Cited by 160Evolution and Paleontology StudiesPlant Diversity and EvolutionGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Inferring speciation and extinction rates under different sampling schemes

Open access
Hohna, S., Stadler, T., Ronquist, F., Britton, T.·2011·Molecular Biology and Evolution

Abstract

The birth-death process is widely used in phylogenetics to model speciation and extinction. Recent studies have shown that the inferred rates are sensitive to assumptions about the sampling probability of lineages. Here, we examine the effect of the method used to sample lineages. Whereas previous studies have assumed random sampling (RS), we consider two extreme cases of biased sampling: "diversified sampling" (DS), where tips are selected to maximize diversity and "cluster sampling (CS)," where sample diversity is minimized. DS appears to be standard practice, for example, in analyses of higher taxa, whereas CS may occur under special circumstances, for example, in studies of geographically defined floras or faunas. Using both simulations and analyses of empirical data, we show that inferred rates may be heavily biased if the sampling strategy is not modeled correctly. In particular, when a diversified sample is treated as if it were a random or complete sample, the extinction rate is severely underestimated, often close to 0. Such dramatic errors may lead to serious consequences, for example, if estimated rates are used in assessing the vulnerability of threatened species to extinction. Using Bayesian model testing across 18 empirical data sets, we show that DS is commonly a better fit to the data than complete, random, or cluster sampling (CS). Inappropriate modeling of the sampling method may at least partly explain anomalous results that have previously been attributed to variation over time in birth and death rates.

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 · 10.1093/molbev/msr095

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • At least two additional sources of uncertainty not studied here are uncertainty introduced by the birth-death time prior and its failure to accommodate diversified sampling of species in phylogenies, and uncertainty due to the substitution model, which may have an important effect when estimating branch lengths in ancient phylogenies.

    “The situation is compounded by at least two additional sources of uncertainty that we did not study here: uncertainty introduced by the birth-death time prior, and its failure to accommodate diversified sampling of species in phylogenies [65], and uncertainty due to the substitution model, which may have an important effect when estimating branch lengths in ancient phylogenies [66, 67].”

    From Uncertainty in the Timing of Origin of Animals and the Limits of Precision in Molecular Timescales (2015) · cites this paper as [65]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hohna, S., Stadler, T., Ronquist, F., & Britton, T.
Affiliations
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • Swedish Museum of Natural History (SE)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
Venue
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Published
2011-04-11
Volume
28
Issue
9
Pages
2577-2589
ISSN
  • 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-1719
OpenAlex
W2180090668
Cited by
160
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Biology and Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Vetenskapsrådet
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Diversity and Evolution
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
speciation rates, extinction rates, birth-death processes, cluster sampling, random sampling, sampling probability, phylogenetic inference
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Bayes Theorem, Birds, Computer Simulation, Models, Genetic, Phylogeny, Selection Bias, Genetic Speciation, Extinction, Biological

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