ASSESSING CURRENT ADAPTATION AND PHYLOGENETIC INERTIA AS EXPLANATIONS OF TRAIT EVOLUTION: THE NEED FOR CONTROLLED COMPARISONS
Abstract
The determination of whether the pattern of trait evolution observed in a comparative analysis of species data is due to adaptation to current environments, to phylogenetic inertia, or to both of these forces requires that one control for the effects of either force when making an assessment of the evolutionary role of the other. Orzack and Sober (2001) developed the method of controlled comparisons to make such assessments; their implementation of the method focussed on a discretely varying trait. Here, we show that the method of controlled comparisons can be viewed as a meta-method, which can be implemented in many ways. We discuss which recent methods for the comparative analysis of continuously distributed traits can generate controlled comparisons and can thereby be used to properly assess whether current adaptation and/or phylogenetic inertia have influenced a trait's evolution. The implementation of controlled comparisons is illustrated by an analysis of sex-ratio data for fig wasps. This analysis suggests that current adaptation and phylogenetic inertia influence this trait.
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 precise assumptions of PCMs remain poorly understood to this day.
“and remain poorly understood to this day (Hansen and Orzack 2005;Hansen and Bartoszek 2012).”
From Rethinking phylogenetic comparative methods (2018) · cites this paper as Hansen and Orzack 2005
Cites
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793 · see citing works
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (1998) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2917-7 · Cited by 3,387 · 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
Smaers, J. B., Dechmann, D. K. N., Goswami, A., Soligo, C., & Safi, K. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1212181109 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Grabowski, M., Voje, K. L., & Hansen, T. F. (2016) · Journal of Human Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.03.001 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Self-citationModeling the evolution of cortico‐cerebellar systems in primates
Smaers, J. B., Steele, J., & Zilles, K. (2011) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06003.x · Cited by 50 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hansen, T. F., & Orzack, S. H.
- Affiliations
- Florida State University (US)
- Fresh Pond Research Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hansen, Thomas F.
- Orzack, Steven Hecht
- Venue
- Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-10
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2063-2072
- ISSN
- 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-5646
- OpenAlex
- W2179591763
- Cited by
- 137
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 7.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Evolution (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- National Institute on Aging (P01 AG 0225000-01)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
- Keywords
- character evolution, phylogenetic inertia, controlled comparison, comparative analysis, meta-method, sex ratio, fig wasps
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Biological, Animals, Biological Evolution, Female, Male, Models, Genetic, Phylogeny, Sex Ratio, Wasps
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