The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Adaptation: Statistics and a Null Model for Estimating Phylogenetic Effects
Abstract
Tests of adaptive explanations are often critically confounded by phylogenetic heritage. In this paper we propose statistics and a null model for estimating phylogenetic effects in comparative data. We apply a model-independent measure of autocorrelation (Moran's I) for estimating whether cross-taxonomic trait variation is related to phylogeny. We develop a phylogenetic correlogram for assessing how autocorrelation varies with patristic distance and for judging the appropriateness and effectiveness of an autoregressive model. We then revise Cheverud et al.'s (1985, Evolution, 39:1335–1351) autocorrelational model to incorporate greater flexibility in the relation between trait variation and phylogenetic distance. Finally, we analyze various comparative data sets (body weight in carnivores, clutch size in birds) and phylogenies (morphological, molecular) to illustrate some of the complications that may arise from using an autoregressive model and to explore the effects of different weighting matrices in adjusting for these complications. Although our approach has limitations, it is both effective in partitioning trait variation into adaptive and phylogenetic components and flexible in adjusting to peculiarities in taxonomic distribution.
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
The measurement of selection on correlated characters
Lande, R., & Arnold, S. J. (1983) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1983.tb00236.x · Cited by 5,437
QUANTITATIVE GENETIC ANALYSIS OF MULTIVARIATE EVOLUTION, APPLIED TO BRAIN:BODY SIZE ALLOMETRY
Lande, R. (1979) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1979.tb04694.x · Cited by 2,648
Recent Developments in the Analysis of Comparative Data
Pagel, M. D., & Harvey, P. H. (1988) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/416027 · Cited by 442
Cited by
TESTING FOR PHYLOGENETIC SIGNAL IN COMPARATIVE DATA: BEHAVIORAL TRAITS ARE MORE LABILE
Blomberg, S. P., Garland, T., & Ives, A. R. (2003) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00285.x · Cited by 4,678
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
(1994) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.1994.0006 · Cited by 1,859
Phylogenetic comparative analysis: a modeling approach for adaptive evolution
Butler, M. A., & King, A. A. (2004) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/426002 · Cited by 1,438
Stabilizing selection and the comparative analysis of adaptation
Hansen, T. F. (1997) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb01457.x · Cited by 1,361
Metadata
- Authors
- Gittleman, J. L., & Kot, M.
- Venue
- Systematic Zoology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1990-09
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 227
- ISSN
- 0039-7989 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2321049928
- Cited by
- 627
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 11.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Adaptation: Statistics and a Null Model for Estimating Phylogenetic Effects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2992183
- The paper
- Gittleman, J. L., & Kot, M. (1990). Adaptation: Statistics and a Null Model for Estimating Phylogenetic Effects. Systematic Zoology. https://doi.org/10.2307/2992183
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.