Adaptation: Statistics and a Null Model for Estimating Phylogenetic Effects

-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. [Phylogenetic effects; phylogenetic correlation; autoregressive models; comparative methods.] The comparative method is commonly used to investigate adaptation. A researcher examines the attributes of a number of species. Statistical analyses of these data are then used to formulate and test adaptive hypotheses of life history, morphology, physiology, demography, and behavior (e.g., Clutton-Brock and Harvey, 1977; Damuth, 1981; Gittleman and Harvey, 1982; Harvey and Clutton-Brock, 1985; Gittleman, 1986a, b; Huey and Bennett, 1987). If traits are analyzed across a broad range of independently derived taxa, the resulting adaptive explanations may be quite robust (Clutton-Brock and Harvey, 1984; Huey and Bennett, 1986; Gittleman, 1989). If, however, the data reflect a highly structured phylogeny (with little statistical independence), results may be misleading (Felsenstein, 1985). To neglect phylogeny is to invite type I and type II errors (see Fig. 1). A number of techniques have been developed for removing the effects of phylogeny (see reviews in Huey, 1987; Pagel and Harvey, 1988; Gittleman, 1989; Burghardt and Gittleman, 1990). Some of these techniques are better suited for particular variables or certain evolutionary questions, and all possess limitations. Nominal or categorical data (e.g., mating system: monogamy, polygamy) may be analyzed by evaluating the agreement between the variation in a trait and an accepted phylogeny (Dobson, 1985; Greene, 1986) or by using outgroup comparisons to identify evolutionary transitions among traits (Gittleman, 1981; Ridley, 1983). For quantitative data, there are several strategies. One may avoid spurious correlation by averaging over closely related species, thereby reducing the degrees of freedom and significance of the correlation. Alternatively, one may transform the data so that phylogenetically disparate groups appear on a common scale. Even within this general framework there are several methods for evaluating the association between the ordinal or continuous values of a trait and phylogeny: (1) Nested analysis of variance partitions the total variation in a continuous character among various taxonomic levels. By selecting the taxonomic level that accounts for the greatest proportion of the total variance as the appropriate level for analysis, this method attempts to control for bias from low-level clades that are both uniform and speciesrich (Harvey and Mace, 1982; Harvey and

[1]  J. L. Gittleman Carnivore brain size, behavioral ecology and phylogeny , 1986 .

[2]  F. Dobson THE USE OF PHYLOGENY IN BEHAVIOR AND ECOLOGY , 1985, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[3]  Robert R. Sokal,et al.  Spatial Autocorrelations of HLA Frequencies in Europe Support Demic Diffusion of Early Farmers , 1982, The American Naturalist.

[4]  P. Sherman The levels of analysis , 1988, Animal Behaviour.

[5]  M. Akam Molecules and morphology , 1987, Nature.

[6]  J. Felsenstein Phylogenies and quantitative characters , 1988 .

[7]  M. Pagel,et al.  Comparative methods for examining adaptation depend on evolutionary models. , 1989, Folia primatologica; international journal of primatology.

[8]  T. Coburn Spatial Data Analysis by Example , 1991 .

[9]  S. O’Brien,et al.  Molecular and Biochemical Evolution of the Carnivora , 1989 .

[10]  M. Gross,et al.  The evolution of male and female parental care in fishes , 1985 .

[11]  P. Harvey On rethinking allometry. , 1982, Journal of theoretical biology.

[12]  A. Larson,et al.  DEVELOPMENTAL CORRELATES OF GENOME SIZE IN PLETHODONTID SALAMANDERS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR GENOME EVOLUTION , 1987, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[13]  R. Ricklefs,et al.  Community Diversity: Relative Roles of Local and Regional Processes , 1987, Science.

[14]  Eric Renshaw,et al.  Spatial Processes: Models and Applications , 1981 .

[15]  R Mead,et al.  A mathematical model for the estimation of inter-plant competition. , 1967, Biometrics.

