Advertisement

Use and Misuse of Comparative Methods in the Study of Adaptation

  • Thomas F. HansenEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The comparative method can be used to test hypotheses of adaptation by comparing groups of species that meet different adaptive challenges. This requires attention to phylogenetic correlations and to historical lags in achieving adaptation. The modern phylogenetic comparative method has provided some partial solutions to these problems, but the field has also suffered from a systemic lack of demand for biological justifications of its statistical procedures. Consequently, assumptions have been made for statistical convenience and are often inconsistent with the relevant biology. I argue that common comparative tests of adaptation, including Brownian-motion based phylogenetic linear models and inferred-changes methods based on reconstructing ancestral states, violate essential characteristics of adaptation as a biological process. I discuss the requirements for biologically consistent comparative analysis of adaptation, and I review work toward this goal.

Keywords

Phylogenetic Comparative Methods Phylogenetic Correlation Shared Branch Length Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Model Optimal Primer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank the editor, László Zsolt Garamszegi, for the invitation to contribute to this volume, and the editor and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft. I thank Antonieta Labra for help in developing Figs. 14.3 and 14.4, and Sandrine Hughes for permission to use Fig. 14.2.

References

  1. Armbruster WS (2002) Can indirect selection and genetic context contribute to trait diversification? A transition-probability study of bolssom-colour evolution in two genera. J Evol Biol 15:468–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartoszek K, Pienaar J, Mostad P, Andersson S, Hansen TF (2012) A comparative method for studying multivariate adaptation. J Theor Biol 314:204–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum DA, Larson A (1991) Adaptation reviewed: a phylogenetic methodology for studying character macroevolution. Syst Zool 40:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaulieu JM, Jhwueng D-C, Boettiger C, O’Meara BC (2012) Modeling stabilizing selection: expanding the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model of adaptive evolution. Evolution 66:2369–2383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooks DR, McLennan DH (1991) Phylogeny, ecology and behavior: a research program in comparative biology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler MA, King AA (2004) Phylogenetic comparative analysis: a modeling approach for adaptive evolution. Am Nat 164:683–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheverud JM, Dow MM, Leutenegger W (1985) The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: sexual dimorphism in body weights among primates. Evolution 39:1335–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Harvey PH (1980) Antlers, body size and breeding group size in the Cervida. Nature 285:565–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coddington JA (1988) Cladistic tests of adaptational hypotheses. Cladistics 4:3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper N, Jetz W, Freckleton RP (2010) Phylogenetic comparative approaches for studying niche conservatism. J Evol Biol 23:2529–2539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diniz-Filho JAF, Ramos de Sant’ana CE, Bini LM (1998) An eigenvector method for estimating phylogenetic inertia. Evolution 52:1247–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diniz-Filho JAF, Rangel TF, Santos T, Bini LM (2012) Exploring patterns of interspecific variation in quantitative traits using sequential phylogenetic eigenvector regressions. Evolution 66:1079–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Escudero M, Hipp A, Hansen TF, Voje KL, Luceño M (2012) Selection and inertia in the evolution of holocentric chromosomes in sedges (Carex, Cyperaceae). New Phytol 195:237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Felsenstein J (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 125:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Felsenstein J (2008) Comparative methods with sampling error and within-species variation: contrasts revisited and revised. Am Nat 171:713–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Felsenstein J (2012) A comparative method for both discrete and continuous characters using the threshold model. Am Nat 179:145–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freckleton RP, Cooper N, Jetz W (2011) Comparative methods as a statistical fix: the dangers of ignoring an evolutionary model. Am Nat 178:E10–E17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frumhoff PC, Reeve HK (1994) Using phylogenies to test hypotheses of adaptation: a critique of some current proposals. Evolution 48:172–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garland T Jr, Bennett AF, Rezende EL (2005) Phylogenetic approaches in comparative physiology. J Exper Biol 208:3015–3035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garamszegi LZ, Møller AP (2010) Effects of sample size and intraspecific variation in phylogenetic comparative studies: a meta-analytic review. Biol Rev 85:797–805Google Scholar
