeders.
DIAGRAM: Fig 7: Boxplots showing prosimian (white) and platyrrhine (grey) PCV values for each diet at different triangle counts (smoothed, EEC). Diets are shown on the x-axis: ins = insectivore, fol = folivore, omn = omnivore, frug = frugivore, and hof = hard object feeder. Results at a triangle count of 10000 are comparable to those from []. As with RFI, once a sufficient triangle count is reached, a stable relationship develops between PCV and diet.
DIAGRAM: Fig 8: Boxplots showing prosimian (white) and platyrrhine (grey) surface area (SA) values for each diet at different triangle counts (smoothed, EEC). Diets are shown on the x-axis: ins = insectivore, fol = folivore, omn = omnivore, frug = frugivore, and hof = hard object feeder. As surface area is a measure of tooth size, no expected relationship is expected to emerge, other than folivores having larger teeth and insectivores having smaller teeth.
DIAGRAM: Fig 9: Boxplots showing prosimian (white) and platyrrhine (grey) tooth size (quantified through outline area, MorphoTester) values for each diet at different triangle counts (smoothed, EEC). Diets are shown on the x-axis: ins = insectivore, fol = folivore, omn = omnivore, frug = frugivore, and hof = hard object feeder. Results are almost identical to those in showing surface area (SA), as both size and SA are measures of size, not shape.
DIAGRAM: Fig 10: Coefficients of correlations (R) plotted against the natural log of triangle count to show how correlations between topographic variables change with triangle count. The grey area shows non-significant correlations between variables with a Bonferroni corrected p-value (0.05/15 = 0.00333). Vertical solid and dashed lines indicate triangle counts of 10000 and 20000, respectively.
DIAGRAM: Fig 11: Coefficients of correlations (R) plotted against the natural log of resolution to show how correlations between topographic variables change with resolution. The grey area shows non-significant correlations between variables with a Bonferroni corrected p-value (0.05/15 = 0.00333).
DIAGRAM: Fig 12: Effect of resolution on DNE and OPCR in five primates. The blue line is a folivorous prosimian (AMNH100503), black line is an insectivorous prosimian (AMNH207949), red line is a folivorous platyrrhine (AMNH211465), and green and grey lines are hard object feeding platyrrhines (MCZ30720 and USNM291128).
DIAGRAM: Fig 13: Effect of triangle count on DNE and OPCR in five primates. The blue line is a folivorous prosimian (AMNH100503), black line is an insectivorous prosimian (AMNH207949), red line is a folivorous platyrrhine (AMNH211465), and green and grey lines are hard object feeding platyrrhines (MCZ30720 and USNM291128).
DIAGRAM: Fig 14: Effect of triangle count on topographic metrics (smoothed, EEC). Averages for each topographic value are given with a 95% confidence interval. Blue = insectivore, green = folivore, grey = omnivore, red = frugivore, brown = hard object feeder. Thick solid line = insectivore, thin solid line = folivore, small dotted line = omnivore, thin dashed line = frugivore, thick dashed line = hard object feeder. Vertical solid and dashed lines indicate triangle counts of 10000 and 20000, respectively.
DIAGRAM: Fig 15: Effect of resolution on topographic metrics (smoothed, EEC). Averages for each topographic value are given with a 95% confidence interval. Blue = insectivore, green = folivore, grey = omnivore, red = frugivore, brown = hard object feeder. Thick solid line = insectivore, thin solid line = folivore, small dotted line = omnivore, thin dashed line = frugivore, thick dashed line = hard object feeder.
DIAGRAM: Fig 16: Absolute value of the percent difference between RFI and PCV values at the highest triangle count and lower triangle counts. Dotted horizontal lines represent 5% difference. The confidence intervals are drawn at 80%, 95%, and 99%. Vertical solid and dashed lines indicate triangle counts of 10000 and 20000, respectively.
DIAGRAM: Fig 17: Absolute value of the percent difference between RFI and PCV values at the highest resolution and lower resolutions. Dotted horizontal lines represent 5% difference. The confidence intervals are drawn at 80%, 95%, and 99%.
DIAGRAM: Fig 18: Boxplots showing slope and intercept values for DNE and OPCR regressed against triangle count (smoothed, EEC). Prosimians are in white and platyrrhines in grey. Diets are shown on the x-axis: ins = insectivore, fol = folivore, omn = omnivore, frug = frugivore, and hof = hard object feeder.
DIAGRAM: Fig 19: Boxplots showing slope and intercept values for DNE and OPCR regressed against resolution (smoothed, EEC). Prosimians are in white and platyrrhines in grey. Diets are shown on the x-axis: ins = insectivore, fol = folivore, omn = omnivore, frug = frugivore, and hof = hard object feeder.
DIAGRAM: Fig 20: Changes in p-values from Tukey HSD tests plotted against triangle count (prosimian, smoothed, EEC). The grey shaded regions at the bottom of the graphs show p-values from 0–0.05. Vertical solid and dashed lines indicate triangle counts of 10000 and 20000, respectively.
DIAGRAM: Fig 21: Changes in p-values from Tukey HSD tests plotted against triangle count (platyrrhine, smoothed, EEC). The grey shaded regions at the bottom of the graphs show p-values from 0–0.05. Vertical solid and dashed lines indicate triangle counts of 10000 and 20000, respectively.
DIAGRAM: Fig 22: Changes in p-values from Tukey HSD tests plotted against resolution (prosimian, smoothed, EEC). The grey shaded regions at the bottom of the graphs show p-values from 0–0.05.
DIAGRAM: Fig 23: Changes in p-values from Tukey HSD tests plotted against resolution (platyrrhine, smoothed, EEC). The grey shaded regions at the bottom of the graphs show p-values from 0–0.05.
DIAGRAM: Fig 24: Changes in p-values from linear DFAs plotted against triangle count (prosimians). Horizontal lines represent p-values from linear DFAs constructed from the slopes/intercepts of DNE/OPCR being regressed against triangle count. Vertical solid and dashed lines indicate triangle counts of 10000 and 20000, respectively.
DIAGRAM: Fig 25: Changes in p-values from linear DFAs plotted against triangle count (platyrrhines). Horizontal lines represent p-values from linear DFAs constructed from the slopes/intercepts of DNE/OPCR being regressed against triangle count. Vertical solid and dashed lines indicate triangle counts of 10000 and 20000, respectively.
DIAGRAM: Fig 26: Changes in p-values from linear DFAs plotted against resolution (prosimians). Horizontal lines represent p-values from linear DFAs constructed from the slopes/intercepts of DNE/OPCR being regressed against resolution.
DIAGRAM: Fig 27: Changes in p-values from linear DFAs plotted against resolution (platyrrhines). Horizontal lines represent p-values from linear DFAs constructed from the slopes/intercepts of DNE/OPCR being regressed against resolution.
The authors would like to thank Doug Boyer and colleagues for uploading their surface scans of prosimian and platyrrhine lower second molars to
By Michael A. Berthaume, Writing – review & editing; Julia Winchester, Writing – review & editing and Kornelius Kupczik, Writing – review & editing