ArticleSystematic biology2023
Predicting Long Pendant Edges in Model Phylogenies, with Applications to Biodiversity and Tree Inference.
Article in Systematic biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Limits of the Constant-rate Birth-Death Prior for Phylogenetic Tree Topology Inference.Systematic biology · 2024Pooled it
- Neutral phylogenetic models and their role in tree-based biodiversity measures.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the simplest phylogenetic diversification model (the pure-birth Yule process), lineages split independently at a constant rate $\lambda$ for time $t$. The length of a randomly chosen edge (either interior or pendant) in the resulting tree has an expected value that rapidly converges to $\frac{1}{2\lambda}$ as $t$ grows and thus is essentially independent of $t$. However, the behavior of the length $L$ of the longest pendant edge reveals remarkably different behavior: $L$ converges to $t/2$ as the expected number of leaves grows. Extending this model to allow an extinction rate $\mu$ (where $\mu<\lambda$), we also establish a similar result for birth-death trees, except that $t/2$ is replaced by $t/2 \cdot (1-\mu/\lambda)$. This "complete" tree may contain subtrees that have died out before time $t$; for the "reduced tree" that just involves the leaves present at time $t$ and their direct ancestors, the longest pendant edge length $L$ again converges to $t/2$. Thus, there is likely to be at least one extant species whose associated pendant branch attaches to the tree approximately half-way back in time to the origin of the entire clade. We also briefly consider the length of the shortest edges. Our results are relevant to phylogenetic diversity indices in biodiversity conservation, and to quantifying the length of aligned sequences required to correctly infer a tree. We compare our theoretical results with simulations and with the branch lengths from a recent phylogenetic tree of all mammals. [Birth-death process; phylogenetic diversification models; phylogenetic diversity.].
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.