Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33293934›Full record

ArticleCurrent zoology2020

Are our phylomorphospace plots so terribly tangled? An investigation of disorder in data simulated under adaptive and nonadaptive models.

C Tristan Stayton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A Revised Phylogeny of thePlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    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

1 author.

C Tristan StaytonDepartment of Biology, Bucknell University, 337 Biology Building, Lewisburg, PA, 17837, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

adaptationcharacter displacementearly burstoptimaOU model

Identifiers

PMID33293934
PMCPMC7705511

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.