A comment on phylogenetic correction
Abstract
Statistical methods are now commonly used to take into account the expected lack of independence of observations across different species (due to their phylogenetic relatedness) when computing correlations or regressions among traits. The methods are often interpreted as removing that part of the regression or correlation that is an artifact due to phylogeny and there is an expectation that the corrected regression or correlation coefficients will usually be closer to zero. It is shown here that this is not an accurate way to interpret these methods. The effect of taking phylogeny into account is to reduce the variance of the estimated regression or correlation coefficients. Their means are not because since estimates of regression coefficients are unbiased whether or not the correct phylogeny is taken into account. Estimates of correlations are only slightly biased (and in the opposite direction that many expect).
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?
If all phylogenetic signal in a data set is present in the predictor trait and the errors are i.i.d., then no phylogenetic correction is needed.
“if all of the phylogenetic signal in a data set is present in the predictor trait and the errors are i.i.d., then there is no need for any phylogenetic correction”
From Rethinking phylogenetic comparative methods (2018) · cites this paper as Rohlf 2006
Cites
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Expensive Brain: A framework for explaining evolutionary changes in brain size
Isler, K., & van Schaik, C. P. (2009) · Journal of Human Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.04.009 · Cited by 474 · see citing works
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
How does cognition evolve? Phylogenetic comparative psychology
MacLean, E. L., Matthews, L. J., Hare, B. A., Nunn, C. L., Anderson, R. C., Aureli, F., Brannon, E. M., Call, J., Drea, C. M., Emery, N. J., et al. (2012) · Animal Cognition · doi:10.1007/s10071-011-0448-8 · Cited by 260 · see citing works
- Authors
- Rohlf, F. J.
- Affiliations
- State University of New York (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rohlf, F. James
- ORCID
- Rohlf, F. James
- Venue
- Evolution
- Published
- 2006
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1509
- ISSN
- 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2174831257
- Cited by
- 239
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 16.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Evolution (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- 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
- phylogenetic correction, phylogenetic signal, phylogenetic correlation, phylogenetic regression, variance reduction, phylogenetic relatedness, trait covariation
- MeSH terms
- Computer Simulation, Phylogeny, Regression Analysis, Statistics as Topic, Least-Squares Analysis
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