Skip to main content
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2000 Nov 29;355(1403):1599–1605. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2000.0721

Comparative analyses for adaptive radiations.

P H Harvey 1, A Rambaut 1
PMCID: PMC1692887  PMID: 11127905

Abstract

Biologists generally agree that most morphological variation between closely related species is adaptive. The most common method of comparative analysis to test for co-evolved character variation is based on a Brownian-motion model of character evolution. If we are to test for the evolution of character-covariation, and we believe that characters have evolved adaptively to fill niches during an adaptive radiation, then it is appropriate to employ appropriate models for character evolution. We show here that under several models of adaptive character evolution and coevolution during an adaptive radiation, which result in closely related species being more similar to each other than to more distantly related species, cross-species analyses are statistically more appropriate than contrast analyses. If the evolution of some traits fits the Brownian-motion model, while others evolve to fill niches during an adaptive radiation, it might be necessary to identify the number of relevant niche dimensions and the modes of character evolution before deciding on appropriate statistical procedures. Alternatively, maximum-likelihood procedures might be used to determine appropriate transformations of phylogenetic branch lengths that accord with particular models of character evolution.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (251.7 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Díaz-Uriarte R., Garland T., Jr Effects of branch length errors on the performance of phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst Biol. 1998 Dec;47(4):654–672. doi: 10.1080/106351598260653. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Grafen A. The phylogenetic regression. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1989 Dec 21;326(1233):119–157. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1989.0106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Harvey P. H., Purvis A. Comparative methods for explaining adaptations. Nature. 1991 Jun 20;351(6328):619–624. doi: 10.1038/351619a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0490. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  5. Price T. Correlated evolution and independent contrasts. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1997 Apr 29;352(1352):519–529. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1997.0036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES