4.6 Article

An Assessment of Phylogenetic Tools for Analyzing the Interplay Between Interspecific Interactions and Phenotypic Evolution

Journal

SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY
Volume 67, Issue 3, Pages 413-427

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syx079

Keywords

Character displacement; competition; interspecific interactions; phylogenetic comparative methods; trait evolution

Funding

  1. European Research Council [616419-PANDA]
  2. National Science Foundation [DEB-1457844]
  3. Division Of Environmental Biology [1457844] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Much ecological and evolutionary theory predicts that interspecific interactions often drive phenotypic diversification and that species phenotypes in turn influence species interactions. Several phylogenetic comparative methods have been developed to assess the importance of such processes in nature; however, the statistical properties of these methods have gone largely untested. Focusing mainly on scenarios of competition between closely-related species, we assess the performance of available comparative approaches for analyzing the interplay between interspecific interactions and species phenotypes. We find that many currently used statistical methods often fail to detect the impact of interspecific interactions on trait evolution, that sister-taxa analyses are particularly unreliable in general, and that recently developed process-based models have more satisfactory statistical properties. Methods for detecting predictors of species interactions are generally more reliable than methods for detecting character displacement. In weighing the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches, we hope to provide a clear guide for empiricists testing hypotheses about the reciprocal effect of interspecific interactions and species phenotypes and to inspire further development of process-based models.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available