BACKGROUND: Archaeobotanists and palaeoecologists use geometric morphometrics extensively to identify plant opal phytoliths. Particularly when applied to assemblages of phytoliths from concentrations retrieved from closed contexts, morphometric data from archaeological phytoliths compared with similar data from reference material can allow taxonomic attribution. Observer variation is one aspect of phytolith morphometry that has received little attention but might be an important source of error and a potential cause of misidentification of plant remains. SCOPE: To investigate inter- and intra-observer variation in phytolith morphometry, eight researchers (observers) from different laboratories measured 50 samples each from three phytolith morphotypes (Bilobate, Bulliform flabellate and Elongate dendritic) three times, under the auspices of the International Committee for Phytolith Morphometrics (ICPM). METHODS: Data for 17 size and shape variables were collected for each phytolith by manually digitizing a phytolith outline (mask) from a photograph, followed by measurement of the mask with open-source morphometric software. KEY RESULTS: Inter-observer variation ranged from 0 to 23 % difference from the mean of all observers. Intra-observer variation ranged from 0 to 9 % difference from the mean of individual observers per week. Inter- and intra-observer variation was generally higher among inexperienced researchers. CONCLUSIONS: Scaling errors were a major cause of variation and occurred more with less experienced researchers, which is likely to be related to familiarity with data collection. The results indicate that inter- and intra-observer variation can be reduced substantially by providing clear instructions for and training with the equipment, photograph capturing, software, data collection and data cleaning. In this paper, the ICPM provides recommendations to minimize variation. Advances in automatic data collection might eventually reduce inter- and intra-observer variation, but until this is common practice, the ICPM recommends that phytolith morphometric analyses adhere to standardized guidelines to assure that measured phytolith variables are accurate, consistent and comparable between different researchers and laboratories.

Archaeology Environmental Changes and Geo chemistry Department of Art Studies and Archaeology VUB 1050 Brussels Belgium

Atlatl Archaeology Ltd Lethbridge T1J 2P6 Alberta Canada

Department of Archaeological Science and Conservation Moesgaard Museum 8270 Højbjerg Denmark

Department of Botany Faculty of Science Charles University 128 00 Prague Czech Republic

Department of Ecology and Conservation Biology Texas A and M University College Station TX 77843 2258 USA

Department of Environmental Science Policy and Management University of California Berkeley CA 94720 3114 USA

School of Archaeology University College Dublin D04 F6X4 Dublin Ireland

Southern Pacific Archaeological Research Archaeology Programme University of Otago Dunedin 9054 New Zealand

Variationsstatistik Kiel University 24098 Kiel Germany

Komentář v

Ann Bot. 2025 May 9;135(5):i-ii. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcae194. PubMed

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Andriopoulou NC, Petrakis G, Partsinevelos P.. 2023. Twenty thousand leagues under plant biominerals: a deep learning implementation for automatic phytolith classification. Earth Science Informatics 16: 1551–1562.

Antolin F. 2022. SNF international exchange workshop ‘Towards a standardised methodology for archaeobotanical research in wetland sites’. Newsletter Association of Environmental Archaeology 156: 17–19.

Ball TB, Brotherson JD.. 1992. The effect of varying environmental conditions on phytolith morphometries in two species of grass (

Ball TB, Gardner JS, Anderson N.. 1999. Identifying inflorescence phytoliths from selected species of wheat ( PubMed

Ball T, Vrydaghs L, Van den Hauwe I, Manwaring J, De Langhe E.. 2006. Differentiating banana phytoliths: wild and edible

Ball TB, Ehlers R, Standing MD.. 2009. Review of typologic and morphometric analysis of phytoliths produced by wheat and barley. Breeding Science 59: 505–512.

Ball TB, Chandler-Ezell K, Dickau R, et al. 2016a. Phytoliths as a tool for investigations of agricultural origins and dispersals around the world. Journal of Archaeological Science 68: 32–45.

Ball TB, Davis AL, Evett R, et al. 2016b. Morphometric analysis of phytoliths: Recommendations towards standardization from the International Committee for Phytolith Morphometrics. Journal of Archaeological Science 68: 106–111.