  21. Garamszegi LZ, Møller AP (2011) Nonrandom variation in within-species sample size and missing data in Phylogenetic comparative studies. Syst Biol 60:876–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geist V (1998) Deer of the world: their evolution, behavior, and ecology. Swan Hill Press, ShrewsburyGoogle Scholar
  23. Gould SJ (1973) Positive allometry of antlers in the “Irish elk”, Megaloceros giganteus. Nature 244:375–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gould SJ (1974) The evolutionary significance of “bizarre” structures: antler size and skull structure in the “Irish Elk,” Megaloceros giganteus. Evolution 28:191–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gould SJ (1977) Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Belknap, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Gould SJ (1998) A lesson from the old masters. In: Gould SJ (ed) Leonardo’s mountain of clams and the diet of worms. Harmon books, pp 179-196Google Scholar
  27. Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Gould SJ, Vrba ES (1982) Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8:4–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hadfield JD, Nakagawa S (2010) General quantitative genetic methods for comparative biology: phylogenies, taxonomies and multi-trait models for continuous and categorical characters. J Evol Biol 23:494–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hansen TF (1997) Stabilizing selection and the comparative analysis of adaptation. Evolution 51:1341–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hansen TF (2012) Adaptive landscapes and macroevolutionary dynamics. In: Svensson EI, Calsbeek R (eds) The adaptive landscape in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 205–226Google Scholar
  32. Hansen TF, Bartoszek K (2012) Interpreting the evolutionary regression: the interplay between observational and biological errors in phylogenetic comparative studies. Syst Biol 61:413–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hansen TF, Martins EP (1996) Translating between microevolutionary process and macroevolutionary patterns: the correlation structure of interspecific data. Evolution 50:1404–1417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hansen TF, Orzack SH (2005) Assessing current adaptation and phylogenetic inertia as explanations of trait evolution: the need for controlled comparisons. Evolution 59:2063–2072PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Hansen TF, Pienaar J, Orzack SH (2008) A comparative method for studying adaptation to a randomly evolving environment. Evolution 62:1965–1977PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Harmon LJ, Weir JT, Brock CD, Glor RE, Challenger W (2008) Geiger: investigating evolutionary radiations. Bioinformatics 24:129–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Houle D, Pélabon C, Wagner GP, Hansen TF (2011) Measurement and meaning in biology. Quart Rev Biol 86:3–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hughes S, Hayden TJ, Douady CJ, Tougard C, Germonpre M, Stuart A, Lbova L, Carden RF, Hanni C, Say L (2006) Molecular phylogeny of the extinct giant deer, Megaloceros giganteus. Mol Phylogenet Evol 40:285–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Huxley JS (1932) Problems of relative growth. Lincoln Mac Veagh-The Dial Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Ingram T, Mahler DL (2013) SURFACE: detecting convergent evolution from comparative data by fitting Ornstein-Uhlenbeck models with stepwise Akaike information criterion. Methods Ecol Evol 4:416–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ives AR, Garland T Jr (2010) Phylogenetic logistic regression for binary dependent variables. Syst Biol 59:9–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ives AR, Midford PE, Garland T Jr (2007) Within-species variation and measurement error in phylogenetic comparative methods. Syst Biol 56:252–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kelly C, Price TD (2004) Comparative methods based on species mean values. Math Biosci 187:135–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kemp TS (2006) The origin of mammalian endothermy: a paradigm for the evolution of complex biological structure. Zool J Linn Soc 147:473–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kemp TS (2007) The origin of higher taxa: macroevolutionary processes, and the case of the mammals. Acta Zoologica 88:3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Labra A, Pienaar J, Hansen TF (2009) Evolution of thermal physiology in Lioleamus lizards: adaptation, phylogenetic inertia and niche tracking. Am Nat 174:204–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Labra A, Voje KL, Seligmann H, Hansen TF (2010) Evolution of the third eye: a phylogenetic comparative study of parietal-eye size as an ecophysiological adaptation in Liolaemus lizards. Biological J Linn Soc 101:870–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lajeunesse MJ (2009) Meta-analysis and the comparative phylogenetic method. Am Nat 174:369–381PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Lande R (1976) Natural selection and random genetic drift in phenotypic evolution. Evolution 30:314–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Larson A, Losos JB (1996) Phylogenetic systematics of adaptation. In: Rose MR, Lauder GW (eds) Adaptation. Academic press, San Diego, pp 187–220Google Scholar
