Limits of principal components analysis for producing a common trait space: Implications for inferring selection, contingency, and chance in evolution

PLoS ONE

Volumn 4, Issue 11, 2009, Pages

  Parsons, Kevin J ^a   Cooper, W James ^a   Albertson, R Craig ^a  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CICHLID; CONTROLLED STUDY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; NONHUMAN; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; ALGORITHM; ANIMAL; AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOLOGY; EVOLUTION; GENETIC SELECTION; HISTOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PHENOTYPE; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DYNAMICS;

CICHLIDAE; PISCES;

ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; BIOLOGY; CICHLIDS; EVOLUTION; MODELS, ANATOMIC; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PHENOTYPE; POPULATION DYNAMICS; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; SELECTION, GENETIC;

EID: 71049147606     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007957     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Young KA, Snoeks J, Seehausen O (2009) Morphological diversity and the roles of contingency, chance and determinism in African cichlid radiations. PLOS one 4: e4740.
2. Manly BFJ (1994) Multivariate statistics: a primer. New York: CRC Press. 215 p.
3. Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL (2004) Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. San Diego: Elsevier. 443 p.
4. Cheverud JM, Wagner GP, Dow MM (1989) Methods for the comparative analysis of variation patterns. Syst Zool 38: 201-213.
5. Herrera CM, Cerda X, Garcia MB, Guitian J, Medrano M, et al. (2002) Floral integration, phenotypic covariance structure and pollinator variation in bumblebee-pollinated Helleborus foetidus. J Evol Biol 15: 108-121.
6. Peres-Neto PR (2005) MorphInt: available upon request from peres-neto. pedroυqam.ca.
7. Gower JC (1971) Statistical methods of comparing different multivariate analyses of the same data. In: Hodson FR, Kendall DG, Tautu P, eds. Mathematics in the archaeological and historical sciences. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. pp 138-149.
8. Peres-Neto PR, Jackson DA (2001) How well do multivariate data sets match? The advantages of a Procrustean superimposition approach over the Mantel test. Oecologia 129: 169-178.
9. Sheets D (2002) Standard6, available at: www3.canisius.edu/~sheets/ morphsoft.html.
10. Flury B (1988) Common principal components and related multivariate models. Wiley, New York.
11. Phillips PC, Arnold SJ (1999) Hierarchical comparison of genetic variance-covariance matrices. I. Using the Flury hierarchy. Evolution 53: 1506-1515.
12. Adams DC, Collyer ML (2009) A general framework for the analysis of phenotypic trajectories in evolutionary studies. Evolution 63: 1143-1154.
13. Zelditch ML, Lundrigan BL, Garland Jr. T (2004) Developmental regulation of skull morphology. I. Ontogenetic dynamics of variance. Evol Dev 6: 194-206.
14. Zelditch ML, Mezey J, Sheets HD, Lundrigan BL, Garland Jr. (2006) Developmental regulation of skull morphology II: ontogenetic dynamics of covariance. Evol Dev 8: 46-60.