Canonical Phylogenetic Ordination

Systematic Biology

Volumn 52, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 684-695

  Giannini, Norberto P ^a  

^a DIVISION OF INVERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ecomorphology; Historical effects; Linear models; Monte Carlo permutations; Phylogenetic comparative methods

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECOSYSTEM; GENETICS; LIZARD; PHYLOGENY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; ECOSYSTEM; LIZARDS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PHYLOGENY;

ANIMALIA; SQUAMATA;

EID: 0242404117     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150390238888     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. BAUM, B. 1992. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41:3-10.
2. BERTELLI, S. B., AND P. L. TUBARO. In press. Body mass and habitat correlates of song structure in a primitive group of birds. Biol. J. Linn. Soc.
3. BLOMBERG, S. P., AND T. GARLAND, JR. 2002. Tempo and mode in evolution: Phylogenetic inertia, adaptation and comparative methods. J. Evol. Biol. 15:899-910.
4. BORCARD, D., P. LEGENDRE, AND P. DRAPEAU. 1992. Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73:1045-1055.
5. BROOKS, D. R., AND D. A. MCLENNAN. 1991. Phylogeny, ecology and behavior: A research program in comparative biology. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
6. DÍAZ-URIARTE, R., AND T. GARLAND, JR. 1996. Testing hypothesis of correlated evolution using phylogenetically independent contrasts: Sensitivity to deviations from Brownian motion. Syst. Biol. 45:27-47.
7. DINIZ-FILHO, J. A. F. 2000. Métodos filogenéticos comparativos. Holos Editora, Riberão Preto, Brasil.
8. DINIZ-FILHO, J. A. F., C. E. RAMOS DE SANT' ANA, AND L. M. BINI. 1998. An eigenvector method for estimating phylogenetic inertia. Evolution 52:1247-1262.
9. DOLÉDEC, S., D. CHESSEL, C. J. F. TER BRAAK, AND S. CHAMPELY. 1996. Matching species traits to environmental variables: A new three-table ordination method. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 3:143-166.
10. FARRIS, J. 1973. On comparing the shape of taxonomic trees. Syst. Zool. 22:50-54.
11. FARRIS, J. S. 1991. Hennig defined paraphyly. Cladistics 7:297-304.
12. GITTLEMAN, J. L., C. G. ANDERSON, M. KOT, AND H.-K. LUH. 1996. Phylogenetic lability and rates of evolution: A comparison of behavioral, morphological and life history traits. Pages 166-205 in Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior (E. P. Martins, ed). Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
13. GRANDCOLAS, P., P. P. DELEPORTE, L. DESUTTER-GRANDCOLAS, AND C. DAUGERON. 2001. Phylogenetics and ecology: As many characters as possible should be included in the cladistic analysis. Cladistics 17:104-110.
14. HAIR, J. F., JR., R. E. ANDERSON, R. L. TATHAM, AND W. C. BLACK. 1995. Multivariate data analysis, 4th edition. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
15. HANSEN, T. F. 1997. Stabilizing selection and the comparative analysis of adaptation. Evolution 51:1341-1351.
16. HARVEY, P. H., AND M. D. PAGEL. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
17. HURLBERT, S. H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 54:187-211.
18. JAMES, F. C., AND C. E. MCCULLOCH. 1990. Multivariate analysis in ecology and systematics: Panacea or Pandora's box? Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 21:129-166.
19. LAPOINTE, F.-J., AND T. GARLAND, JR. 2001. A generalized permutation model for the analysis of cross-species data. J. Classif. 18:109-127.
20. LEGENDRE, P., AND M. J. ANDERSON. 1999. Distance-based redundancy analysis: Testing multi-species responses in multi-factorial ecological experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 69:1-24.
21. LEGENDRE, P., Y. DESDEVISES, AND E. BAZIN. 2002. A statistical test for host-parasite coevolution. Syst. Biol. 51:217-234.
22. LEGENDRE, P., R. GALZIN, AND M. L. HARMELIN-VIVIEN. 1997. Relating behavior to habitat: Solutions to the fourth-corner problem. Ecology 78:547-562.
23. LEGENDRE, P., F. J. LAPOINTE, AND P. CASGRAIN. 1994. Modeling brain evolution from behavior: A permutational regression approach. Evolution 48:1487-1499.
24. MAKARENKOV, V., AND P. LEGENDRE. 2002. Nonlinear redundancy analysis and canonical correspondence analysis based on polynomial regression. Ecology 83:1146-1161.
25. MANLY, B. F. J. 1992. Multivariate statistical analysis: A primer. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
