A comparative method for studying adaptation to a randomly evolving environment

Evolution

Volumn 62, Issue 8, 2008, Pages 1965-1977

  Hansen, Thomas F ^a,b   Pienaar, Jason ^b,d   Orzack, Steven Hecht ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^b FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Fresh Pond Research Institute Cambridge   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptation; Maladaptation; Optimality; Ornstein Uhlenbeck process; Phylogenetic comparative method; Phylogenetic effect; Phylogenetic inertia

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; OPTIMIZATION; PHYLOGENETICS;

ACCLIMATIZATION; ADAPTATION; ALGORITHM; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER PROGRAM; ENVIRONMENT; EVOLUTION; LIZARD; PHYLOGENY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ACCLIMATIZATION; ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; ENVIRONMENT; EVOLUTION; LIZARDS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, GENETIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PHYLOGENY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SOFTWARE; STOCHASTIC PROCESSES;

EID: 47749107969     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00412.x     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Abouheif, E., and D. J. Fairbairn. 1997. A comparative analysis of allometry for sexual size dimorphism: assessing Rensch's rule. Am. Nat. 149 : 540 562.
2. Arnold, S. J., M. E. Pfrender, and A. G. Jones. 2001. The adaptive landscape as a conceptual bridge between micro- and macroevolution. Genetica 112/113 : 9 32.
3. Ashton, K. G. 2004. Comparing phylogenetic signal in intraspecific and interspecific body size data sets. J. Evol. Biol. 17 : 1157 1161.
4. Blomberg, S. P., and T. Garland. 2002. Tempo and mode in evolution: phylogenetic inertia, adaptation and comparative methods. J. Evol. Biol. 15 : 899 910.
5. Blomberg, S. P., T. Garland, and A. R. Ives. 2003. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57 : 717 745.
6. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2004. Model selection and inference: a practical information - theoretic approach. Sec. Ed. Springer, New York.
7. Burt, A. 1989. Comparative methods using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Pp. 33 53 in P. H. Harvey and L. Partridge, eds. Oxford surveys in evolutionary biology. Vol. 6. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
8. Butler, M. A., and A. A. King. 2004. Phylogenetic comparative analysis: a modelling approach for adaptive evolution. Am. Nat. 164 : 683 695.
9. Butler, M. A., T. W. Schoener, and J. B. Losos. 2000. The relationship between sexual size dimorphism and habitat use in Greater Antillean Anolis lizards. Evolution 54 : 259 272.
10. Cheverud, J. M., M. M. Dow, and W. Leutenegger. 1985. The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses - sexual dimorphism in body-weights among primates. Evolution 39 : 1335 1351.
11. Deaner, R. O., and C. L. Nunn. 1999. How quickly do brains catch up with bodies? A comparative method for detecting evolutionary lag. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266 : 687 694.
12. 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.
13. Edwards, A. W. F. 1992. Likelihood: expanded edition. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.
14. Estes, S., and S. J. Arnold. 2007. Resolving the paradox of stasis: models with stabilizing selection explain evolutionary divergence on all timescales. Am. Nat. 169 : 227 244.
15. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 126 : 1 25.
16. Felsenstein, J. 1988. Phylogenies and quantitative characters. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19 : 445 471.
17. 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.
18. Gard, T. C. 1988. Introduction to stochastic differential equations. Marcel Dekker, Inc.
19. Garland, T. Jr., A. W. Dickerman, C. M. Janis, and J. A. Jones. 1993. Phylogenetic analysis of covariance by computer simulation. Syst. Biol. 42 : 265 292.
20. Gomez, D., and M. Thery. 2007. Simultaneous crypsis and conspiciousness in color patterns: comparative analysis of a Neotropical rainforest bird community. Am. Nat. 169 : S42 S61.
21. Hansen, T. F. 1997. Stabilizing selection and the comparative analysis of adaptation. Evolution 51 : 1341 1351.
22. Hansen, T. F., and E. P. Martins. 1996. Translating between microevolutionary process and macroevolutionary patterns: the correlation structure of interspecific data. Evolution 50 : 1404 1417.
23. Hansen, T. F., and S. H. Orzack. 2005. Assessing current adaptation and phylogenetic inertia as explanations of trait evolution: the need for controlled comparisons. Evolution 59 : 2063 2072.
