Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 167

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

Smith, Stephen A., Beaulieu, Jeremy M., Stamatakis, Alexandros, Donoghue, Michael J.·2011·American Journal of Botany

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3732/ajb.1000481

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 167

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.