  51. Lister AM et al (2005) The phylogenetic position of the ‘giant deer’ Megaloceros giganteus. Nature 438:850–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lynch M (1991) Methods for the analysis of comparative data in evolutionary biology. Evolution 45:1065–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Maddison DR (1994) Phylogenetic methods for inferring the evolutionary history and processes of change in discretely valued characters. Ann Rev Entomol 39:267–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Martins EP (2000) Adaptation and the comparative method. Trends Ecol Evol 15:296–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Martins EP (2004) Compare, version 4.6b. Computer programs for the statistical analysis of comparative data. Distributed by the author at http://compare.bio.indiana.edu/. Technical report, Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
  56. Martins EP, Hansen TF (1997) Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. Am Nat 149:646–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mitchell WA, Valone TJ (1990) The optimization research program: studying adaptations by their function. Quart Rev Biol 65:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nunn CL (2011) The comparative approach in evolutionary anthropology and biology. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. O’Meara BC (2012) Evolutionary inferences from phylogenies: a review of methods. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 43:267–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. O’Meara BC, Ane C, Sanderson MJ, Wainwright PC (2006) Testing for different rates of continuous trait evolution using likelihood. Evolution 60:922–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pagel MD (1994) Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies: a general method for the comparative analysis of discrete characters. Proc R Soc B 255:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K (2004) Ape: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20:289–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pennell MW, Harmon LJ (2013) An integrative view of phylogenetic comparative methods: connections to population genetics, community ecology, and paleobiology. Ann New York Acad Sci 1289:90–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Plard F, Bonenfant C, Gaillard J-M (2011) Revisiting the allometry of antlers among deer species: male–male sexual competition as a driver. Oikos 120:601–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Price T (1997) Correlated evolution and independent contrasts. Philos Trans R Soc B 355:1599–1606Google Scholar
  66. Reeve HK, Sherman PW (1993) Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research. Quart Rev Biol 68:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Reeve HK, Sherman PW (2001) Optimality and phylogeny: a critique of current thought. In: Orzack SH, Sober E (eds) Adaptationism and optimality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 64–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rensch B (1959) Evolution above the species level. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  69. Revell LJ (2010) Phylogenetic signal and linear regression on species data. Methods Ecol Evol 1:319–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Revell LJ, Reynolds G (2012) A new bayesian method for fitting evolutionary models to comparative data with intraspecific variation. Evolution 66:2697–2707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ridley M (1983) The explanation of organic diversity: the comparative method and adaptations for mating. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  72. Schluter D, Price T, Mooers AØ, Ludwig D (1997) Likelihood of ancestor states in adaptive radiation. Evolution 51:1699–1711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Simpson GG (1944) Tempo and mode in evolution. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  74. Smith RJ, Jungers WL (1997) Body mass in comparative primatology. J Human Evol 32:523–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sober E (1984) The nature of selection: evolutionary theory in philosophical focus. Bradford books, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  76. Sober E (2008) Evidence and evolution: the logic behind the science. Cambridge University press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stone GN, Nee S, Felsenstein J (2011) Controlling for non-independence in comparative analysis of patterns across populations within species. Phil Trans R Soc B 366:1410–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Voje KL, Hansen TF (2013) Evolution of static allometries: slow rate of adaptive change in allometric slopes of eye span in stalk-eyed flies. Evolution 67:453–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Voje KL, Hansen TF, Egset CK, Bolstad GH, Pélabon C (2014) Allometric constraints and the evolution of allometry. Evolution 68: 866–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ward R (1903) Records of big game: with the distribution, characteristic, dimensions, weights, and horn and tusk measurements of the different species, 4th edn. Rowland Ward, Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  81. Westoby M, Leishman MR, Lord JM (1995) On misunderstanding the ‘phylogenetic correction’. J Ecol 83:531–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Williams GC (1992) Natural selection: domains, levels, and challenges. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology, CEESUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options