On the selection of phylogenetic eigenvectors for ecological analyses

Ecography

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 239-249

  Diniz Filho, Jose Alexandre F ^a   Bini, Luis Mauricio ^a   Rangel, Thiago Fernando ^a   Morales Castilla, Ignacio ^b   Olalla Tárraga, Miguel Á ^c   Rodríguez, Miguel Á ^b   Hawkins, Bradford A ^d  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF GOIÁS   (Brazil)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALCALÁ   (Spain)

^c IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; AUTOCORRELATION; BERGMANN RULE; BODY SIZE; CARNIVORE; CORRELATION; ECOLOGICAL APPROACH; HERITABILITY; MATRIX; NICHE; NUMERICAL MODEL; PHYLOGENETICS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SELECTION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

CARNIVORA;

EID: 84857799171     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.06949.x     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Adams D. C. and Church J. O. 2011. The evolution of large-scale body size clines in Plethodon salamanders: evidence of heat balance or species-specific artifact? Ecography 34, in press.
2. Angeler D. G. et al. 2009. Statistical performance and information content of time lag analysis and redundancy analysis in time series modeling. Ecology 90: 3245-3257.
3. Bellier E. et al. 2007. Identifying spatial relationships at multiple scales: principal coordinates of neighbour matrices (PCNM) and geostatistical approaches. Ecography 30: 385-399.
4. Bini L. M. et al. 2009. Coefficient shifts in geographical ecology: an empirical evaluation of spatial and non-spatial regression. Ecography 32: 193-204.
5. Bininda-Emonds O. R. P. et al. 1999. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. 74: 143-175.
6. Bininda-Emonds O. R. P. et al. 2007. The delayed rise of present-day mammals. Nature 446: 507-512.
7. Blanchet F. G. et al. 2008. Forward selection of explanatory variables. Ecology 89: 2623-2632.
8. Blomberg S. P. et al. 2003. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57: 717-745.
9. Borcard D. and Legendre P. 2002. All-scale spatial analysis of ecological data by means of principal coordinates of neighbour matrices. Ecol. Model. 153: 51-68.
10. Borcard D. et al. 2004. Dissecting the spatial structure of ecological data at multiple scales. Ecology 85: 1826-1832.
11. Butler M. A. et al. 2000 The relationship between sexual size dimorphism and habitat use in greater Antillean Anolis lizards. Evolution 54: 259-272.
12. Cheverud J. M. et al. 1985. The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: sexual dimorphism in body weight in primates. Evolution 39: 1335-1351.
13. Cooper N. et al. 2010. Phylogenetic comparative approaches for studying niche conservatism. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 2529-2539.
14. Desdevises Y. et al. 2003. Quantifying phylogenetically structured environmental variation. Evolution 57: 2647-2652.
15. Diniz-Filho J. A. F. 2001. Phylogenetic autocorrelation under distinct evolutionary processes. Evolution 55: 1104-1109.
16. Diniz-Filho J. A. F. and Tôrres N. M. 2002. Phylogenetic comparative methods and the geographic range size-body size relationship in new world terrestrial carnivora. Evol. Ecol. 16: 351-367.
17. Diniz-Filho J. A. F. and Bini L. M. 2005. Modelling geographical patterns in species richness using eigenvector-based spatial filters. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 14: 177-185.
18. Diniz-Filho J. A. F. and Nabout J. C. 2009. Modeling body size evolution in Felidae under alternative phylogenetic hypotheses. Genet. Mol. Biol. 32: 170-176.
19. Diniz-Filho J. A. F. et al. 1998. An eigenvector method for estimating phylogenetic inertia. Evolution 52: 1247-1262.
20. Diniz-Filho J. A. F. et al. 2007. Seeing the forest for the trees: partitioning ecological and phylogenetic components of Bergmann's rule in European Carnivora. Ecography 30: 598-608.
21. Diniz-Filho J. A. F. et al. 2009. Climate history, human impacts and global body size of Carnivora (Mammalia: Eutheria) at multiple evolutionary scales. J. Biogeogr. 36: 2222-2236.
22. Diniz-Filho J. A. F. et al. 2010. Hidden patterns of phylogenetic non-stationarity overwhelm comparative analyses of niche conservatism and divergence. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 9: 916-926.
23. Dormann C. F. et al. 2007. Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography 30: 609-628.
24. Dray S. et al. 2006. Spatial modeling: a comprehensive framework for principal coordinate analysis of neighbor matrices (PCNM). Ecol. Model. 196: 483-493.
25. Felsenstein J. 1988. Phylogenies and quantitative characters. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19: 445-471.
26. Freckleton R. P. and Jetz W. 2009. Space versus phylogeny: disentangling phylogenetic and spatial signals in comparative data. Proc. R. Soc. B 276: 21-30.
27. Freckleton R. P. et al. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. Am. Nat. 160: 712-726.
28. Freckleton R. P. et al. 2011. Comparative method as a statistical fix: the dangers of ignoring evolutionary models. Am. Nat. in press.
29. Garland T. and Ives A. R. 2000. Using the past to predict the present: confident intervals for regression equations in phylogenetic comparative methods. Am. Nat. 155: 346-364.
30. Garland T. et al. 1993. Phylogenetic analysis of covariance by computer simulation. Syst. Biol. 42: 265-292.
31. Gittleman J. L. and Kot M. 1990. Adaptation: statistics and a null model for estimating phylogenetic effects. Syst. Zool. 39: 227-241.
