Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32519354›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of botany2020

Estimating rates and patterns of diversification with incomplete sampling: a case study in the rosids.

Miao Sun, Ryan A Folk, Matthew A Gitzendanner, Pamela S Soltis, Zhiduan Chen, Douglas E Soltis, Robert P Guralnick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of botany, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Miao Sun *Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5701-0478
Ryan A Folk *Department of Biological Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi, 39762, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5333-9273
Matthew A GitzendannerDepartment of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7078-4336
Pamela S SoltisFlorida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9310-8659
Zhiduan ChenState Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100093, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7716-4834
Douglas E SoltisFlorida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8638-4137
Robert P GuralnickFlorida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6682-1504

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

premiseRecent advances in generating large-scale phylogenies enable broad-scale estimation of species diversification. These now common approaches typically are characterized by (1) incomplete species coverage without explicit sampling methodologies and/or (2) sparse backbone representation, and usually rely on presumed phylogenetic placements to account for species without molecular data. We used empirical examples to examine the effects of incomplete sampling on diversification estimation and provide constructive suggestions to ecologists and evolutionary biologists based on those results.

methodsWe used a supermatrix for rosids and one well-sampled subclade (Cucurbitaceae) as empirical case studies. We compared results using these large phylogenies with those based on a previously inferred, smaller supermatrix and on a synthetic tree resource with complete taxonomic coverage. Finally, we simulated random and representative taxon sampling and explored the impact of sampling on three commonly used methods, both parametric (RPANDA and BAMM) and semiparametric (DR).

resultsWe found that the impact of sampling on diversification estimates was idiosyncratic and often strong. Compared to full empirical sampling, representative and random sampling schemes either depressed or inflated speciation rates, depending on methods and sampling schemes. No method was entirely robust to poor sampling, but BAMM was least sensitive to moderate levels of missing taxa.

conclusionsWe suggest caution against uncritical modeling of missing taxa using taxonomic data for poorly sampled trees and in the use of summary backbone trees and other data sets with high representative bias, and we stress the importance of explicit sampling methodologies in macroevolutionary studies.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionPhylogenydiversificationmega-phylogenymodelingrosidssampling bias

Identifiers

PMID32519354
PMCPMC7384126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.