Ball T, Vrydaghs L, Mercer T, et al. 2017. A morphometric study of variance in articulated dendritic phytolith wave lobes within selected species of Triticeae and Aveneae. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 26: 85–97.

Berganzo-Besga I, Orengo HA, Lumbreras F, Aliende P, Ramsey MN.. 2022. Automated detection and classification of multi-cell phytoliths using deep learning-based algorithms. Journal of Archaeological Science 148: 105654.

Berlin AM, Ball T, Thompson R, Herbert SC.. 2003. Ptolemaic agriculture, ‘Syrian wheat’, and

Bretz F, Hothorn T, Westfall P.. 2011. Multiple comparisons using R. London: Chapman and Hall.

Brightly WH, Crifò C, Gallaher TJ, et al. 2024. Palms of the past: can morphometric phytolith analysis inform deep time evolution and palaeoecology of Arecaceae? Annals of Botany 134: 263–282. PubMed PMC

Brown D. 1984. Prospects and limits of a phytolith key for grasses in the Central United States. Journal of Archaeological Science 11: 345–368.

Burns RP, Burns RA.. 2009. Discriminant analysis. In: Burns RP, Burns RA, eds. Business research methods and statistics using SPSS. California: Sage, 589–608.

Carroll RJ, Ruppert D.. 1988. Transformation and weighting in regression. London: Chapman and Hall.

Contreras DA, Robin V, Gonda R, Hodara R, Dal Corso M, Makarewicz C.. 2014. (Before and) after the flood: a multiproxy approach to past floodplain usage in the middle Wadi el-Hasa, Jordan. Journal of Arid Environments 110: 30–43.

Dal Corso M. 2018. Environmental history and development of the human landscape in a northeastern Italian lowland during the Bronze Age: a multidisciplinary case-study. Bonn: Habelt.

Dal Corso M, Nicosia C, Balista C, et al. 2017. Bronze Age crop processing evidence in the phytolith assemblages from the ditch and fen around Fondo Paviani, northern Italy. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 26: 5–24.

Devos Y, Vrydaghs L.. 2023. Looking at phytoliths in archaeological soil and sediment thin sections. Environmental Archaeology: 1–16. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14614103.2023.2234155 DOI

Díez-Pastor J-F, Latorre-Camona P, Arnaiz-González A, Ruiz-Pérez J, Zurro D.. 2020. ‘You are not my type’: an evaluation of classification methods for automatic phytolith identification. Microscopy and Microanalysis 26: 1158–1167. PubMed

Evett R, Cuthrell RQ.. 2016. A conceptual framework for a computer-assisted, morphometric-based phytolith analysis and classification system. Journal of Archaeological Science 68: 70–78.

Evin A, Bonhomme V, Claude J.. 2020. Optimizing digitalization effort in morphometrics. Biological Methods and Protocols 5: 1–10. PubMed PMC

Evin A, Bouby L, Bonhomme V, Jeanty A, Jeanjean M, Terral J-F.. 2022. Archaeophenomics of ancient domestic plants and animals using geometric morphometrics: a review. Peer Community Journal 2: e27.

Fisch PR. 1978. Consistency in archaeological measurement and classification: a pilot study. American Antiquity 43: 86–89.

Fruciano C. 2016. Measurement error in geometric morphometrics. Development Genes and Evolution 226: 139–158. PubMed

Gallaher TJ, Akbar SZ, Klahs PC, et al. 2020. 3D shape analysis of grass silica short cell phytoliths: a new method for fossil classification and analysis of shape evolution. The New Phytologist 228: 376–392. PubMed

Gobalet KW. 2001. A critique of faunal analysis; inconsistency among experts in blind tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 377–386.

Gu Y, Zhao Z, Pearsall DM.. 2013. Phytolith morphology research on wild and domesticated rice species in East Asia. Quaternary International 287: 141–148.