24. Hansen, T. F., W. S. Armbruster, and L. Antonsen. 2000. Comparative analysis of character displacement and spatial adaptations as illustrated by the evolution of Dalechampia blossoms. Am. Nat. 156 : S17 S34.
25. Harvey, P. H., and M. D. Pagel. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
26. Hipp, A. L. 2007. Nonuniform processes of chromosome evolution in sedges (Carex: Cyperaceae). Evolution 61 : 2175 2194.
27. Housworth, E. A., E. P. Martins, and M. Lynch. 2004. The phylogenetic mixed model. Am. Nat. 163 : 84 96.
28. Lande, R. 1976. Natural selection and random genetic drift in phenotypic evolution. Evolution 30 : 314 334.
29. Lande, R. 1979. Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain:body size allometry. Evolution 33 : 402 416.
30. Lynch, M. 1991. Methods for the analysis of comparative data in evolutionary biology. Evolution 45 : 1065 1080.
31. Martin R. D., and P. H. Harvey. 1985. Brain size allometry: ontogeny and phylogeny. Brain size allometry: ontogeny and phylogeny. Pp. 147 173 in W. L. Jungers, ed. Size and scaling in primate biology. Plenum, New York.
32. Martins, E. P. 2000. Adaptation and the comparative method. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15 : 296 299.
33. Martins, E. P. 2004. COMPARE, version 4.6b. Computer programs for the statistical analysis of comparative data. Distributed by the author at http://compare.bio.indiana.edu/. Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
34. Martins, E. P., and T. Garland. 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. 1996. 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, New York.
36. 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.
37. Martins, E. P., J. A. F. Diniz-Filho, and E. A. Housworth. 2002. Adaptive constraints and the phylogenetic comparative method: a computer simulation test. Evolution 56 : 1 13.
38. Martins, E. P., A. Labra, M. Halloy, and J. T. Thompson. 2004. Large-scale patterns of signal evolution: an interspecific study of Liolaemus lizard headbob displays. Anim. Behav. 68 : 453 463.
39. O'Meara, B. C., C. Ane, M. J. Sanderson, and P. C. Wainwright 2006. Testing for different rates of continuous trait evolution using likelihood. Evolution 60 : 922 933.
40. Ord, T. J., and E. P. Martins. 2006. Tracing the origins of signal diversity in anole lizards: phylogenetic approaches to inferring the evolution of complex behaviour. Anim. Behav. 71 : 1411 1429.
41. Orzack, S. H., and E. Sober. 2001. Adaptation, phylogenetic inertia, and the method of controlled comparisons. Pp. 45 63 in S. H. Orzack and E. Sober, eds. Adaptationism and optimality. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.
42. Pagel, M. D., and P. H. Harvey. 1988. The taxon-level problem in the evolution of mammalian brain size: facts and artifacts. Am. Nat. 132 : 344 359.
43. Plavcan, J. M., and C. P. Van Schaik. 1992. Intrasexual competition and canine dimorphism in Anthropoid Primates. Am. J. Phys. Anthro. 87 : 461 477.
44. Rensch, B. 1959. Evolution above the species level. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.
45. Ridley, M. 1983. The explanation of organic diversity: the comparative method and adaptations for mating. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
46. Riska, B. 1989. Composite traits, selection response, and evolution. Evolution 43 : 1172 1191.
47. Riska, B. 1991. Regression models in evolutionary allometry. Am. Nat. 138 : 283 299.
48. Rohlf, F. J. 2001. Comparative methods for the analysis of continuous variables: geometric interpretations. Evolution 55 : 2143 2160.
49. Rohlf, F. J. 2006. A comment on phylogenetic correction. Evolution 60 : 1509 1515.
50. Simpson, G. G. 1944. Tempo and mode in evolution. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.
51. Smith R. J., and J. M. Cheverud. 2002. Scaling of sexual dimorphism in body mass: a phylogenetic analysis of Rensch's rule in primates. Int. J. Primatol. 23 : 1095 1135.
52. Sober, E., and S. H. Orzack. 2003. Common ancestry and natural selection. Brit. J. Philos. Sci. 54 : 423 437.
53. Thoren, S., P. Lindenfors, and P. M. Kappeler. 2006. Phylogenetic analyses of dimorphism in primates: evidence for stronger selection on canine size than on body size. Am. J. Phys. Anthro. 130 : 50 59.
54. Valiente-Banuet, A., A. V. Rumbe, M. Verdu, and R. M. Callaway. 2006. Modern quaternary plant lineages promote diversity through facilitation of ancient tertiary lineages. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103 : 16812 16187.
55. Verdu, M., and G. Gleiser. 2006. Adaptive evolution of reproductive and vegetative traits driven by breeding system. New Phytol. 169 : 409 417.
56. Whittall, J. B., and S. A. Hodges. 2007. Pollinator shifts drive increasingly long nectar spurs in columbine flowers. Nature 447 : 706 709.