Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factors influencing changes in trait correlations across species after using phylogenetic independent contrasts

  • Original paper
  • Published:
Evolutionary Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Comparative interspecific data sets have been analyzed routinely by phylogenetic methods, generally using Felsenstein’s phylogenetic independent contrasts (PIC) method. However, some authors have suggested that it may not be always necessary to incorporate phylogenetic information into statistical analyses of comparative data due to the low influence of shared history on the distribution of␣character states. The main goal of this paper was to undertake a comparison of results from non-phylogenetic Pearson correlation of tip values (TIPs) and phylogenetic independent contrasts analyses (PICs), using 566 correlation coefficients derived from 65 published papers. From each study we collected the following data: taxonomic group, number of species, type of phylogeny, number of polytomies in the phylogenetic tree, if branch length was transformed or not, trait types, the original correlation coefficient between the traits (TIPs) and the correlation coefficient between the traits using the independent contrasts method (PICs). The slope estimated from a regression of PIC correlations on TIP correlations was lower than one, and a paired t-test showed that correlations from PIC are significantly smaller than those obtained by TIP. Thus, PIC analyses tend to decrease the correlation between traits and usually increases the P-value and, thus, favoring the acceptance of the null hypothesis. Multiple factors, including taxonomic group, trait type and use of branch length transformations affected the change in decision regarding the acceptance of the null hypotheses and differences between PIC and TIP results. Due to the variety of factors affecting the differences between results provided by these methods, we suggest that comparative methods should be applied as a conservative approach to cross-species studies. Despite difficulties in quantifying precisely why these factors affect the differences between PIC and TIP, we also suggest that a better evaluation of evolutionary models underlying trait evolution is still necessary in this context and might explain some of the observed patterns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerly DD (1999) Comparative plant ecology and the role of phylogenetic information. In: Press MC, Scholes JD, Barker, MG (eds) Physiological plant ecology. Blackwell Science, pp391–413

  • Ackerly DD, Donoghue MJ (1998) Leaf size, sapling allometry, and Corner’s rules: Phylogeny and Correlated Evolution in Maples (Acer). Am Nat 152:767–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett PM, Owens IPF (2002) Evolutionary ecology of birds: life histories, mating systems an extinction. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Björklund M (1997) Are “comparative methods” always necessary? Oikos 80:607–612

    Google Scholar 

  • Blomberg SP, Garland T Jr, Ives AR (2003) Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57:717–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho P, Diniz-Filho JAF, Bini LM (2005) The impact of Felsenstein’s “Phylogenies and the comparative method” on evolutionary biology. Scientometrics 62:53–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheverud JM, Dow MM, Leutenegger W (1985) The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: sexual dimorphism in body weight among primates. Evolution 39:1335–1351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz-Uriarte R, Garland T Jr (1996) Testing hypotheses of correlated evolution using phylogenetic independent contrasts: sensitivity to deviations from Brownian Motion. Syst Biol 45:27–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz-Uriarte R, Garland T Jr (1998) Effects of branch length errors on the performance of phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst Biol 47:654–672

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diniz-Filho JAF (2001) Phylogenetic autocorrelation under distinct evolutionary processes. Evolution 55:1104–1109

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Diniz-Filho JAF, Tôrres NM (2002) Phylogenetic comparative methods and the geographic range size––body size relationship in new world terrestrial carnivora. Evol Ecol 16:351–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diniz-Filho JAF, de Sant’Ana CER, Bini LM (1998) An eigenvector method for estimating phylogenetic inertia. Evolution 52:1247–1262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felsenstein J (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am Nat 125:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freckleton RP, Harvey PH, Pagel M (2002) Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. Am Nat 160:712–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garland T Jr, Adolph SC (1994) Why not to do two-species comparative studies: limitations on inferring adaptation. Physiol Zool 67:797–828

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland T Jr, Harvey PH, Ives AR (1992) Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Syst Biol 41:18–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gittleman JL, Anderson CG, Kot M, Luh H-K (1996) Phylogenetic lability and rates of evolution: a comparison of behavioral, morphological and life history traits. In: Martins EP (ed) Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior. Oxford University Press, pp166–205

  • Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press

  • Losos JB (1999) Uncertainty in the reconstruction of ancestral carácter states and limitations on the use of phylogenetic comparative methods. Anim Behav 58:1319–1324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Manly BFJ (1994). The design and analysis of research studies. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge

  • Martins EP, Garland T Jr (1991) Phylogenetic analyses of the correlated evolution of continuous characters: a simulation study. Evolution 45:534–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martins EP, Hansen TF (1996) The statistical analysis of interspecific data: a review and evaluation of phylogenetic comparative methods. In: Martins EP (ed) Phylogenies and the comparative method in animal behavior, Oxford University Press, pp22–75

  • Martins EP, Diniz-Filho JAF, Housworth EA (2002) Adaptative constraints and the phylogenetic comparative method: a computer simulation test. Evolution 56:1–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mazer SJ (1998) Alternative approaches to the analysis of comparative data: compare and contrast. Am J Bot 85:1194–1199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morales E (2000) Estimating phylogenetic inertia in Tithonia (Asteraceae): a comparative approach. Evolution 54:475–484

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peters RH (1993) The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M (2003) Phenotypic integration: studying the ecology and evolution of complex phenotypes. Ecol Lett 6:265–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M, Kolodynska A (2002) Phenotypic plasticity to light intensity in Arabidopsis thaliana: invariance of reaction norms and phenotypic Integration. Evol Ecol 16:27–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purvis A, Garland T Jr (1993) Polytomies in comparative analyses of continuous characters. Syst Biol 42:569–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezende EL, Garland T Jr (2003) Comparaciones interespecíficas y métodos estadísticos filogenéticos. In: F Bozinovic (eds) Fisiología Ecológica & Evolutiva. Teoría y casos de estudios en animals. Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, pp79–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricklefs RE, Starck JM (1996) Applications of phylogenetically independent contrasts: a mixed progress report. Oikos 77:167–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry. WH Freeman and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirling DG, Réale D, Roff DA (2002) Selection, structure and the heritability of behavior. J Evol Biol 15:277–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weathers WW, Siegel RB (1995) Body size establishes the scaling of avian postnatal metabolic rate: an interspecific analysis using phylogenetically independent contrasts. Ibis 137:532–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Westoby M, Leishman MR, Lord JM (1995) On misinterpreting the “phylogenetic correction”. J␣Ecol 83:531–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank T. Garland Jr, D. Ackerly, M. van Kleunen and an anonymous reviewer for critical reading of previous versions of the manuscript. J.A.F. Diniz-Filho and L.M. Bini were supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), the Coordenação para Aperfeiçoamento do Ensino Superior (CAPES) and by FUNAPE of the Universidade Federal de Goiás. Priscilla Carvalho received a scholarship from CAPES.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Biologia Geral, ICB, Universidade Federal de Goiás, CP 131, 74001-970, Goiânia, GO, Brazil

    Priscilla Carvalho, José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho & Luis Mauricio Bini

  2. Departamento de Biologia / MCAS-PROPE, Universidade Católica de Goiás, Goiânia, GO, Brazil

    José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho

Authors
  1. Priscilla Carvalho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luis Mauricio Bini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carvalho, P., Diniz-Filho, J.A.F. & Bini, L.M. Factors influencing changes in trait correlations across species after using phylogenetic independent contrasts. Evol Ecol 20, 591–602 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-006-9119-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-006-9119-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation