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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793
Multidimensional Scaling by Optimizing Goodness of Fit to a Nonmetric Hypothesis
Kruskal, J. B. (1964) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02289565 · Cited by 7,317
The Ecological Implications of Body Size
Peters, R. H. (1983) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511608551 · Cited by 5,649
The comparative method in evolutionary biology
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-5104 · Cited by 4,931
Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling: A Numerical Method
Kruskal, J. B. (1964) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02289694 · Cited by 4,846
The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology
Harvey, P. H., & Pagel, M. D. (1991) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198546412.001.0001 · Cited by 4,337
Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis
GOWER, J. C. (1966) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/53.3-4.325 · Cited by 4,293
Jackson, D. A. (1993) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1939574 · Cited by 2,298
Procedures for the Analysis of Comparative Data Using Phylogenetically Independent Contrasts
Garland, T., Harvey, P. H., & Ives, A. R. (1992) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/41.1.18 · Cited by 2,151
Grafen, A. (1989) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.1989.0106 · Cited by 2,142
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Brown, 1995, Macroecology
- Dunning, 1987, South American birds
- Fonseca, 1996, Lista anotada de mamiferos do Brasil., Occ. Pap. Conserv. Biol., 4, 1
- Kvalseth, 1985, Cautionary note about R2., Am. Stat., 39, 279
- Martins, 1996b, COMPARE: statistical analysis of comparative data. Vers. 1.1. Distributed by the author.
- Philippi, 1993, Multiple regression: herbivory., 183
- Rohlf, 1972, An empirical comparison of three ordination techniques in numerical taxonomy., Syst. Zool., 21, 271, 10.2307/2412165 · doi:10.2307/2412165
- Rohlf, 1989, NTSYS: numerical taxonomy and multivariate analysis system
- Sibley, 1990, Phylogeny and classification of birds
- Sneath, 1973, Numerical taxonomy
- Sokal, 1991, Testing inferences about microevolutonary processes by means of spatial autocorrelation analysis., Evolution, 45, 152
- Sokal, 1995, Biometry.
- Swofford, 1990, Phylogeny reconstruction., 411
- Wilkinson, 1989, SYSTAT'SYGRAPH: the system for statistics
Cited by
Phylogenies and Community Ecology
Webb, C. O., Ackerly, D. D., McPeek, M. A., & Donoghue, M. J. (2002) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150448 · Cited by 4,609
F. Dormann, C., M. McPherson, J., B. Araújo, M., Bivand, R., Bolliger, J., Carl, G., G. Davies, R., Hirzel, A., Jetz, W., Daniel Kissling, W., et al. (2007) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.2007.0906-7590.05171.x · Cited by 3,433
Phylogenetic Analysis and Comparative Data: A Test and Review of Evidence
Freckleton, R. P., Harvey, P. H., & Pagel, M. (2002) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/343873 · Cited by 2,604
Host and viral traits predict zoonotic spillover from mammals
Olival, K. J., Hosseini, P. R., Zambrana-Torrelio, C., Ross, N., Bogich, T. L., & Daszak, P. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature22975 · Cited by 1,130
Tempo and mode in evolution: phylogenetic inertia, adaptation and comparative methods
Blomberg, S. P., & Garland, T. (2002) · Journal of Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00472.x · Cited by 893
Metadata
- Authors
- Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., de Sant'Ana, C. E. R., & Bini, L. M.
- Venue
- Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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
- doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1 (tdm)
- onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions (vor, 6817 d)
- 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.