Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 341

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 120 of the 120 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quartet Sampling distinguishes lack of support from conflicting support in the green plant tree of life

Open access
Pease, James B., Brown, Joseph W., Walker, Joseph F., Hinchliff, Cody E., Smith, Stephen A.·2018·American Journal of Botany

Abstract

Premise of the Study: Phylogenetic support has been difficult to evaluate within the green plant tree of life partly due to a lack of specificity between conflicted versus poorly informed branches. As data sets continue to expand in both breadth and depth, new support measures are needed that are more efficient and informative. Methods: We describe the Quartet Sampling ( QS ) method, a quartet‐based evaluation system that synthesizes several phylogenetic and genomic analytical approaches. QS characterizes discordance in large‐sparse and genome‐wide data sets, overcoming issues of alignment sparsity and distinguishing strong conflict from weak support. We tested QS with simulations and recent plant phylogenies inferred from variously sized data sets. Key Results: QS scores demonstrated convergence with increasing replicates and were not strongly affected by branch depth. Patterns of QS support from different phylogenies led to a coherent understanding of ancestral branches defining key disagreements, including the relationships of Ginkgo to cycads, magnoliids to monocots and eudicots, and mosses to liverworts. The relationships of ANA ‐grade angiosperms ( Amborella , Nymphaeales, Austrobaileyales), major monocot groups, bryophytes, and fern families are likely highly discordant in their evolutionary histories, rather than poorly informed. QS can also detect discordance due to introgression in phylogenomic data. Conclusions: Quartet Sampling is an efficient synthesis of phylogenetic tests that offers more comprehensive and specific information on branch support than conventional measures. The QS method corroborates growing evidence that phylogenomic investigations that incorporate discordance testing are warranted when reconstructing complex evolutionary histories, in particular those surrounding ANA ‐grade, monocots, and nonvascular plants.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ajb2.1016

Cites

120 of 120 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 120 references

Cited by

See all 341

Metadata

Authors
Pease, J. B., Brown, J. W., Walker, J. F., Hinchliff, C. E., & Smith, S. A.
Venue
American Journal of Botany
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-02-14
Volume
105
Issue
3
Pages
385-403
ISSN
  • 0002-9122 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-2197
OpenAlex
W2950241310
Cited by
341
References
120
FWCI
22.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quartet Sampling distinguishes lack of support from conflicting support in the green plant tree of life. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ajb2.1016
The paper
Pease, J. B., Brown, J. W., Walker, J. F., Hinchliff, C. E., & Smith, S. A. (2018). Quartet Sampling distinguishes lack of support from conflicting support in the green plant tree of life. American Journal of Botany. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajb2.1016

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.