Hošková K, Pokorná A, Neustupa J, Pokorný P.. 2021. Inter- and intraspecific variation in grass phytolith shape and size: a geometric morphometrics perspective. Annals of Botany 127: 191–201. PubMed PMC

Hošková K, Neustupa J, Pokorný P, Pokorná A.. 2022. Phylogenetic, ecological and intraindividual variability patterns in grass phytolith shape. Annals of Botany 129: 303–314. PubMed PMC

Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P.. 2008. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift 50: 346–363. PubMed

International Committee for Phytolith Taxonomy (ICPT); Neumann K, Strömberg CAE, Ball T, Albert RM, Vrydaghs L, Scott Cummings L. 2019. International Code for Phytolith Nomenclature (ICPN) 2.0. Annals of Botany 124: 189–199. PubMed PMC

Jacomet S. 2013.

Kaufman AB, Rosenthal R.. 2009. Can you believe my eyes? The importance of interobserver reliability statistics in observations of animal behaviour. Animal Behaviour 78: 1487–1491.

Liu L, Jie D, Liu H, et al. 2016. Response of phytoliths in

Lu H, Liu K-B.. 2003. Morphological variations of lobate phytoliths from grasses in China and the south-eastern United States. Diversity and Distributions 9: 73–87.

Lu H, Zhang J, Wu N, Liu K-B, Xu D, Li Q.. 2009. Phytoliths analysis for the discrimination of foxtail millet ( PubMed PMC

Lyman RL, VanPool TL.. 2009. Metric data in archaeology: a study of intra-analyst and inter-analyst variation. American Antiquity 74: 485–504.

Madella M, Lancelotti C.. 2012. Taphonomy and phytoliths: a user manual. Quaternary International 275: 76–83.

Madella M, Alexandre A, Ball T.. 2005. International code for phytolith nomenclature. Annals of Botany 96: 253–260. PubMed PMC

Middlemis Maher J, Markey JC, Ebert-May D.. 2013. The other half of the story: effect size analysis in quantitative research. Life Sciences Education 12: 345–351. PubMed PMC

Mulholland SC, Rapp G.. 1992. A morphological classification of grass silica bodies. In: Rapp G, Mulholland SC, eds. Phytolith systematics. New York: Plenum Press, 65–89.

Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC.. 2007. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 82: 591–605. PubMed

Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H.. 2013. A general and simple method for obtaining

Newcomer M, Grace R, Unger-Hamilton R.. 1986. Investigating microwear polishes with blind tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 13: 203–217.

Out WA. 2020. Development of identification criteria of non-dietary cereal crop products by phytolith analysis to study prehistoric agricultural societies. In: Müller J, Ricci A, eds. Past societies. Human development in landscapes. Leiden: Sidestone Press, 37–50.

Out WA, Madella M.. 2016. Morphometric distinction between bilobate phytoliths from

Out WA, Madella M.. 2017a. Towards improved detection and identification of crop by-products: morphometric analysis of bilobate leaf phytoliths of

Out WA, Madella M. 2017b. Erratum to: Morphometric distinction between bilobate phytoliths from

Out WA, Pertusa Grau J, Madella M.. 2014. A new method for morphometric analysis of opal phytoliths from plants. Microscopy and Microanalysis 20: 1–12. PubMed

Out WA, Ryan P, García-Granero JJ, et al. 2016. Plant exploitation in Neolithic Sudan: a review in the light of new data from the cemeteries R12 and Ghaba. Quaternary International 412: 36–53.

Out WA, Enevold R, Mikkelsen PH, Jensen PM, Portillo M, Schwartz M.. 2021. Wood, seeds and fruits, phytoliths, pollen and non-pollen palynomorphs of the horse burial of Fregerslev II. In: Bagge MS, Pedersen A, eds. Horse and rider in the Late Viking Age. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 61–81.

Out WA, Hasler M, Portillo M, Bagge MS.. 2022. The potential of phytolith analysis to reveal grave goods: the case study of the Viking-Age equestrian burial of Fregerslev II. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00334-022-00881-2 DOI

Out WA, Dal Corso M, Ruiz-Pérez J, et al. 2024. Supporting information for ‘Inter- and intra-observer variation in phytolith morphometry’. https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.10527430 PubMed DOI PMC

Pearsall DM. 1978. Phytolith analysis of archaeological soils: evidence for maize cultivation in formative Ecuador. Science 199: 177–178. PubMed

Pinheiro JC, Bates DM.. 2000. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.

