The effect of intraspecific sample size on type I and type II error rates in comparative studies

Evolution

Volumn 59, Issue 12, 2005, Pages 2705-2710

  Harmon, Luke J ^a,b   Losos, Jonathan B ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Independent contrasts; Measurement error; Phylogenetic comparative method; Population variation; Statistics

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY;

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION; PHYLOGENY; SAMPLE SIZE; SPECIES DIFFERENCE;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHYLOGENY; SAMPLE SIZE; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

EID: 30344477632     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1554/05-224.1     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Ackerly, D. D., and R. Nyffeler. 2004. Evolutionary diversification of continuous traits: phylogenetic tests and application to seed size in the California flora. Evol. Ecol. 18:249-272.
2. Al-kahtani, M. A., C. Zuleta, E. Caviedes-Vidal, and T. Garland, Jr. 2004. Kidney mass and relative medullary thickness of rodents in relation to habitat, body size, and phylogeny. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 77:346-365.
3. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 125:1-15.
4. _. 2004. Inferring phylogenies. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
5. Freckleton, R. P., P. H. Harvey, and M. Pagel. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. Am. Nat. 160:712-726.
6. Garland, T., Jr., P. H. Harvey, and A. R. Ives. 1992. Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst. Biol. 41:18-32.
7. Lande, R. 1979. Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain: body size allometry. Evolution 33:402-416.
8. Lande, R., and S. J. Arnold. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210-1226.
9. Leal, M., A. K. Knox, and J. B. Losos. 2002. Lack of convergence in aquatic Anolis lizards. Evolution 56:785-791.
10. Losos, J. B., K. I. Warheit, and T. W. Schoener. 1997. Adaptive differentiation following experimental island colonization in Anolis lizards. Nature 387:70-73.
11. Lynch, M. 1991. Methods for the analysis of comparative data in evolutionary biology. Evolution 45:1065-1080.
12. Martins, E. P. 1994. Estimating the rate of phenotypic evolution from comparative data. Am. Nat. 144:193-209.
13. Martins, E. P., and T. Garland, Jr. 1991. Phylogenetic analyses of the correlated evolution of continuous characters: a simulation study. Evolution 45:534-557.
14. 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.
15. Patek, S. N., and T. H. Oakley. 2003. Comparative tests of evolutionary trade-offs in a palinurid lobster acoustic system. Evolution 57:2082-2100.
16. Phelan, J. P., M. A. Archer, K. A. Beckman, A. K. Chippindale, T. J. Nusbaum, and M. R. Rose. 2003. Breakdown in correlations during laboratory evolution. I. Comparative analyses of Drosophila populations. Evolution 57:527-535.
17. Purvis, A., and A. J. Webster. 1999. Phylogenetically independent comparisons and primate phylogeny. Pp. 44-70 in P. C. Lee, ed. Comparative primate socioecology. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
18. Rambaut, A. 2002. Phyl-O-Gen: phylogenetic tree simulator package, Vers. 1.1. University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K.
19. Ricklefs, R. E., and J. M. Starck. 1996. Applications of phylogenetically independent contrasts: a mixed progress report. Oikos 77:167-172.
20. Symonds, M. R. E. 2002. The effects of topological inaccuracy in evolutionary trees on the phylogenetic comparative method of independent contrasts. Syst. Biol. 51:541-553.