Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 351–367 | Cite as

Phylogenetic comparative methods and the geographic range size – body size relationship in new world terrestrial carnivora

  • José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho
  • Natália Mundim Tôrres

Abstract

Most recent papers avoid describing macroecological relationships and interpreting then without a previous control of non-independence in data caused by phylogenetic patterns in data. In this paper, we analyzed the geographic range size – body size relationship for 70 species of New World terrestrial Carnivora (‘fissipeds’) using various phylogenetic comparative methods and simulation procedures to assess their statistical performance. Autocorrelation analyses suggested a strong phylogenetic pattern for body size, but not for geographic range size. The correlation between the two traits was estimated using standard Pearson correlation across species (TIPS) and four different comparative methods: Felsenstein's independent contrasts (PIC), autoregressive method (ARM), phylogenetic eigenvector regression (PVR) and phylogenetic generalized least-squares (PGLS). The correlation between the two variables was significant for all methods, except PIC, in such a way that ecological mechanisms (i.e., minimum viable population or environmental heterogeneity- physiological homeostasis), could be valid explanations for the relationship. Simulations using different O-U processes for each trait were run in order to estimate true Type I errors of each method. Type I errors at 5% were similar for all phylogenetic methods (always lower than 8%), but equal to 13.1% for TIPS. PIC usually performs better than all other methods under Brownian motion evolution, but not in this case using a more complex combination of evolutionary models. So, recent claims that using independent contrasts in ecological research can be too conservative are correct but, on the other hand, using simple across-species correlation is too liberal even under the more complex evolutionary models exhibited by the traits analyzed here.

