The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding angiosperm diversification using small and large phylogenetic trees
Abstract
How will the emerging possibility of inferring ultra‐large phylogenies influence our ability to identify shifts in diversification rate? For several large angiosperm clades (Angiospermae, Monocotyledonae, Orchidaceae, Poaceae, Eudicotyledonae, Fabaceae, and Asteraceae), we explore this issue by contrasting two approaches: (1) using small backbone trees with an inferred number of extant species assigned to each terminal clade and (2) using a mega‐phylogeny of 55473 seed plant species represented in GenBank. The mega‐phylogeny approach assumes that the sample of species in GenBank is at least roughly proportional to the actual species diversity of different lineages, as appears to be the case for many major angiosperm lineages. Using both approaches, we found that diversification rate shifts are not directly associated with the major named clades examined here, with the sole exception of Fabaceae in the GenBank mega‐phylogeny. These agreements are encouraging and may support a generality about angiosperm evolution: major shifts in diversification may not be directly associated with major named clades, but rather with clades that are nested not far within these groups. An alternative explanation is that there have been increased extinction rates in early‐diverging lineages within these clades. Based on our mega‐phylogeny, the shifts in diversification appear to be distributed quite evenly throughout the angiosperms. Mega‐phylogenetic studies of diversification hold great promise for revealing new patterns, but we will need to focus more attention on properly specifying null expectation.
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
RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models
Stamatakis, A. (2006) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btl446 · Cited by 15,582
Self-citationAssessing the root of bilaterian animals with scalable phylogenomic methods
Hejnol, A., Obst, M., Stamatakis, A., Ott, M., Rouse, G. W., Edgecombe, G. D., Martinez, P., Baguñà, J., Bailly, X., Jondelius, U., et al. (2009) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0896 · Cited by 747
Self-citation
Cited by
The global diversity of birds in space and time
Jetz, W., Thomas, G. H., Joy, J. B., Hartmann, K., & Mooers, A. O. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11631 · Cited by 3,934
Constructing a broadly inclusive seed plant phylogeny
Smith, S. A., & Brown, J. W. (2018) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/ajb2.1019 · Cited by 1,071
Self-citationWhole-genome duplication in teleost fishes and its evolutionary consequences
Glasauer, S. M. K., & Neuhauss, S. C. F. (2014) · Molecular Genetics and Genomics · doi:10.1007/s00438-014-0889-2 · Cited by 877
The Legume Phylogeny Working Group, Bruneau, A., Doyle, J. J., Herendeen, P., Hughes, C., Kenicer, G., Lewis, G., Mackinder, B., Pennington, R. T., Sanderson, M. J., et al. (2013) · TAXON · doi:10.12705/622.8 · Cited by 437
Xi, Z., Ruhfel, B. R., Schaefer, H., Amorim, A. M., Sugumaran, M., Wurdack, K. J., Endress, P. K., Matthews, M. L., Stevens, P. F., Mathews, S., et al. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1205818109 · Cited by 411
Metadata
- Authors
- Smith, S. A., Beaulieu, J. M., Stamatakis, A., & Donoghue, M. J.
- Venue
- American Journal of Botany
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-03
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 404-414
- ISSN
- 0002-9122 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-2197
- OpenAlex
- W2101165625
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 24.54
- 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: Understanding angiosperm diversification using small and large phylogenetic trees. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3732/ajb.1000481
- The paper
- Smith, S. A., Beaulieu, J. M., Stamatakis, A., & Donoghue, M. J. (2011). Understanding angiosperm diversification using small and large phylogenetic trees. American Journal of Botany. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1000481
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.