Literature DB >> 26593734

Challenges in the estimation of extinction from molecular phylogenies: A response to Beaulieu and O'Meara.

Daniel L Rabosky1.   

Abstract

Time-calibrated phylogenies that contain only living species have been widely used to study the dynamics of speciation and extinction. Concerns about the reliability of phylogenetic extinction estimates were raised by Rabosky (2010), where I suggested that unaccommodated heterogeneity in speciation rate could lead to positively biased extinction estimates. In a recent article, Beaulieu and O'Meara (2015a) correctly point out several technical errors in the execution of my 2010 study and concluded that phylogenetic extinction estimates are robust to speciation rate heterogeneity under a range of model parameters. I demonstrate that Beaulieu and O'Meara underestimated the magnitude of speciation rate variation in real phylogenies and consequently did not incorporate biologically meaningful levels of rate heterogeneity into their simulations. Using parameter values drawn from the recent literature, I find that modest levels of heterogeneity in speciation rate result in a consistent, positive bias in extinction estimates that are exacerbated by phylogenetic tree size. This bias, combined with the inherent lack of information about extinction in molecular phylogenies, suggests that extinction rate estimates from phylogenies of extant taxa only should be treated with caution.
© 2015 The Author(s). Evolution © 2015 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Keywords:  Birth-death model; diversification; heterotachy; model adequacy; speciation

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26593734     DOI: 10.1111/evo.12820

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  20 in total

1.  Improvements in the fossil record may largely resolve current conflicts between morphological and molecular estimates of mammal phylogeny.

Authors:  Robin M D Beck; Charles Baillie
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Macroevolutionary diversification rates show time dependency.

Authors:  L Francisco Henao Diaz; Luke J Harmon; Mauro T C Sugawara; Eliot T Miller; Matthew W Pennell
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-03-25       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Phylogenetic tests for evolutionary innovation: the problematic link between key innovations and exceptional diversification.

Authors:  Daniel L Rabosky
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 6.237

4.  Evolutionary time drives global tetrapod diversity.

Authors:  Julie Marin; Giovanni Rapacciuolo; Gabriel C Costa; Catherine H Graham; Thomas M Brooks; Bruce E Young; Volker C Radeloff; Jocelyn E Behm; Matthew R Helmus; S Blair Hedges
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-02-14       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Is BAMM Flawed? Theoretical and Practical Concerns in the Analysis of Multi-Rate Diversification Models.

Authors:  Daniel L Rabosky; Jonathan S Mitchell; Jonathan Chang
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 15.683

6.  Notes on the Statistical Power of the Binary State Speciation and Extinction (BiSSE) Model.

Authors:  Alexander Gamisch
Journal:  Evol Bioinform Online       Date:  2016-07-26       Impact factor: 1.625

7.  Total evidence phylogeny and evolutionary timescale for Australian faunivorous marsupials (Dasyuromorphia).

Authors:  Shimona Kealy; Robin Beck
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2017-12-04       Impact factor: 3.260

8.  Approaches to Macroevolution: 2. Sorting of Variation, Some Overarching Issues, and General Conclusions.

Authors:  David Jablonski
Journal:  Evol Biol       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 3.119

9.  Pollinivory and the diversification dynamics of bees.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Murray; Silas Bossert; Bryan N Danforth
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2018-11-14       Impact factor: 3.703

10.  The abiotic and biotic drivers of rapid diversification in Andean bellflowers (Campanulaceae).

Authors:  Laura P Lagomarsino; Fabien L Condamine; Alexandre Antonelli; Andreas Mulch; Charles C Davis
Journal:  New Phytol       Date:  2016-03-14       Impact factor: 10.151

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.