body size Carnivora geographic range size macroecology Ornstein Uhlenbeck (OU) process phylogenetic comparative methods 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abouheif, E. (1999) A method for testing the assumption of phylogenetic independence in comparative data. Evol. Ecol. Res. 1, 895–909.Google Scholar
  2. Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P. and Gittleman, J.L. (2000) Are pinnipeds functionally different from fissiped carnivores? The importance of phylogenetic comparative analysis. Evolution 54, 1011–1023.Google Scholar
  3. Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P., Gittleman, J.L. and Purvis, A. (1999) Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biol. Rev. 74, 143–175.Google Scholar
  4. Blackburn, T.M. and Gaston, K. (1998) Some methodological issues in macroecology. Am. Nat. 151, 68–83.Google Scholar
  5. Blackburn, T.M. and Gaston, K.J. (2001) Linking patterns in macroecology. J. Anim. Ecol. 70, 338–352.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, J.H. (1995) Macroecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, J.H. (1999) Macroecology: progress and prospect. Oikos 87, 3–14.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, J.H. and Maurer, B.A. (1987) Evolution of species assemblages: effects of energetic constraints and species dynamics on the diversification of North American avifauna. Am. Nat. 130, 1–17.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, J.H. and Maurer, B.A. (1989) Macroecology: the division of food and space among species on continents. Science 243, 1145–1150.Google Scholar
  10. Burt, W.H. and Grossenheider, R.P. (1980) A Field Guide to the Mammals. 3rd edn. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New York.Google Scholar
  11. Butler, M., Schoener, T.W. and Losos, J.B. (2000) The relationship between sexual size dimorphism and habitat use in greater Antillean Anolis lizards. Evolution 50, 259–272.Google Scholar
  12. Chapman, J.A. and Feldhamer, G.A. (1990) Wild Mammals of North America. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.Google Scholar
  13. Cheverud, J.M., Dow, M.M. and Leutenegger, W. (1985) The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: sexual dimorphism in body weight among primates. Evolution 39, 1335–1351.Google Scholar
  14. Díaz-Uriarte, R. and Garland, T. Jr. (1996) Testing hypotheses of correlated evolution using phylogenetically independent contrasts: sensitivity to deviations from Brownian motion. Syst. Biol. 45, 27–47.Google Scholar
  15. Díaz-Uriarte, R. and Garland, T. Jr. (1998) Effects of branch length errors on the performance of phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst. Biol. 47, 27–47.Google Scholar
  16. Diniz-Filho, J.A.F. (2001) Phylogenetic autocorrelation under distinct evolutionary processes. Evolution 55, 1104–1109.Google Scholar
  17. Diniz-Filho, J.A.F., Arias, M.C. and Fuchs, S. (1999) Phylogeographic autocorrelation of phenotypic evolution in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Heredity 83, 671–680.Google Scholar
  18. Diniz-Filho, J.A.F., Coelho, A.S.G. and Sant'Ana, C.E.R. (2000) Statistical inference of correlated evolution among macroecological traits using phylogenetic eigenvector regression. Ecol. Austral 10, 27–36.Google Scholar
  19. Diniz-Filho, J.A.F., Sant'Ana, C.E.R. and Bini, L.M. (1998) An eigenvector method for estimating phylogenetic inertia. Evolution 52, 1247–1262.Google Scholar
  20. Eisenberg, J.F. (1989) Mammals of the Neotropics, Vol. 1. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  21. Emmons, L.H. (1997) Neotropical Rainforest Mammals: A Field Guide. 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  22. Felsenstein, J. (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 125, 1–15.Google Scholar
  23. Felsenstein, J. (1988) Phylogenies and quantitative characters. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19, 445–471.Google Scholar
  24. Garland, T. Jr. and Diaz-Uriarte, R. (1999) Polytomies and phylogenetically independent contrasts: examination of the bounded degrees of freedom approach. Syst. Biol. 48, 547–558.Google Scholar
  25. Garland, T. Jr., Dickerman, A.W., Janis, C.M. and Jones, J.A. (1993) Phylogenetic analysis of covariance by computer simulation. Syst. Biol. 42, 265–292.Google Scholar
  26. Garland, T. Jr., Harvey, P.H. and Ives, A.R. (1992) Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst. Biol. 41, 18–32.Google Scholar
  27. Gaston, K.J. (1990) Patterns in the geographical range of species. Biol. Rev. 65, 105–129.Google Scholar
  28. Gaston, K.J. (1994) Rarity. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  29. Gaston, K.J. and Blackburn, T.M. (1996a) Range size-body size relationships: evidence of scale dependence. Oikos 75, 479–485.Google Scholar
  30. Gaston, K.J. and Blackburn, T.M. (1996b) Global scale macroecology: interactions between population size, geographic range size and body size in the Anseriformes. J. Anim. Ecol. 65, 701–714.Google Scholar
  31. Gaston, K.J. and Blackburn, T.M. (1997) Age, area and avian diversification. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 62, 239–253.Google Scholar
  32. Gaston, K.J. and Blackburn, T.M. (1999) A critique for macroecology. Oikos 84, 353–368.Google Scholar
  33. Gaston, K.J. and Blackburn, T.M. (2000) Pattern and Process in Macroecology. Blackwell, London.Google Scholar
  34. Gittleman, J.L. and Kot, M. (1990) Adaptation: statistics and a null model for estimating phylogenetic effects. Syst. Zool. 39, 227–241.Google Scholar
  35. Gittleman, J.L., Anderson, C.G., Kot, M. and Luh, H.-K. (1996) Phylogenetic lability and rates of evolution: a comparison of behavioral, morphological and life history traits. In E. Martins (ed) Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behavior. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 166–205Google Scholar
