Tempo and mode in evolution: Phylogenetic inertia, adaptation and comparative methods

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 15, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 899-910

  Blomberg, S P ^a   Garland Jr , T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptation; Comparative methods; Constraint; Independent contrasts; Natural selection; Phylogenetic inertia; Statistics

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; EVOLUTION; NATURAL SELECTION; PHYLOGENETICS;

EID: 0036844685     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00472.x     Document Type: Short Survey

References (96)

1. Abouheif, E. 1999. A method to test the assumption of phylogenetic independence in comparative data. Evol. Ecol. Res. 1: 895-909.
2. Antonovics, J. & van Tienderen, P.H. 1991. Ontoecogenophyloconstraints? The chaos of constraint terminology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 6: 166-168.
3. Autumn, K., Ryan, M.J. & Wake, D.B. 2002. Integrating historical and mechanistic biology enhances the study of adaptation. Quart. Rev. Biol. 77 (in press).
4. Barton, R.A., Byrne, R.W. & Whiten, A. 1996. Ecology, feeding competition and social structure in baboons. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 38: 321-329.
5. Baum, D.A. & Larson, A. 1991. Adaptation reviewed: A phylogenetic methodology for studying character macroevolution. Syst. Zool. 40: 1-18.
6. Berger, J. 1988. Social systems, resources, and phylogenetic inertia: An experimental test and its limitations. In: The Ecology of Social Behavior (C. N. Slobodchikoff, ed.), pp. 157-186. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
7. Blomberg, S.P., Ives, A.R. & Garland, T. Jr 2001. Detecting phylogenetic signal in comparative data. Am. Zool. 41: 1395.
8. Blomberg, S.P., Garland, T. Jr & Ives, A.R. (in press). Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data. Evolution.
9. Bon, R., Joachim, J. & Maublanc, M.L. 1995. Do lambs affect feeding habitat use by lactating female mouflons in spring areas fee of predators? J. Zool., Lond. 235: 43-51.
10. Brooks, D.R. 1996. Explanations of homoplasy at different levels of biological organization. In: Homoplasy. The Recurrence of Similarity in Evolution (M. J. Sanderson & L. Hufford, eds), pp. 3-36. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
11. Brooks, D.R. & McLennan, D.A. 1991. Phylogeny, Ecology, and Behavior. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
12. Burt, A. 1989. Comparative methods using phylogenetically independent contrasts. In: Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology (P. H. Harvey & L. Partridge, eds), pp. 33-53. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
13. Burt, B.B. 2001. Evolutionary stasis, constraint and other terminology describing evolutionary patterns. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 72: 509-517.
14. Cain, A.J. 1964. The perfection of animals. In: Viewpoints in Biology (J. D. Carthy & C. L. Duddington, eds), pp. 36-63. Butterworth, London.
15. Cheverud, J.M. & Dow, M.M. 1985. An autocorrelation analysis of genetic variation due to lineal fission in social groups of rhesus macaques. Am. J. Phys. Anthr. 67: 113-121.
16. Cheverud, J.M., Dow, M.M. & Leutenegger, W. 1985. The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: Sexual dimorphism in body weight among primates. Evolution 39: 1335-1351.
17. Christman, M.C., Jernigan, R.W. & Culver, D. 1997. A comparison of two models for estimating phylogenetic effect on trait variation. Evolution 51: 262-266.
18. Chu, P.C. 1994. Historical examination of delayed plumage maturation in the shorebirds (Aves: Charadriiformes). Evolution 48: 327-350.
19. Coddington, J.A. 1988. Cladistic tests of adaptational hypotheses. Cladistics 4: 3-22.
20. Cooper, W.E. Jr 1995. Strike-induced chemosensory searching by the anguid lizard Elgaria coerulea. Amphib.-Reptilia 16: 147-156.
