Does phylogeny matter? Assessing the impact of phylogenetic information in ecological meta-analysis.

Meta-analysis is increasingly used in ecology and evolutionary biology. Yet, in these fields this technique has an important limitation: phylogenetic non-independence exists among taxa, violating the statistical assumptions underlying traditional meta-analytic models. Recently, meta-analytical techniques incorporating phylogenetic information have been developed to address this issue. However, no syntheses have evaluated how often including phylogenetic information changes meta-analytic results. To address this gap, we built phylogenies for and re-analysed 30 published meta-analyses, comparing results for traditional vs. phylogenetic approaches and assessing which characteristics of phylogenies best explained changes in meta-analytic results and relative model fit. Accounting for phylogeny significantly changed estimates of the overall pooled effect size in 47% of datasets for fixed-effects analyses and 7% of datasets for random-effects analyses. Accounting for phylogeny also changed whether those effect sizes were significantly different from zero in 23 and 40% of our datasets (for fixed- and random-effects models, respectively). Across datasets, decreases in pooled effect size magnitudes after incorporating phylogenetic information were associated with larger phylogenies and those with stronger phylogenetic signal. We conclude that incorporating phylogenetic information in ecological meta-analyses is important, and we provide practical recommendations for doing so.

[1]  C. Margules,et al.  A SYNERGISTIC EFFECT PUTS RARE, SPECIALIZED SPECIES AT GREATER RISK OF EXTINCTION , 2004 .

[2]  D. Adams,et al.  PHYLOGENETIC META-ANALYSIS , 2008, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[3]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[4]  John S Richardson,et al.  Meta-analysis: trophic level, habitat, and productivity shape the food web effects of resource subsidies. , 2007, Ecology.

[5]  Jason D. Hoeksema,et al.  A meta-analysis of context-dependency in plant response to inoculation with mycorrhizal fungi. , 2010, Ecology letters.

[6]  P. Fink,et al.  To be or not to be what you eat: regulation of stoichiometric homeostasis among autotrophs and heterotrophs , 2010 .

[7]  J. Ollerton,et al.  Meta-analysis of phenotypic selection on flowering phenology suggests that early flowering plants are favoured. , 2011, Ecology letters.

[8]  William J. Sutherland,et al.  The Effectiveness of Removing Predators to Protect Bird Populations , 1997 .

[9]  M. Pagel,et al.  Phylogenetic Analysis and Comparative Data: A Test and Review of Evidence , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[10]  Mark W. Chase,et al.  Evolution of the angiosperms: calibrating the family tree , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[11]  Dan Jackson,et al.  Extending DerSimonian and Laird's methodology to perform multivariate random effects meta‐analyses , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  Jonathan P. Bollback,et al.  Bayesian Inference of Phylogeny and Its Impact on Evolutionary Biology , 2001, Science.

[13]  J. Sprent,et al.  Occurrence of nodulation in the Leguminosae. , 1989, The New phytologist.

[14]  Anna Traveset,et al.  A meta-analysis of impacts of alien vs. native plants on pollinator visitation and reproductive success of co-flowering native plants. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[15]  Andrea F. Huberty,et al.  PLANT WATER STRESS AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR HERBIVOROUS INSECTS: A NEW SYNTHESIS , 2004 .

[16]  F James Rohlf A comment on phylogenetic correction. , 2006, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[17]  Campbell O. Webb,et al.  Phylomatic: tree assembly for applied phylogenetics , 2005 .

[18]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  Non-random coextinctions in phylogenetically structured mutualistic networks , 2007, Nature.

[19]  Marc J. Lajeunesse,et al.  Plant traits that predict resistance to herbivores , 2011 .

[20]  J. delBarco‐Trillo Adjustment of sperm allocation under high risk of sperm competition across taxa: a meta‐analysis , 2011, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[21]  Joel Dudley,et al.  TimeTree: a public knowledge-base of divergence times among organisms , 2006, Bioinform..

[22]  Jerald B. Johnson,et al.  Model selection in ecology and evolution. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[23]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[24]  H. Hillebrand Meta‐analysis in Ecology , 2008 .

[25]  E. Martins The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology, Paul H. Harvey, Mark D. Pagel. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1991), vii, + 239 Price $24.95 paperback , 1992 .

[26]  P C Lambert,et al.  An evaluation of bivariate random‐effects meta‐analysis for the joint synthesis of two correlated outcomes , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[27]  A. Roulin,et al.  Eumelanin-based coloration and fitness parameters in birds: a meta-analysis , 2011, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[28]  T. Garland,et al.  TESTING FOR PHYLOGENETIC SIGNAL IN COMPARATIVE DATA: BEHAVIORAL TRAITS ARE MORE LABILE , 2003, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[29]  T. A. Hall,et al.  BIOEDIT: A USER-FRIENDLY BIOLOGICAL SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT EDITOR AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR WINDOWS 95/98/ NT , 1999 .

[30]  Olivier François,et al.  Which random processes describe the tree of life? A large-scale study of phylogenetic tree imbalance. , 2006, Systematic biology.

[31]  D. Maddison,et al.  The Tree of Life Web Project , 2007 .

[32]  Jessica Gurevitch,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Competition in Field Experiments , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[33]  Marc J. Lajeunesse,et al.  phyloMeta: a program for phylogenetic comparative analyses with meta-analysis , 2011, Bioinform..

[34]  R. Aerts The freezer defrosting: global warming and litter decomposition rates in cold biomes , 2006 .

[35]  Ransom A. Myers,et al.  Spawner-recruit relationships and fish stock carrying capacity in aquatic ecosystems , 2003 .

[36]  Campbell O. Webb,et al.  Bioinformatics Applications Note Phylocom: Software for the Analysis of Phylogenetic Community Structure and Trait Evolution , 2022 .

[37]  M. Lajeunesse,et al.  Meta‐Analysis and the Comparative Phylogenetic Method , 2009, The American Naturalist.

[38]  E. Stone,et al.  Why the phylogenetic regression appears robust to tree misspecification. , 2011, Systematic biology.

[39]  Daphne J. Fairbairn,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of Allometry for Sexual Size Dimorphism: Assessing Rensch's Rule , 1997, The American Naturalist.

[40]  Andy Purvis,et al.  Comparative methods for explaining adaptations , 1991, Nature.

[41]  Xiao-Hua Zhou,et al.  Statistical Methods for Meta‐Analysis , 2008 .

[42]  John P. Huelsenbeck,et al.  MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models , 2003, Bioinform..

[43]  D. Maddison,et al.  Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 2.6 , 2009 .

[44]  William R. Shadish,et al.  Combining estimates of effect size. , 1994 .

[45]  F. Cézilly,et al.  Breeding success and mate retention in birds: a meta-analysis , 2002, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[46]  W. A. Cox,et al.  A Phylogenomic Study of Birds Reveals Their Evolutionary History , 2008, Science.

[47]  Carlos J. Melián,et al.  NEUTRAL BIODIVERSITY THEORY CAN EXPLAIN THE IMBALANCE OF PHYLOGENETIC TREES BUT NOT THE TEMPO OF THEIR DIVERSIFICATION , 2011, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[48]  D. H. Colless,et al.  Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. , 1982 .

[49]  R. Evert,et al.  Evolution of the Angiosperms , 2013 .