  36. Grafen, A. (1989) The phylogenetic regression. Phil. Transac. Roy. Soc. B, 326, 157–199.Google Scholar
  37. Grantham, T.A. (1995) Hierarchical approaches to macroevolution: recent work on species selection and the ‘effect hypothesis’. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26, 301–321.Google Scholar
  38. Hansen, T.F. (1997) Stabilizing selection and the comparative analysis of adaptation. Evolution 51, 1341–1351.Google Scholar
  39. Hansen, T.F. and Martins, E.P. (1996) Translating between microevolutionary process and macroevolutionary patterns: the correlation structure of interspecific data. Evolution 50, 1404–1417.Google Scholar
  40. Hansen, T.F., Armbruster, W.S. and Antonsen, L. (2000) Comparative analysis of character displacement and spatial adaptations as illustrated by the evolution of Dalechampia Blossoms. Am. Nat. 156 (Suppl.), 17–34.Google Scholar
  41. Harvey, P.H. and Pagel, M.D. (1991) The ComparativeMethod in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge University press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  42. Kelt, D.A. and Van Vuren, D.H. (2001) The ecology and macroecology of mammalian home range. Am. Nat. 157, 637–645.Google Scholar
  43. Kirkpatrick, M. and Barton, N.H. (1997) Evolution of a species' range. Am. Nat. 150, 1–23.Google Scholar
  44. Legendre, P. and Legendre, L. (1998) Numerical Ecology. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  45. Leroi, A.M., Rose, M.R. and Lauder, G.V. (1994) What does the comparative method reveal about adaptations? Am. Nat. 144, 381–402.Google Scholar
  46. Letcher, A.J. and Harvey, P.H. (1994) Variation in geographical range size among mammals of the Paleartic. Am. Nat. 144, 30–42.Google Scholar
  47. Martins, E.P. (1994) Estimating rates of character change from comparative data. Am. Nat. 144, 193–209.Google Scholar
  48. Martins, E.P. (1996) Phylogenies, spatial autoregression and the comparative method: a computer simulation test. Evolution 50, 1750–1765.Google Scholar
  49. Martins, E.P. (2000) Adaptation and the comparative method. Tr. Ecol. Evol. 15, 296–299.Google Scholar
  50. Martins, E.P. (2001) COMPARE 4.4 (distributed by the author via http://compare.bio.indiana.edu).Google Scholar
  51. Martins, E.P. and Garland, T. Jr. (1991) Phylogenetic analyses of the correlated evolution of continuous characters: a simulation study. Evolution 45, 534–557.Google Scholar
  52. Martins, E.P. and Hansen, T.F. (1996) The statistical analysis of interspecific data: a review and evaluation of phylogenetic comparative methods. In E. Martins (ed.) Phylogenies and The Comparative Method in Animal Behavior. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 22–27.Google Scholar
  53. Martins, E.P. and Hansen, T.F. (1997) Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. American Naturalist 149, 646–667.Google Scholar
  54. Martins, E.P., Diniz-Filho, J.A.F. and Housworth, E. (2002) Adaptive constraint and the phylogenetic comparative method: a computer simulation test. Evolution 56, 1–13.Google Scholar
  55. Maurer, B. (1999) Untangling Ecological Complexity. University of Chicago press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  56. Murray, B., Fonseca, C.R. and Westoby, M. (1998) The macroecology of Australian frogs. J. Anim. Ecol. 67, 567–579.Google Scholar
  57. Pagel, M.D. (1999) Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401, 877–884.Google Scholar
  58. Price, T. (1997) Correlated evolution and independent contrasts. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B, 352, 519–529.Google Scholar
  59. Purvis, A. and Garland, T. (1993) Polytomies in comparative analyses of continuous characters. Syst. Biol. 42, 569–575.Google Scholar
  60. Pyron, M. (1999) Relationships between geographical range size, body size, local abundance and habitat breadth in North American suckers and sunfishes. J. Biogeogr. 26, 549–558.Google Scholar
  61. Redford, K.H. and Eisenberg, J.F. (1992) Mammals of the Neotropics, Vol. 2. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  62. Redford, K.H. and Eisenberg, J.F. (1999) Mammals of the Neotropics, Vol. 3. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  63. Ricklefs, R.E. and Starck, J.M. (1996) Applications of phylogenetically independent contrasts: a mixed report progress. Oikos 77, 167–172.Google Scholar
  64. Rohlf, F.J. (1989) NTSYS: Numerical Taxonomy and Multivariate Analysis System. Exeter softwares, New York.Google Scholar
  65. Rohlf, F.J. (2001) Geometric interpretations of comparative methods for the analysis of continuous variables. Evolution 50, 2143–2160.Google Scholar
  66. Ruggiero, A. and Lawton, J. (1998) Are there latitudinal and altitudinal Rapoport effects in the geographic ranges of Andean passerine birds. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 63, 283–304.Google Scholar
  67. Sokal, R.R. and Jacquez, G.M. (1991) Testing inferences about microevolutonary processes by means of spatial autocorrelation analysis. Evolution 45, 152–168.Google Scholar
  68. Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.J. (1995) Biometry. 3rd ed. W.H. and Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
  69. Taylor, C.M. and Gotelli, N.J. (1994) The macroecology of Cyprinella: correlates of phylogeny, body size and geographic range. Am. Nat. 144, 549–569.Google Scholar
  70. Williams, P.H. (1992) Worldmap: Priority Areas for Biodiversity (Demonstration Program). Privately distributed, London.Google Scholar
  71. Wilson, D.E. and Reeder, D.M. (1993) Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 2nd edn. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho
    • 1
  • Natália Mundim Tôrres
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Biologia Geral, Instituto de Ciências BiológicasUniversidade Federal de GoiásGoiânia, GOBrazil
  2. 2.Graduate program in Biology - PIBIB/CNPqBrazil

Personalised recommendations