Identifying hidden rate changes in the evolution of a binary morphological character: the evolution of plant habit in campanulid angiosperms
Abstract
The growth of phylogenetic trees in scope and in size is promising from the standpoint of understanding a wide variety of evolutionary patterns and processes. With trees comprised of larger, older, and globally distributed clades, it is likely that the lability of a binary character will differ significantly among lineages, which could lead to errors in estimating transition rates and the associated inference of ancestral states. Here we develop and implement a new method for identifying different rates of evolution in a binary character along different branches of a phylogeny. We illustrate this approach by exploring the evolution of growth habit in Campanulidae, a flowering plant clade containing some 35,000 species. The distribution of woody versus herbaceous species calls into question the use of traditional models of binary character evolution. The recognition and accommodation of changes in the rate of growth form evolution in different lineages demonstrates, for the first time, a robust picture of growth form evolution across a very large, very old, and very widespread flowering plant clade.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Failure to consider alternative models in which the background diversification rate changes across the tree explains support for trait-dependent diversification.
“The work of Beaulieu and O'Meara (Beaulieu et al. 2013;Beaulieu andO'Meara 2014, 2016) has illuminated important underlying reasons behind Rabosky and Goldberg's findings: the failure to consider alternative models in which the”
From Rethinking phylogenetic comparative methods (2018) · cites this paper as Beaulieu et al. 2013
HSMs (following Beaulieu et al. 2013; Beaulieu and O'Meara 2016) are a potentially powerful, and widely applicable solution.
“For example, we highlighted in the introduction that we think HSMs (following Beaulieu et al. 2013;Beaulieu and O'Meara 2016) are a potentially powerful, and widely applicable solution, even though we did not consider these in detail here.”
From Rethinking phylogenetic comparative methods (2018) · cites this paper as Beaulieu et al. 2013
Cites
A new look at the statistical model identification
Akaike, H. (1974) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 · Cited by 51,879 · see citing works
Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802723 · Cited by 41,495 · see citing works
Mathematical Elegance with Biochemical Realism: The Covarion Model of Molecular Evolution
Penny, D., McComish, B. J., Charleston, M. A., & Hendy, M. D. (2001) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/s002390010258 · Cited by 287 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rethinking phylogenetic comparative methods
Uyeda, J. C., Zenil-Ferguson, R., & Pennell, M. W. (2018) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syy031 · Cited by 313 · see citing works
Kayal, E., Bentlage, B., Sabrina Pankey, M., Ohdera, A. H., Medina, M., Plachetzki, D. C., Collins, A. G., & Ryan, J. F. (2018) · BMC Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1186/s12862-018-1142-0 · Cited by 255 · see citing works
A phylogenetic approach to comparative genomics
Dewar, A. E., Belcher, L. J., & West, S. A. (2025) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41576-024-00803-0 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
- Authors
- Beaulieu, J. M., O'Meara, B. C., & Donoghue, M. J.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, P.O. Box 208106, New Haven, CT 10620-8106, USA; and 2Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-1610, USA
- Corresponding author
- Beaulieu, Jeremy M.
- Venue
- Systematic Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2013-05-14
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 725-737
- ISSN
- 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
- 1076-836X
- OpenAlex
- W2112282403
- Cited by
- 375
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 38 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 7
- FWCI
- 21.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Systematic Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0842800)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Diversity and Evolution
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Ecology and Taxonomy Studies
- Keywords
- rate heterogeneity, transition rates, plant habit, ancestral state reconstruction, morphological character evolution, angiosperm phylogeny
- MeSH terms
- Classification, Computer Simulation, Biological Evolution, Models, Biological, Phylogeny, Time, Campanulaceae, Biodiversity
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