21. Darlington, C.D. 1939. The Evolution of Genetic Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
22. Darlington, C.D. & Mather, K. 1949. Elements of Genetics. George Allen and Unwin, London.
23. Deaner, R.O. & Nunn, C.L. 1999. How quickly do brains catch up with bodies? A comparative method for detecting evolutionary lag. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 266: 687-694.
24. Derrickson, E.M. & Ricklefs, R.E. 1988. Taxon-dependent diversification of life-history traits and the perception of phylogenetic constraints. Funct. Ecol. 2: 417-423.
25. Diniz-Filho, J.A.F. 2001. Phylogenetic autocorrelation under distinct evolutionary processes. Evolution 55: 1104-1109.
26. Diniz-Filho, J.A., de Sant'Ana, C.E.R.D. & Bini, L.M. 1998. An eigenvector method for estimating phylogenetic inertia. Evolution 52: 1247-1262.
27. Doughty, P. 1996. Statistical analysis of natural experiments in evolutionary biology: Comments on recent criticisms of the use of comparative methods to study adaptation. Am. Nat. 148: 943-956.
28. Edwards, S.V. & Naeem, S. 1993. The phylogenetic component of cooperative breeding in perching birds. Am. Nat. 141: 754-789.
29. Eggleton, P. & Vane-Wright, R.I. (eds) 1994. Phylogenetics and Ecology. Linnean Society Symposium Series. Academic Press, London.
30. Ely, J. & Kurland, J.A. 1989. Spatial autocorrelation, phylogenetic constraints and the causes of sexual dimorphism in primates. Int. J. Primatol. 10: 157-171.
31. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 125: 1-15.
32. Freckleton, R.P., Harvey, P.H. & Pagel, M. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: A test and review of evidence. Am. Nat. (in press).
33. Freeman, S. & Herron, J.C. 2001. Evolutionary Analysis. 2nd Edn, 704 pp. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
34. Futuyma, D.J. 1998. Evolutionary Biology, 2nd Edn, 763 pp. Sinauer and Associates, Sunderland, MA.
35. Garland, T. Jr 1992. Rate tests for phenotypic evolution using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Am. Nat. 140: 509-519.
36. Garland, T. Jr & Adolph, S.C. 1994. Why not to do two-species comparative studies: Limitations on inferring adaptation. Physiol. Zool. 67: 797-828.
37. Garland, T. Jr & Carter, P.A. 1994. Evolutionary physiology. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 56: 579-621.
38. Garland, T. Jr & Ives, A.R. 2000. Using the past to predict the present: Confidence intervals for regression equations in phylogenetic comparative methods. Am. Nat. 155: 346-364.
39. Garland, T. Jr, Bennett, A.F. & Daniels, C.B. 1990. Heritability of locomotor performance and its correlates in a natural population of vertebrates. Experientia 46: 530-533.
40. Garland, T. Jr, Harvey, P.H. & Ives, A.R. 1992. Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst. Biol. 41: 18-32.
41. Garland, T. Jr, Dickerman, A.W., Janis, C.M. & Jones, J.A. 1993. Phylogenetic analysis of covariance by computer simulation. Syst. Biol. 42: 265-292.
42. Garland, T. Jr, Midford, P.E. & Ives, A.R. 1999. An introduction to phylogenetically based statistical methods, with a new method for confidence intervals on ancestral values. Am. Zool. 39: 374-388.
43. Gittleman, J.L. & Kot, M. 1990. Adaptation: Statistics and a null model for estimating phylogenetic effects. Syst. Zool. 39: 227-241.
44. Gittleman, J.L. & Luh, H.-K. 1994. Phylogeny, evolutionary models and comparative methods: A simulation study. In: Phylogenetics and Ecology (P. Eggleton & D. Vane-Wright, eds), pp. 103-122. Academic Press, London.