Piperno DR. 1984. A comparison and differentiation of phytoliths from maize (

Piperno DR. 2006. Phytoliths: a comprehensive guide for archaeologists and paleoecologists. Lanham: AltaMira Press.

Portillo M, Albert RM.. 2011. Husbandry practices and livestock dung at the Numidian site of Althiburos (el Médéina, Kef Governorate, northern Tunisia): the phytolith and spherulite evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 3224–3233.

Portillo M, Albert RM, Henry O.. 2009. Domestic activities and spatial distribution in Ain Abū Nukhayla (Wadi Rum, Southern Jordan): the use of phytoliths and spherulites studies. Quaternary International 193: 174–183.

Portillo M, Ball TB, Wallace M, et al. 2020. Advances in morphometrics in archaeobotany. Environmental Archaeology 25: 246–256.

Power RC, Salazar-García DC, Wittig RM, Freiberg M, Henry A.. 2015. Dental calculus evidence of Taï Forest chimpanzee plant consumption and life history transitions. Scientific Reports 5: 15161. PubMed PMC

R Core Team 2023. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/

Rasband WS. 1997–2018. ImageJ. Bethesda: US National Institutes of Health. https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/

Robinson C, Terhune CE.. 2017. Error in geometric morphometric data collection: combining data from multiple sources. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 164: 62–75. PubMed

Roushannafas T, Bogaard A, Charles M.. 2023. Geometric morphometric analysis of Neolithic wheat grains: insights into the early development of free-threshing forms. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 32: 597–613.

Ryan P. 2014. Phytolith studies in archaeology. In: Smiths C, ed. Encyclopedia of global archaeology. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_2258 DOI

Scott EM, Naysmith P, Cook G.. 2022. What lies behind radiocarbon intercomparisons and the design of the new intercomparison, GIRI? Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, B 525: 62–66.

Shahack-Gross R. 2016. Archaeological micromorphology self-evaluation exercise. Geoarchaeology 31: 49–57.

Shillito L-M. 2011. Simultaneous thin section and phytolith observations of finely stratified deposits from Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey: implications for paleoeconomy and Early Holocene paleoenvironment. Journal of Quaternary Science 26: 576–588.

Skals I, Gleba M, Taube M, Mannering U.. 2018. Wool textiles and archaeometry: testing reliability of archaeological wool fibre diameter measurements. Danish Journal of Archaeology 7: 161–179.

Smith A. 2014. The use of multivariate statistics within archaeobotany. In: Marston JM, D’Alpoim Guedes J, Warinner C, eds. Method and theory in paleoethnobotany. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 181–204.

Solomonova MY, Zhembrovskaya TA, Lyashchenko AD, Kotov SD, Speranskaya NY.. 2023. Environmental impact on phytolith morphometric parameters by example crenate morphotype of

Steiner BL, Antolín F, Jacomet S.. 2015. Testing of the consistency of the sieving (wash-over) process of waterlogged sediments by multiple operators. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2: 310–320.

Timbrell L, Scott C, Habte B, et al. 2022. Testing inter-observer error under a collaborative research framework for studying lithic shape variability. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 14: 209. PubMed PMC

Verheyen K, Bažány M, Chećko E, et al. 2018. Observer and relocation errors matter in resurveys of historical vegetation plots. Journal of Vegetation Science 29: 812–823.

Von Cramon-Taubadel N, Frazier BC, Mirazón Lahr M.. 2007. The problem of assessing landmark error in geometric morphometrics: theory, methods, and modifications. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 134: 24–35. PubMed

Vrydaghs L, Ball TB, Devos Y.. 2016. Beyond redundancy and multiplicity. Integrating phytolith analysis and micromorphology to the study of Brussels Dark Earth. Journal of Archaeological Science 68: 79–88.

Wang C, Lu H, Zhang J, Mao L, Ge Y.. 2019. Bulliform phytolith size of rice and its correlation with hydrothermal environment: a preliminary morphological study on species in Southern China. Frontiers in Plant Science 10: 1037. PubMed PMC

Zhao Z, Pearsall DM, BenferRA,Piperno DR.. 1998. Distinguishing rice (

Inter- and intra-observer variation in phytolith morphometry