26. MANLY, B. F. J. 1997. Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology, 2nd edition. Chapman and Hall, London.
27. MANTEL, N. 1967. The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res. 27:209-220.
28. MARTINS, E. P. 2000. Adaptation and the comparative method. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15:296-299.
29. MARTINS, E. P., AND T. GARLAND JR., 1991. Phylogenetic analyses of the correlated evolution of continuous characters: A simulation study. Syst. Biol. 48:642-650.
30. MARTINS, E. P., AND T. F. HANSEN. 1996. The statistical analysis of interspecific data: A review and evaluation of phylogenetic comparative methods. Pages 22-75 in Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior (E. P. Martins, ed.). Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
31. MARTINS, E. P., AND T. F. HANSEN. 1997. Phylogenies and the comparative method: A general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. Am. Nat. 149:646-667.
32. ØKLAND, R. H. 1996. Are ordination and constrained ordination alternative or complementary strategies in general ecological studies? J. Veg. Sci. 7:289-292.
33. RAO, C. R. 1964. The use and interpretation of principal component analysis in applied research. Sankhya A 26:329-358.
34. REILLY, S. M., AND P. C. WAINWRIGHT. 1994. Conclusion: Ecological morphology and the power of integration. Pages 339-354 in Ecological morphology: Integrative organismal biology (P. C. Wainwright and S. M. Reilly, eds.). Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
35. RICKLEFS, R. E., AND D. B. MILES. 1994. Ecological and evolutionary inferences from morphology: An ecological perspective. Pages 13-41 in Ecological morphology: Integrative organismal biology (P. C. Wainwright and S. M. Reilly, eds.). Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
36. RICKLEFS, R. E., AND J. M. STARCK. 1996. Applications of phylogenetically independent contrasts: A mixed progress report. Oikos 77:167-172.
37. SIDDALL, M. E. 1996. Phylogenetic covariance probability: Confidence and historical associations. Syst. Biol. 45:48-66.
38. SIDDALL, M. E. 2001. Computer-intensive randomization in systematics. Cladistics 17:S35-S52.
39. SIDDALL, M. E. 2002. Measures of support. Pages 80-101 in Techniques in molecular evolution and systematics (R. DeSalle and G. Giribet, eds.). Birkhaüser, Boston.
40. STEARNS, S. G. 1983. The influence of size and phylogeny on patterns of covariation among life-history traits in the mammals. Oikos 41:173-187.
41. TER BRAAK, C. J. F. 1986. Canonical correspondence analysis: A new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67:1167-1179.
42. TER BRAAK, C. J. F. 1988. CANOCO: A FORTRAN program for canonical community ordination. Agricultural Mathematics Group, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
43. TER BRAAK, C. J. F. 1992. Multidimensional scaling and regression. Stat. Appl. 4:577-586.
44. TER BRAAK, C. J. F. 1995. Ordination. Pages 91-173 in Data analysis in community and landscape ecology (R. H. G. Jongman, C. F. J. ter Braak, and O. F. R. van Tongeren, eds.). Pudoc, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
45. TER BRAAK, C. F. J., AND C. W. N. LOOMAN. 1994. Biplots in reduced-rank regression. Biom. J. 36:983-1003.
46. TER BRAAK, C. F. J., AND P. ŠMILAUER. 1998. CANOCO reference manual and user's guide to CANOCO for Windows: Software for canonical community ordination, version 4.0. Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, New York.
47. TER BRAAK, C. F. J., AND P. F. M. VERDONSCHOT. 1995. Canonical correspondence analysis and related multivariate methods in aquatic ecology. Aquat. Sci. 57:255-289.
48. VAN DER KLAAUW, C. J. 1948. Ecological studies and reviews. IV. Ecological morphology. Bibl. Biotheor. 4:27-111.
49. VITT, L. J., P. A. ZANI, AND M. C. ESPOSITO. 1999. Historical ecology of Amazonian lizards: Implications for community ecology. Oikos 87:286-294.
50. WAINWRIGHT, P. C., AND S. M. REILLY. 1994. Introduction. Pages 1-9 in ecological morphology: Integrative organismal biology (P. C. Wainwright and S. M. Reilly, eds.). Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
51. WENZEL, J. W., AND J. M. CARPENTER. 1994. Comparing methods: Adaptative traits and tests of adaptation. Pages 79-101 in Phylogenetics and ecology (P. Eggleton and R. I. Vane-Wright, eds.). Academic Press, London.
52. WESTOBY, M., M. R. LEISHMAN, AND J. M. LORD. 1995. On misinter-preting the "phylogenetic correction." J. Ecol. 83:531-534.