On comparative analyses involving non-heritable traits: Why half a loaf is sometimes worse than none

Evolutionary Ecology Research

Volumn 10, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 787-796

  Kunin, William E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Abundance; Comparative method; Correlated traits; Distribution; Heritability; Independent contrasts; Phylogenetic analyses

Indexed keywords

EID: 55949112686     PISSN: 15220613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Abouheif, E. 1999. A method for testing the assumption of phylogenetic independence in comparative data. Evol. Ecol. Res., 52: 1197-1204.
2. Beck, J. and Kitching, I.J. 2007. Correlates of range size and dispersal ability: a comparative analysis of sphingid moths from the Indo-Australian tropics. Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 16: 341-349.
3. Blackburn, T.M. and Gaston, K.J. 1999. The relationship between animal abundance and body size: a review of the mechanisms. Adv. Ecol. Res., 28: 181-210.
4. Cheverud, J.M., Dow, M.M. and Leutenegger, W. 1985. The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: sexual dimorphism in body weight among primates. Evolution, 39: 1335-1351.
5. Clifford, P., Richardson, S. and Hemon, D. 1989. Assessing the significance of the correlation between two spatial processes. Biometrics, 45: 123-134.
6. Duncan, R.P., Bomford, M., Forsyth, D.M. and Conibear, L. 2001. High predictability in introduction outcomes and the geographical range size of introduced Australian birds: a role for climate. J. Anim. Ecol., 70: 621-632.
7. Dunn, P.O., Whittingham, L.A. and Pitcher, T.E. 2001. Mating systems, sperm competition and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in birds. Evolution, 55: 161-175.
8. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat., 125: 1-15.
9. Garland, T., Jr., Dickerman, A.W., Janis, C.M. and Jones, J.A. 1993. Phylogenetic analysis of covariance by computer simulation. Syst. Biol., 42: 265-292.
10. Grafen, A. 1989. The phylogenetic regression. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Land. B, 326: 119-156.
11. Harvey, P.H. and Pagel, M.D. 1991. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Hunt, G., Roy, K. and Jablonski, D. 2005. Species-level heritability reaffirmed: a comment on On the heritability of geographic range sizes'. Am. Nat., 166: 129-135.
13. Jablonski, D. 1987. Heritability at the species level: analysis of the species ranges of Cretaceous molluscs. Science, 238: 360-363.
14. Martins, E.P. and Hansen, T.F. 1997. Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach for incorporating phylogenetic information into analysis of interspecific data. Am. Nat., 149: 646-667.
15. Pither, J. 2003. Climate tolerance and interspecific variation in geographic range size. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 270: 475-481.
16. Pocock, M.J.O., Hartley, S., Telfer, M.G., Preston, C.D. and Kunin, W.E. 2006. Ecological correlates of range structure in rare and scarce British plants. J. Ecol, 94: 581-596.
17. Price, T. 1997. Correlated evolution and independent contrasts. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 352: 519-529.
18. Purvis, A. and Garland, T., Jr. 1993. Polytomies in comparative analyses of continuous variables. Syst. Biol., 42: 569-575.
19. Rheindt, F.E., Grafe, T.U. and Abouheif, E. 2004. Rapidly evolving traits and the comparative method: how important is testing for phylogenetic signal? Evol. Ecol. Res., 6: 377-396.
20. Rohlf, F.J. 2001. Comparative methods for the analysis of continuous variables: geometric interpretations. Evolution, 55: 2143-2160.
21. Rundle, S.D., Bilton, D.T., Abbott, J.C. and Foggo, A. 2007. Range size in North American Enallagma damselflies correlates with wing size. Freshw. Biol., 52: 471-477.
22. Webb, T.J. and Gaston, K.J. 2003. On the heritability of geographic range sizes. Am. Nat., 161: 553-566.
23. Webb, T.J. and Gaston, K.J. 2005. Heritability of geographic range sizes revisited: a reply to Hunt et al. Am. Nat., 166: 136-143.
24. Westoby, M., Leishman, M.R. and Lord, J. 1995. On misinterpreting the 'phylogenetic correction'. J. Ecol., 83: 531-534.