Cited by 236Animal Behavior and ReproductionMorphological variations and asymmetryEvolution and Paleontology Studies

DISENTANGLING EVOLUTIONARY CAUSE-EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS WITH PHYLOGENETIC CONFIRMATORY PATH ANALYSIS: PHYLOGENETIC PATH ANALYSIS

Open access
Hardenberg, Achaz von, Gonzalez-Voyer, Alejandro·2013·Evolution

Abstract

Confirmatory path analysis is a statistical technique to build models of causal hypotheses among variables and test if the data conform with the causal model. However, classical path analysis techniques ignore the nonindependence of observations due to phylogenetic relatedness among species, possibly leading to spurious results. Here, we present a simple method to perform phylogenetic confirmatory path analysis (PPA). We analyzed simulated datasets with varying amounts of phylogenetic signal in the data and a known underlying causal structure linking the traits to estimate Type I error and power. Results show that Type I error for PPA appeared to be slightly anticonservative (range: 0.047-0.072) but path analysis models ignoring phylogenetic signal resulted in much higher Type I error rates, which were positively related to the amount of phylogenetic signal (range: 0.051 for λ= 0 to 0.916 for λ= 1). Further, the power of the test was not compromised when accounting for phylogeny. As an example of the application of PPA, we revisit a study on the correlates of aggressive broodmate competition across seven avian families. The use of PPA allowed us to gain greater insight into the plausible causal paths linking species traits to aggressive broodmate competition.

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.1558-5646.2012.01790.x

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • Causal reasoning tools have been embraced by computer science, epidemiology and the social sciences, but largely ignored by comparative biologists, with rare exceptions being recent introductions of phylogenetic path analysis and causal models for paleontological time-series.

    “These tools have been embraced by fields such as computer science, epidemiology and the social sciences, but largely ignored by comparative biologists [rare exceptions are the recent introductions of phylogenetic path analysis by Hardenberg and Gonzalez-Voyer (2013) and the application of causal models to make inferences from paleontological time-series by Reitan and Liow (2017)].”

    From Rethinking phylogenetic comparative methods (2018) · cites this paper as Hardenberg and Gonzalez-Voyer (2013)

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: 10

  1. Bennett, P. M., and I. P. F. Owens. 2002. Evolutionary ecology of birds. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
  2. ---. 2002. Begging versus aggression in avian broodmate competition. Pp. 337-360 in J. Wright and M. L. Leonard, eds. The evolution of nestling begging: competition, cooperation and communication. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
  3. Freckleton, R. P., P. H. Harvey, and M. Pagel. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. Am. Nat. 160: 712-726.
  4. Harvey, P. H., and M. D. Pagel. 1991. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
  5. Paradis, E. 2006. Analysis of phylogenetics and evolution with R. Springer, New York.
  6. Pearl, J. 1988. Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.
  7. Santos, J. C., and D. C. Cannatella. 2011. Phenotypic integration emerges from aposematism and scale in poison frogs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108:6175-6180.
  8. Shipley, B. 2000a. Cause and correlation in biology: a user's guide to path analysis, structural equations and causal inference. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
  9. Sol, D., L. Lefebvre, and J. D. Rodriguez-Teijeiro. 2005. Brain size, innovative propensity and migratory behaviour in temperate Palaearctic birds. Proc. R. Soc. B 272:1433-1441.
  10. Verma, T., and J. Pearl. 1988. Causal networks: semantics and expressiveness. Pp. 352-359 in Proceedings of the 4th workshop on uncertainty in

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hardenberg, A. V., & Gonzalez-Voyer, A.
Corresponding author
Hardenberg, Achaz von
Venue
Evolution
Published
2012-09-24
Volume
67
Issue
2
Pages
378-387
ISSN
0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1592643599
Cited by
236
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
4.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
Keywords
phylogenetic signal, causal inference, type I error, statistical power, phylogenetic comparative analysis
MeSH terms
Animals, Birds, Models, Genetic, Phylogeny, Sibling Relations, Genetic Variation, Models, Statistical, Evolution, Molecular

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