[16]  B. McNab Complications Inherent in Scaling the Basal Rate of Metabolism in Mammals , 1988, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[17]  M. Ridley,et al.  The explanation of organic diversity , 1983 .

[18]  J. Damuth,et al.  Population density and body size in mammals , 1981, Nature.

[19]  Peter H. A. Sneath,et al.  Numerical Taxonomy: The Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification , 1973 .

[20]  R. Sokal,et al.  Spatial autocorrelation in biology: 1. Methodology , 1978 .

[21]  R. Lande QUANTITATIVE GENETIC ANALYSIS OF MULTIVARIATE EVOLUTION, APPLIED TO BRAIN:BODY SIZE ALLOMETRY , 1979, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[22]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  LIFE HISTORY VARIATION IN PRIMATES , 1985, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[23]  K. Ord Estimation Methods for Models of Spatial Interaction , 1975 .

[24]  D. Hillis,et al.  Molecular Versus Morphological Approaches to Systematics , 1987 .

[25]  P. Moran Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. , 1950, Biometrika.

[26]  P. Whittle ON STATIONARY PROCESSES IN THE PLANE , 1954 .

[27]  J. Felsenstein Phylogenies and the Comparative Method , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[28]  M. Ridley The explanation of organic diversity : the comparative method and adaptations for mating , 1983 .

[29]  Peter R. Grant,et al.  Ecology and evolution of Darwin's finches , 1986 .

[30]  M. Pagel,et al.  Recent Developments in the Analysis of Comparative Data , 1988, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[31]  D. Simberloff,et al.  Molecules and Morphology in Evolution: Conflict or Compromise? , 1987 .

[32]  R. Geary,et al.  The Contiguity Ratio and Statistical Mapping , 1954 .

[33]  M. Nei,et al.  Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. , 1978, Genetics.

[34]  Graham Bell,et al.  A Comparative Method , 1989, The American Naturalist.

[35]  H. Southern,et al.  Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: the Birds of the Western Palaearctic. Volume 2. Hawks to Bustards , 1981 .

[36]  H. Greene Diet and Arboreality in the Emerald Monitor, Varanus prasinus, with Comments on the Study of Adaptation , 1986 .

[37]  J. L. Gittleman The phylogeny of parental care in fishes , 1981, Animal Behaviour.

[38]  S. J. Arnold,et al.  THE MEASUREMENT OF SELECTION ON CORRELATED CHARACTERS , 1983, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[39]  Michael D. Geurts,et al.  Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control , 1977 .

[40]  R. Huey,et al.  PHYLOGENETIC STUDIES OF COADAPTATION: PREFERRED TEMPERATURES VERSUS OPTIMAL PERFORMANCE TEMPERATURES OF LIZARDS , 1987, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[41]  Douglas R. White,et al.  Network autocorrelation: A simulation study of a foundational problem in regression and survey research , 1982 .

[42]  A. Grafen The phylogenetic regression. , 1989, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[43]  R. Nowak,et al.  Walker's mammals of the world , 1968 .

[44]  Malcolm M. Dow,et al.  An autocorrelation analysis of genetic variation due to lineal fission in social groups of rhesus macaques , 1985 .

[45]  Niles Eldredge,et al.  Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process. , 1981 .

[46]  J. L. Gittleman Carnivore Life History Patterns: Allometric, Phylogenetic, and Ecological Associations , 1986, The American Naturalist.

[47]  A Piazza,et al.  Analysis of evolution: evolutionary rates, independence and treeness. , 1975, Theoretical population biology.

[48]  Daniel Simberloff,et al.  Competition, Scientific Method, and Null Models in Ecology , 1986 .

[49]  E. Wiley Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics , 1981 .

[50]  Malcolm M. Dow,et al.  A Biparametric Approach to Network Autocorrelation , 1984 .

[51]  Richard D. Alexander,et al.  Darwinism and human affairs , 1979 .