ArticleCurrent zoology2020
Are our phylomorphospace plots so terribly tangled? An investigation of disorder in data simulated under adaptive and nonadaptive models.
Article in Current zoology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trophic guilds of suction-feeding fishes are distinguished by their characteristic hydrodynamics of swimming and feeding.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
- A Revised Phylogeny of thePlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contemporary methods for visualizing phenotypic evolution, such as phylomorphospaces, often reveal patterns which depart strongly from a naïve expectation of consistently divergent branching and expansion. Instead, branches regularly crisscross as convergence, reversals, or other forms of homoplasy occur, forming patterns described as "birds' nests", "flies in vials", or less elegantly, "a mess". In other words, the phenotypic tree of life often appears highly tangled. Various explanations are given for this, such as differential degrees of developmental constraint, adaptation, or lack of adaptation. However, null expectations for the magnitude of disorder or "tangling" have never been established, so it is unclear which or even whether various evolutionary factors are required to explain messy patterns of evolution. I simulated evolution along phylogenies under a number of varying parameters (number of taxa and number of traits) and models (Brownian motion, Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU)-based, early burst, and character displacement (CD)] and quantified disorder using 2 measures. All models produce substantial amounts of disorder. Disorder increases with tree size and the number of phenotypic traits. OU models produced the largest amounts of disorder-adaptive peaks influence lineages to evolve within restricted areas, with concomitant increases in crossing of branches and density of evolution. Large early changes in trait values can be important in minimizing disorder. CD consistently produced trees with low (but not absent) disorder. Overall, neither constraints nor a lack of adaptation is required to explain messy phylomorphospaces-both stochastic and deterministic processes can act to produce the tantalizingly tangled phenotypic tree of life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.