Phylogenies, spatial autoregression, and the comparative method: A computer simulation test

Evolution

Volumn 50, Issue 5, 1996, Pages 1750-1765

  Martins, Emília P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

Autocorrelation; coevolution; comparative method; computer simulation; phylogenetic analysis; systematics

Indexed keywords

EID: 0029843512     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb03562.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. BJORKLUND, M. 1990. A phylogenetic interpretation of sexual dimorphism in body size and ornament in relation to mating system in birds. J. Evol. Biol. 3:171-183.
2. CHEVERUD, J. M. AND M. M. DOW. 1985. An autocorrelation analysis of genetic variation due to lineal fission in social groups of Rhesus Macaques. Am. J. Physiol. Anthropol. 67:113-121.
3. CHEVERUD, J. M., M. M. DOW, AND W. LEUTENEGGER. 1985. The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: Sexual dimorphism in body weight among primates. Evolution 39:1335-1351.
4. CLIFF, A. AND J. ORD. 1981. Spatial processes. Pion, London.
5. DACEY, M. F. 1965. A review of measures of contiguity for two and k-color maps. Pp. 479-495 in B. J. L. Berry, D. F. Marble, eds. Spatial analyses: A reader in statistical geography. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
6. EDWARDS, S. V., AND M. KOT. 1995. Comparative methods at the species level: Geographic variation in morphology and group size in Gray-crowned Babblers (Pomatostomus temporalis). Evolution 49:1134-1146.
7. EDWARDS, S. V., AND S. NAEEM. 1993. The phylogenetic component of cooperative breeding in perching birds. Am. Nat. 141:754-789.
8. ELY, J., AND J. A. KURLAND. 1989. Spatial autocorrelation, phylogenetic constraints, and the causes of sexual dimorphism in primates. Int. J. Primatol. 10:151-171.
9. EPPERSON, B. K. 1993. Spatial and space-time correlations in systems of subpopulations with genetic drift and migration. Genetics 133:711-727.
10. FELSENSTEIN, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 125:1-15.
11. _. 1988. Phylogenies and quantitative characters. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19:445-471.
12. GETTLEMAN, J. L. 1991. Carnivore olfactory bulb size: Allometry, phylogeny and ecology. J. Zool. London 225:253-272.
13. _. 1992. Carnivore life histories: A reanalysis in light of new models. Pp. 65-86 in N. Dunstone, M. Gorman, eds. Mammals as predators. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
14. GITTLEMAN, J. L., AND M. KOT. 1990. Adaptation: Statistics and a null model for estimating phylogenetic effects. Syst. Zool. 39:227-241.
15. GITTLEMAN, J. L., AND H. K. LUH. 1992. On comparing comparative methods. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23:383-404.
16. _. 1994. Phylogeny, evolutionary models and comparative methods: A simulation study. Pp. 103-122 in P. Eggleton and D. Vane-Wright, eds. Phylogenetics and ecology. Academic Press, London.
17. GITTLEMAN, J. L., C. G. ANDERSON, M. KOT, AND H.-K. LUH. 1996. Phylogenetic lability and rates of phenotypic evolution: A comparison of behavioral, morphological, and life history traits. In E. P. Martins, ed. Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
18. GRAFEN, A., 1989. The phylogenetic regression. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Series B 326:119-157.
19. HANSEN, T. A., AND E. P. MARTINS. 1996. Translating between microevolutionary process and macroevolutionary patterns: A general model of the correlation structure of interspecific data. Evolution 50:1404-1417.
20. HARVEY, P. H. AND M. PAGEL. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
21. HUEY, R. B., AND A. F. BENNETT. 1987. Phylogenetic studies of coadaptation: Preferred temperatures versus optimal performance temperatures of lizards. Evolution 41:1098-1115.
22. KIM, J., F. J ROHLF, AND R. R. SOKAL. 1993. The accuracy of phylogenetic estimation using the neighbor-joining method. Evolution 47:471-486.
23. LARSEN, K. R., AND W. W. TANNER. 1974. Numeric analysis of the lizard genus Sceloporus with special reference to cranial osteology. Great Basin Nat. 34:1-41.
24. LOSOS, J. B. 1990a. Concordant evolution of locomotor behaviour, display rate and morphology in Anolis lizards. Anim. Behav. 39:879-890.
25. _. 1990b. Ecomorphology, performance capability, and scaling of West Indian Anolis lizards: An evolutionary analysis. Ecol. Monogr. 60:369-388
26. _. 1990c. The evolution of form and function: Morphology and locomotor performance in West Indian Anolis lizards. Evolution 44:1189-1203.
27. _. 1995. An approach to the analysis of comparative data when a phylogeny is unavailable or incomplete. Syst. Biol. 43:117-123.
28. LYNCH, M. 1991. Methods for the analysis of comparative data in evolutionary biology. Evolution 45:1065-1080.
29. MADDISON, W. P. 1991. Squared-change parsimony reconstructions of ancestral states for continuous-valued characters on a phylogenetic tree. Syst. Zool. 40:304-314.
30. MARTINS, E. P. 1993. Constraints on the evolution of the Sceloporus push-up display. Am. Nat. 142:994-1018.
31. _. 1994. Estimating rates of character change from comparative data. Am. Nat. 144:193-209.
32. _. 1995. COMPARE: Statistical analysis of comparative data. Vers 1.0 Distributed by the author. Dept. of Biology, Univ. of Oregon, Eugene.
33. _. 1996. Conducting phylogenetic comparative analyses when the phylogeny is not known. Evolution 50:12-22.
34. MARTINS, E. P., AND T. GARLAND JR 1991. Phylogenetic analyses of the correlated evolution of continuous characters: A simulation study. Evolution 45:534-557.
35. MARTINS, E. P., AND T. F. HANSEN. 1996a. The statistical analysis of interspecific data, a review and evaluation of phylogenetic comparative methods. Pp. 22-75 in E. P. Martins, ed. Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
36. _. 1996b. A microevolutionary link between phylogenies and comparative data. Pp. 273-288 in P. Harvey, J. Maynard-Smith, and A. Leigh-Brown, eds. New uses for new phylogenies. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
37. MILES, D. B., AND A. E. DUNHAM. 1992. Comparative analyses of phylogenetic effects in the life history patterns of iguanid reptiles. Am. Nat. 139:848-867.
38. _. 1993. Historical perspectives in ecology and evolutionary biology: The use of phylogenetic comparative analyses. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24:587-619.
39. PAGEL, M. D. 1992. A method for the analysis of comparative data. J. Theor. Biol. 156:431-442.
40. PURVIS, A., J. L. GITTLEMAN, AND H-K. LUH. 1994. Truth or consequences: effects of phylogenetic accuracy on two comparative methods. J. Theor. Biol. 167:293-300.
41. RICHMAN, A. D., AND T. PRICE 1992. Evolution of ecological differences in the Old World leaf warblers. Nature 355:817-821.
42. ROHLF, F. J., W. S. CHANG, R. R. SOKAL AND J. KIM. 1990. Accuracy of estimate phylogenies: Effects of tree topology and evolutionary model. Evolution 44:1671-1684.
43. SESSIONS, S. K. AND A. LARSON. 1987. Developmental correlates of genome size in plethodontid salamanders and their implications for genome evolution. Evolution 41:1239-1251.