32. Griffith D. A. 2003. Spatial autocorrelation and spatial filtering: gaining understanding through theory and scientific visualization. - Springer.
33. Griffith D. A. and Peres-Neto P. R. 2006. Spatial modeling in ecology: the flexibility of eigenfunction spatial analyses. Ecology 87: 2603-2613.
34. Hansen T. F. and Martins E. P. 1996. Translating between microevolutionary process and macroevolutionary patterns: the correlation structure of interspecific data. Evolution 50: 1404-1417.
35. Harvey P. H. et al. 1995. Why ecologists need to be phylogenetically challenged. J. Ecol. 83: 535-536.
36. Hof C. et al. 2010. Phylogenetic signals in the climatic niches of world's amphibians. Ecography 33: 242-250.
37. Housworth E. A. et al. 2004. The phylogenetic mixed model. Am. Nat. 163: 84-96.
38. Jombart T. et al. 2009. Finding essential scales of spatial variation in ecological data: a multivariate approach. Ecography 32: 161-168.
39. Kuhn I. et al. 2009. Combining spatial and phylogenetic eigenvector filtering in trait analysis. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 18: 745-758.
40. Legendre P. 1993. Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74: 1659-1673.
41. Legendre P. and Legendre L. 1998. Numerical ecology, 2nd English ed. - Elsevier.
42. Legendre P. et al. 2010. Community surveys through space and time: testing the space-time interaction in the absence of replication. Ecology 91: 262-272.
43. Martins E. P. and Hansen T. F. 1996. The statistical analysis of interspecific data: a review and evaluation of phylogenetic comparative methods. - In: Martins E. P. (ed.), Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior. Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 22-75.
44. Martins E. P. and T. F. Hansen. 1997. Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporate phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. Am. Nat. 149: 646-667.
45. Martins E. P. et al. 2002. Adaptive constraints and the phylogenetic comparative method: a computer simulation test. Evolution 56: 1-13.
46. Monteiro L. R. and Abe A. S. 1999. Functional and historical determinants of shape in the scapula of Xenarthran mammals: evolution of a complex morphological structure. J. Morphol. 241: 251-263.
47. Morales E. 2000. Estimating phylogenetic inertia in Tithonia (Asteraceae): a comparative approach. Evolution 54: 475-484.
48. Olalla-Tárraga M. Á. et al. 2010. Cross-species and assemblage-based approaches to Bergmann's rule and the biogeography of body size in Plethodon salamanders of eastern North America. Ecography 33: 362-368.
49. Pagel M. D. 1999. Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401: 877-884.
50. Pavoine S. et al. 2007. Testing for phylogenetic signal in phenotypic traits: new matrices of phylogenetic proximities. Theor. Popul. Biol. 73: 79-91.
51. Peres-Neto P. R. 2006. A unified strategy for estimating and controlling spatial, temporal and phylogenetic autocorrelation in ecological models. Oecol. Bras. 10: 105-119.
52. Peres-Neto P. R. et al. 2005. How many principal components? Stopping rules for determining the number of non-trivial axes revisited. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 49: 974-997.
53. Peres-Neto P. et al. 2006. Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87: 2614-2625.
54. Pillar V. D. and Duarte L. D. S. 2010. A framework for metacommunity analysis of phylogenetic structure. Ecol. Lett. 13: 587-596.
55. Ramirez L. et al. 2008. Partitioning phylogenetic and adaptive components of the geographical body-size pattern of New World birds. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 17: 100-110.
56. Revell L. J. 2010. Phylogenetic signal and linear regression on species data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1: 319-329.
57. Rodríguez M. Á. et al. 2008. Bergmann's rule and the geography of mammal body size in the Western Hemisphere. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 17: 274-283.
58. Rohlf F. J. 2001. Comparative methods for the analysis of continuous variables: geometric interpretations. Evolution 55: 2143-2160.
59. Safi K. and Pettorelli N. 2010. Phylogenetic, spatial and environmental components of extinction risk in carnivores. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 19: 352-362.
60. Sakamoto M. et al. 2010. Phylogenetically structured variance in felid bite force: the role of phylogeny in the evolution of biting performance. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 463-478.
61. Siqueira T. et al. 2008. Phenological patterns of neotropical lotic chironomids: is emergence constrained by environmental factors? Austral Ecol. 33: 902-910.
62. Sokal R. R. and Rohlf F. J. 1962. The comparison of dendrograms by objective methods. Taxon 11: 33-40.
63. Terribile L. C. et al. 2009. Ecological and evolutionary components of body size: geographic variation of venomous snakes at the global scale. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 98: 94-109.
64. Thioulouse J. et al. 1995. Multivariate analysis of spatial patterns: a unified approach tolocal and global structures. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 2: 1-14.
65. Tiefelsdorf M. and Griffith D. 2007. Semi-parametric filtering of spatial autocorrelation: the eigenvector approach. Environ. Plann. A 39: 1193-1221.
66. Westoby M. et al. 1995a. On misinterpreting the 'phylogenetic correction'. J. Ecol. 83: 531-534.
67. Westoby M. et al. 1995b. Further remarks on 'phylogenetic correction'. J. Ecol. 83: 727-730.
68. Wiens J. J. and Graham C. H. 2005. Niche conservatism: integrating evolution, ecology, and conservation biology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 36: 519-539.