Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 451

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

AN EIGENVECTOR METHOD FOR ESTIMATING PHYLOGENETIC INERTIA

Diniz-Filho, José Alexandre Felizola, de Sant'Ana, Carlos Eduardo Ramos, Bini, Luis Mauricio·1998·Evolution

Abstract

We propose a new method to estimate and correct for phylogenetic inertia in comparative data analysis. The method, called phylogenetic eigenvector regression (PVR) starts by performing a principal coordinate analysis on a pairwise phylogenetic distance matrix between species. Traits under analysis are regressed on eigenvectors retained by a broken-stick model in such a way that estimated values express phylogenetic trends in data and residuals express independent evolution of each species. This partitioning is similar to that realized by the spatial autoregressive method, but the method proposed here overcomes the problem of low statistical performance that occurs with autoregressive method when phylogenetic correlation is low or when sample size is too small to detect it. Also, PVR is easier to perform with large samples because it is based on well-known techniques of multivariate and regression analyses. We evaluated the performance of PVR and compared it with the autoregressive method using real datasets and simulations. A detailed worked example using body size evolution of Carnivora mammals indicated that phylogenetic inertia in this trait is elevated and similarly estimated by both methods. In this example, Type I error at α = 0.05 of PVR was equal to 0.048, but an increase in the number of eigenvectors used in the regression increases the error. Also, similarity between PVR and the autoregressive method, defined by correlation between their residuals, decreased by overestimating the number of eigenvalues necessary to express the phylogenetic distance matrix. To evaluate the influence of cladogram topology on the distribution of eigenvalues extracted from the double-centered phylogenetic distance matrix, we analyzed 100 randomly generated cladograms (up to 100 species). Multiple linear regression of log transformed variables indicated that the number of eigenvalues extracted by the broken-stick model can be fully explained by cladogram topology. Therefore, the broken-stick model is an adequate criterion for determining the correct number of eigenvectors to be used by PVR. We also simulated distinct levels of phylogenetic inertia by producing a trend across 10, 25, and 50 species arranged in "comblike" cladograms and then adding random vectors with increased residual variances around this trend. In doing so, we provide an evaluation of the performance of both methods with data generated under different evolutionary models than tested previously. The results showed that both PVR and autoregressive method are efficient in detecting inertia in data when sample size is relatively high (more than 25 species) and when phylogenetic inertia is high. However, PVR is more efficient at smaller sample sizes and when level of phylogenetic inertia is low. These conclusions were also supported by the analysis of 10 real datasets regarding body size evolution in different animal clades. We concluded that PVR can be a useful alternative to an autoregressive method in comparative data analysis.

Overview

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.1558-5646.1998.tb02006.x

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 67 references

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Brown, 1995, Macroecology
  2. Dunning, 1987, South American birds
  3. Fonseca, 1996, Lista anotada de mamiferos do Brasil., Occ. Pap. Conserv. Biol., 4, 1
  4. Kvalseth, 1985, Cautionary note about R2., Am. Stat., 39, 279
  5. Martins, 1996b, COMPARE: statistical analysis of comparative data. Vers. 1.1. Distributed by the author.
  6. Philippi, 1993, Multiple regression: herbivory., 183
  7. Rohlf, 1972, An empirical comparison of three ordination techniques in numerical taxonomy., Syst. Zool., 21, 271, 10.2307/2412165 · doi:10.2307/2412165
  8. Rohlf, 1989, NTSYS: numerical taxonomy and multivariate analysis system
  9. Sibley, 1990, Phylogeny and classification of birds
  10. Sneath, 1973, Numerical taxonomy
  11. Sokal, 1991, Testing inferences about microevolutonary processes by means of spatial autocorrelation analysis., Evolution, 45, 152
  12. Sokal, 1995, Biometry.
  13. Swofford, 1990, Phylogeny reconstruction., 411
  14. Wilkinson, 1989, SYSTAT'SYGRAPH: the system for statistics

Cited by

See all 451

Metadata

Authors
Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., de Sant'Ana, C. E. R., & Bini, L. M.
Venue
Evolution
Published
1998-10
Volume
52
Issue
5
Pages
1247-1262
ISSN
0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2325208341
Cited by
451
References
67
FWCI
4.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Funders
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: AN EIGENVECTOR METHOD FOR ESTIMATING PHYLOGENETIC INERTIA. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1998.tb02006.x
The paper
Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., de Sant'Ana, C. E. R., & Bini, L. M. (1998). AN EIGENVECTOR METHOD FOR ESTIMATING PHYLOGENETIC INERTIA. Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1998.tb02006.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.