Literature DB >> 28565369

PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF PHENOTYPIC COVARIANCE STRUCTURE. I. CONTRASTING RESULTS FROM MATRIX CORRELATION AND COMMON PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSES.

Scott J Steppan1,2.   

Abstract

Applications of quantitative techniques to understanding macroevolutionary patterns typically assume that genetic variances and covariances remain constant. That assumption is tested among 28 populations of the Phyllotis darwini species group (leaf-eared mice). Phenotypic covariances are used as a surrogate for genetic covariances to allow much greater phylogenetic sampling. Two new approaches are applied that extend the comparative method to multivariate data. The efficacy of these techniques are compared, and their sensitivity to sampling error examined. Pairwise matrix correlations of correlation matrices are consistently very high (> 0.90) and show no significant association between matrix similarity and phylogenetic relatedness. Hierarchical decomposition of common principal component (CPC) analyses applied to each clade in the phylogeny rejects the hypothesis that common principal component structure is shared in clades more inclusive than subspecies. Most subspecies also lack a common covariance structure as described by the CPC model. The hypothesis of constant covariances must be rejected, but the magnitudes of divergence in covariance structure appear to be small. Matrix correlations are very sensitive to sampling error, while CPC is not. CPC is a powerful statistical tool that allows detailed testing of underlying patterns of covariation. © 1997 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Common principal components; Phyllotis; comparative method; cranial morphology; macroevolution; phenotypic covariance structure; quantitative genetics

Year:  1997        PMID: 28565369     DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb02444.x

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


  9 in total

1.  Size correction: comparing morphological traits among populations and environments.

Authors:  Michael W McCoy; Benjamin M Bolker; Craig W Osenberg; Benjamin G Miner; James R Vonesh
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2006-04-08       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Conspecific density determines the magnitude and character of predator-induced phenotype.

Authors:  Michael W McCoy
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2007-07-17       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Directional selection effects on patterns of phenotypic (co)variation in wild populations.

Authors:  A P A Assis; J L Patton; A Hubbe; G Marroig
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  One problem, many solutions: simple statistical approaches help unravel the complexity of the immune system in an ecological context.

Authors:  Deborah M Buehler; Maaike A Versteegh; Kevin D Matson; B Irene Tieleman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-04-19       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Phenotypic covariance structure and its divergence for acoustic mate attraction signals among four cricket species.

Authors:  Susan M Bertram; Lauren P Fitzsimmons; Emily M McAuley; Howard D Rundle; Root Gorelick
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.912

6.  Phylogeny, diet, and cranial integration in australodelphian marsupials.

Authors:  Anjali Goswami
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2007-10-03       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Developmental constraint through negative pleiotropy in the zygomatic arch.

Authors:  Christopher J Percival; Rebecca Green; Charles C Roseman; Daniel M Gatti; Judith L Morgan; Stephen A Murray; Leah Rae Donahue; Jessica M Mayeux; K Michael Pollard; Kunjie Hua; Daniel Pomp; Ralph Marcucio; Benedikt Hallgrímsson
Journal:  Evodevo       Date:  2018-01-27       Impact factor: 2.250

8.  Phenotypic covariance at species' borders.

Authors:  M Julian Caley; Edward Cripps; Edward T Game
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 3.260

9.  Integration, heterochrony, and adaptation in pedal digits of syndactylous marsupials.

Authors:  Vera Weisbecker; Maria Nilsson
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2008-05-25       Impact factor: 3.260

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.