45. Gittleman, J.L., Anderson, C.G., Kot, M. & Luh, H.-K. 1996a. Phylogenetic lability and rates of evolution: A comparison of behavioral, morphological and life history traits. In: Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behavior (E. P. Martins, ed.), pp. 166-205. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
46. Gittleman, J.L., Anderson, C.G., Kot, M. & Luh, H.-K. 1996b. Comparative tests of evolutionary lability and rates using molecular phylogenies. In: New Uses for New Phylogenies (P. H. Harvey & A. J. Leigh Brown, J. Maynard Smith & S. Nee, eds), pp. 289-307. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
47. Gould, S.J. & Lewontin, R.C. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 205: 581-598.
48. Grafen, A. 1989. The phylogenetic regression. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 326: 119-156.
49. Griffiths, P.E. 1996. The historical turn in the study of adaptation. Br. J. Phil. Sci. 47: 511-532.
50. Hansen, T.F. 1997. Stabilizing selection and the comparative analysis of adaptation. Evolution 51: 1341-1351.
51. Harvey, P.H. & Pagel, M.D. 1991. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology: Oxford Series in Ecology and Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
52. Hillis, D.M. & Huelsenbeck, J.P. 1992. Signal, noise, and reliability in molecular phylogenetic analyses. J. Heredity 83: 189-195.
53. Hosken, D.J., Jones, K.E., Chipperfield, L. & Dixson, A. 2001. Is the bat os penis sexually selected? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50: 450-460.
54. Huxley, J.S. 1958. Evolutionary processes and taxonomy with special reference to grades. Uppsala University Arssks. 6: 21-39.
55. Iwaniuk, A.N., Pellis, S.M. & Whishaw, I.Q. 1999. Brain size is not correlated with forelimb dexterity in fissiped carnivores (Carnivora): A comparative test of the principle of proper mass. Brain, Behav. Evol. 54: 167-180.
56. Janson, C.H. 1992. Measuring evolutionary constraints: A Markov model for phylogenetic transitions among seed dispersal syndromes. Evolution 46: 136-158.
57. Leroi, A.M., Rose, M.R. & Lauder, G.V. 1994. What does the comparative method reveal about adaptation? Am. Nat. 143: 381-402.
58. Lucas, P.W., Corlett, R.T. & Luke, D.A. 1986. Sexual dimorphism and tooth size in anthropoids. Human Evol. 1: 23-39.
59. Lynch, M. 1991. Methods for the analysis of comparative data in evolutionary biology. Evolution 45: 1065-1080.
60. Maddison, W.P. & Slatkin, M. 1991. Null models for the number of evolutionary steps in a character on a phylogenetic tree. Evolution 45: 1184-1197.
61. Manning, J.T. & Chamberlain, A.T. 1993. Fluctuating asymmetry, sexual selection and canine teeth in primates. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 251: 83-87.
62. Manning, J.T. & Chamberlain, A.T. 1994. Sib competition and sperm competitiveness: An answer to 'Why so many sperms?' and the recombination/sperm number correlation. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 256: 177-182.
63. Martins, E.P. & Garland, T Jr 1991. Phylogenetic analyses of the correlated evolution of continuous characters: A simulation study. Evolution 45: 534-557.
64. Martins, E.P. & Hansen, T.F. 1996. The statistical analysis of interspecific data: A review and evaluation of phylogenetic comparative methods. In: Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behaviour (E. P. Martins, ed.), pp. 22-75. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
65. Martins, E.P. & Hansen, T.F. 1997. Phylogenies and the comparative method: A general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. Am. Nat. 149: 646-667.
66. Martins, E.P., Diniz-Filho, J.A.F. & Housworth, E.A. 2002. Adaptive constraints and the phylogenetic comparative method: A computer simulation test. Evolution 56: 1-13.
67. Maynard Smith, J., Burian, R., Kauffman, S., Alberch, P., Campbell, J., Goodwin, B., Lande, R., Raup, D. & Wolpert, L. 1985. Developmental constraints and evolution. Quart. Rev. Biol. 60: 265-287.
