Quantifying and Comparing Phylogenetic Evolutionary Rates for Shape and Other High-Dimensional Phenotypic Data
Abstract
Many questions in evolutionary biology require the quantification and comparison of rates of phenotypic evolution. Recently, phylogenetic comparative methods have been developed for comparing evolutionary rates on a phylogeny for single, univariate traits (σ(2)), and evolutionary rate matrices (R) for sets of traits treated simultaneously. However, high-dimensional traits like shape remain under-examined with this framework, because methods suited for such data have not been fully developed. In this article, I describe a method to quantify phylogenetic evolutionary rates for high-dimensional multivariate data (σ2 mult), found from the equivalency between statistical methods based on covariance matrices and those based on distance matrices (R-mode and Q-mode methods). I then use simulations to evaluate the statistical performance of hypothesis-testing procedures that compare σ2 mult for two or more groups of species on a phylogeny. Under both isotropic and non-isotropic conditions, and for differing numbers of trait dimensions, the proposed method displays appropriate Type I error and high statistical power for detecting known differences in σ2 mult among groups. In contrast, the Type I error rate of likelihood tests based on the evolutionary rate matrix (R) increases as the number of trait dimensions (p) increases, and becomes unacceptably large when only a few trait dimensions are considered. Further, likelihood tests based on R cannot be computed when the number of trait dimensions equals or exceeds the number of taxa in the phylogeny (i.e., when p ≥ N). These results demonstrate that tests based on σ2 mult provide a useful means of comparing evolutionary rates for high-dimensional data that are otherwise not analytically accessible to methods based on the evolutionary rate matrix. This advance thus expands the phylogenetic comparative toolkit for high-dimensional phenotypic traits like shape. Finally, I illustrate the utility of the new approach by evaluating rates of head shape evolution in a lineage of Plethodon salamanders.
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?
The rostrum, palate, naris, and cranial vault evolve at the fastest rates among avian cranial modules (σ2mult = 2.98 × 10−7-3.82 × 10−7).
“The rostrum, palate, naris, and cranial vault evolve at the fastest rates (σ2mult = 2.98 × 10−7–3.82 × 10−7, SI Appendix, Table S1).”
From Developmental origins of mosaic evolution in the avian cranium (2018) · cites this paper as [20]
Cites
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793 · see citing works
Extensions of the procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks
Rohlf, F. J., & Slice, D. (1990) · Systematic Zoology · doi:10.2307/2992207 · Cited by 4,289 · see citing works
Eastman, J. M., Alfaro, M. E., Joyce, P., Hipp, A. L., & Harmon, L. J. (2011) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01401.x · Cited by 240 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Developmental origins of mosaic evolution in the avian cranium
Felice, R. N., & Goswami, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1716437115 · Cited by 249 · see citing works
“We computed the rate of evolution in each module directly from the landmark configurations (20) using a recently published dated phylogeny for birds (21).”
MethodAdams, D. C. (2016) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12511 · Cited by 257 · see citing works
Self-citationComparative bioacoustics: a roadmap for quantifying and comparing animal sounds across diverse taxa
Odom, K. J., Araya‐Salas, M., Morano, J. L., Ligon, R. A., Leighton, G. M., Taff, C. C., Dalziell, A. H., Billings, A. C., Germain, R. R., Pardo, M., et al. (2021) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12695 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
- Authors
- Adams, D. C.
- Affiliations
- Iowa State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Adams, Dean C.
- ORCID
- Adams, Dean C.
- Venue
- Systematic Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-01-31
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 166-177
- ISSN
- 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
- 1076-836X
- OpenAlex
- W2112800738
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 8
- FWCI
- 20.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Systematic Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
- Keywords
- phylogenetic comparative analysis, shape evolution, covariance matrix, distance matrix, type I error, statistical power
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Classification, Phenotype, Phylogeny, Time, Caudata, Urodela
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