CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,361Evolution and Paleontology StudiesMorphological variations and asymmetryEvolution and Genetic Dynamics

Stabilizing selection and the comparative analysis of adaptation

Open access
Hansen, Thomas F.·1997·Evolution
DOI 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb01457.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Comparative studies tend to differ from optimality and functionality studies in how they treat adaptation. While the comparative approach focuses on the origin and change of traits, optimality studies assume that adaptations are maintained at an optimum by stabilizing selection. This paper presents a model of adaptive evolution on a macroevolutionary time scale that includes the maintenance of traits at adaptive optima by stabilizing selection as the dominant evolutionary force. Interspecific variation is treated as variation in the position of adaptive optima. The model illustrates how phylogenetic constraints not only lead to correlations between phylogenetically related species, but also to imperfect adaptations. From this model, a statistical comparative method is derived that can be used to estimate the effect of a selective factor on adaptive optima in a way that would be consistent with an optimality study of adaptation to this factor. The method is illustrated with an analysis of dental evolution in fossil horses. The use of comparative methods to study evolutionary trends is also discussed.

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 · 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb01457.x

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • Hansen's introduction of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process to comparative biology and the suite of methods built on his approach have been the only real attempts to capture the basic dynamics of adaptive trait evolution on phylogenies.

    “Hansen's introduction of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) process to comparative biology and the suite of methods built on his approach have been the only real attempts to actually try and capture the basic dynamics of adaptive trait evolution on phylogenies.”

    From Rethinking phylogenetic comparative methods (2018) · cites this paper as Hansen 1997

    In “The Evolutionary Approach to a Primary Optimum” (page unavailable), Hansen identifies his model as an Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process and describes a novel biological interpretation of it. But he explicitly says the process had previously been suggested for comparative studies, so the paper does not support saying he introduced it to comparative biology. The Abstract describes his method, but does not establish that methods built on it were the only attempts to capture adaptive trait evolution on phylogenies. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Depending on the Bayesian network structure, the appropriate method of analysis can range from a nonphylogenetic regression, to commonly used comparative methods such as PGLS, to methods that require modeling both the evolutionary history of interaction of both trait X and trait Y.

    “Depending on the Bayesian network structure, the appropriate method of analysis can range from a nonphylogenetic regression (Fig. 7A), to commonly used comparative methods such as PGLS (Fig. 7B), to methods that require modeling both the evolutionary history of interaction of both trait X and trait Y (Fig. 7C) (Hansen 1997;Butler and King 2004;Hansen et al. 2008;Revell 2010;Hansen and Bartoszek 20”

    From Rethinking phylogenetic comparative methods (2018) · cites this paper as Hansen 1997

    The Phylogenetic Covariance section describes generalized least squares for phylogenetically correlated trait data, and the Discussion argues that comparative analyses should consider the history of selective regimes. The paper does not set out a Bayesian-network-based choice among nonphylogenetic regression, PGLS, and joint modeling of the evolutionary histories of two traits. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The Brownian motion model is inconsistent with how we think of the process of adapting to an optimal state.

    “While this model is useful (and has often been used) for testing for adaptation, it is inconsistent with how we think of the process of adapting to an optimal state (Lande 1976;Hansen 1997;Hansen and Orzack 2005;Hansen et al. 2008;Hansen and Bartoszek 2012).”

    From Rethinking phylogenetic comparative methods (2018) · cites this paper as Hansen 1997

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

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. BROOKS, D. R., AND D. H. McLENNAN. 1991. Phylogeny, ecology, and behavior: a research program in comparative biology. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  2. EDWARDS, A. W. F. 1972. Likelihood. expo ed. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD.
  3. GARDINER, C. W. 1985. Handbook of stochastic methods. 2d ed. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
  4. GRAFEN, A. 1989. The phylogenetic regression. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 326:119-157.
  5. HARVEY, I'. H., AND M. D. PAGEL. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
  6. JANIS, C. M. 1988. An estimation of tooth volume and hypsodonty indices in ungulate mammals, and the correlation of these factors with dietary preference. Pp. 367-387 in D. E. Russell, J.-P. San- tero, and D. Sigogneau-Russell, eds. Teeth revisited: proceedings of the Vllth international symposium on dental morphology, Paris 1986. Memoirs de Musee national d'historie naturelle, no.
  7. Losos, J. B., AND D. B. MILES. 1994. Adaptation, constraint, and the comparative method: phylogenetic issues and methods. Pp. 60-98 in I'. C. Wainwright and S. M. Reilly, eds. Ecological morphology: integrative organismal biology. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  8. LYNCH, M. 1988. The rate of polygenic mutation. Genet. Res. Cambridge 51:137-148.
  9. ---. 1992. Fossil horses: systematics, paleobiology and evo- lution of the family Equidae. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.
  10. MARTINS, E. P., AND T. F. HANSEN. 1996a. Phylogenetic compar- ative methods: the statistical analysis of interspecific data. Pp. 22-75 ill E. P. Martins, ed. Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior. Oxford Univ, Press, Oxford.
  11. ---. 1996b. A microevolutionary link between phylogenies and comparative data. Pp. 273-288 ill P. Harvey, J. Maynard Smith, and A. Leigh-Brown, eds. New uses for new phylogenies. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
  12. NEE, S., A. F. READ, AND P. H. HARVEY. 1996. Why phylogenies are necessary for comparative analysis. Pp. 399-411 ill E. P. Martins, ed. Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
  13. ---. 1994. Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies: a general method for the comparative analysis of discrete char- acters. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B BioI. Sci. 255:37-45.
  14. RIDLEY, M. 1983. The explanation of organic diversity: the com- parative method and adaptations for mating. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
  15. RIDLEY, M., AND A. GRAFEN. 1996. How to study discrete com- parative methods. Pp. 76-103 ill E. P. Martins, ed. Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
  16. SIMPSON, G. G. 1944. Tempo and mode in evolution. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.
  17. ---. 1951. Horses: the story of the horse family in the modern world and through sixty million years of history. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
  18. ---. 1953. The major features of evolution. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.
  19. SOBER, E. 1993. Philosophy of biology. Westvies Press, Boulder, CO.
  20. WILLIAMS, G. C. 1992. Natural selection: domains, levels, and challenges. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hansen, T. F.
Affiliations
University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Hansen, Thomas F.
ORCID
Hansen, Thomas F.
Venue
Evolution
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1997-10
Volume
51
Issue
5
Pages
1341-1351
ISSN
  • 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-5646
DOI
10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb01457.x
OpenAlex
W2328578724
Cited by
1,361
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 68 · 2025: 84 · 2024: 93 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 133 · 2018: 95 · 2017: 92 · 2016: 92 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 80 · 2013: 49 · 2012: 39
FWCI
5.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (DEB‐9406964)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
Keywords
stabilizing selection, adaptive evolution, comparative analysis, phylogenetic constraints, interspecific variation, evolutionary trends, dental evolution, fossil horses

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