68. Mayr, E. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA.
69. McKitrick, M.C. 1993. Phylogenetic constraint in evolutionary theory - Has it any explanatory power? Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24: 307-330.
70. Morales, E. 2000. Estimating phylogenetic inertia in Tithonia (Asteraceae): A comparative approach. Evolution 54: 475-484.
71. Orzack, S.H. & Sober, E. 2001. Adaptation, phylogenetic inertia, and the method of controlled comparisons. In: Adaptationism and Optimality (S. H. Orzack & E. Sober, eds), pp. 45-63. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
72. Pagel, M. 1999. Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401: 877-884.
73. Peterson, A.T. 1991. Sociality and ontogeny of coloration in the blue-and-black jays. Wilson Bull. 103: 59-67.
74. Plavcan, J.M. & van Schaik, C.P. 1992. Intrasexual competition and canine dimorphism in anthropoid primates. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 87: 461-477.
75. Price, P.W. 1996. Biological Evolution, 429 pp. Saunders College Publishing, New York, NY.
76. de Queiroz, A. & de Queiroz, K. 1987. Prey handling behavior of Eumeces gilberti with comments on headfirst ingestion in squamates. J. Herp. 21: 57-63.
77. de Queiroz, A. & Wimberger, P.H. 1993. The usefulness of behavior for phylogeny estimation: Levels of homoplasy in behavioral and morphological characters. Evolution 47: 46-60.
78. Reeve, H.K. & Sherman, P.W. 2001. Optimality and phylogeny. A critique of current thought. In: Adaptationism and Optimality (S. H. Orzack & E. Sober, eds), pp. 64-113. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
79. Ridley, M. 1983. The Explanation of Organic Diversity: The Comparative Method and Adaptations for Mating. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
80. Ridley, M. 1996. Evolution, 2nd Edn. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, MA.
81. Rohlf, F.J. 2001. Comparative methods for the analysis of continuous variables: Geometric interpretations. Evolution 55: 2143-2160.
82. Rose, M.R. & Lauder, G.V. (eds) 1996. Adaptation, 511 pp. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
83. Schluter, D. 1996. Adaptive radiation along genetic lines of least resistance. Evolution 50: 1766-1774.
84. Schwenk, K. 1995. A utilitarian approach to constraint. Zoology 98: 251-262.
85. Sessions, S.K. & Larson, A. 1987. Developmental correlates of genome size in plethodontid salamanders and their implications for genome evolution. Evolution 41: 1239-1251.
86. Shapiro, A.M. 1981. The pierid red-egg syndrome. Am. Nat. 117: 276-294.
87. Sherman, P.W. 1988. The levels of analysis. Anim. Behav. 36: 616-619.
88. Sih, A., Kats, L.B. & Maurer, E.F. 2000. Does phylogenetic inertia explain the evolution of ineffective antipredator behavior in a sunfish-salamander system? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 49: 48-56.
89. Simpson, G.G. 1944. Tempo and Mode in Evolution. Columbia University Press, New York.
90. Simpson, G.G. 1961. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.
91. Smith, R.J. & Cheverud, J.M. 2002. Scaling of sexual size dimorphism in body mass: A phylogenetic analysis of Rensch's rule in primates. Int. J. Primatol. 23: 1095-1135.
92. Strickberger, M.W. 2000. Evolution, 721 pp. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA.
93. Wagner, G.P. & Schwenk, K. 2000. Evolutionarily stable configurations: Functional integration and the evolution of phenotypic stability. Evol. Biol. 31: 155-217.
94. Wake, D. 1991. Homoplasy - The result of natural selection, or evidence of design limitations? Am. Nat. 138: 543-567.
95. Wilson, E.O. 1975. Sociobiology. The New Synthesis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
96. Wimberger, P.H. & de Queiroz, A. 1996. Comparing behavioral and morphological characters as indicators of phylogeny. In: Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behavior. (E. P. Martins, ed.), pp. 206-233. Oxford University Press, Oxford.