4.2 Article

Modeling body size evolution in Felidae under alternative phylogenetic hypotheses

Journal

GENETICS AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages 170-176

Publisher

SOC BRASIL GENETICA
DOI: 10.1590/S1415-47572009005000004

Keywords

autocorrelation; body size; Felidae; phylogenetic eigenvector regression; phylogenies

Funding

  1. Brazilian Agency CNPq
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa da Universidade Federal de Goias (FUNAPE/UFG)
  3. CAPES

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of phylogenetic comparative methods in ecological research has advanced during the last twenty years, mainly due to accurate phylogenetic reconstructions based on molecular data and computational and statistical advances. We used phylogenetic correlograms and phylogenetic eigenvector regression (PVR) to model body size evolution in 35 worldwide Felidae (Mammalia, Carnivora) species using two alternative phylogenies and published body size data. The purpose was not to contrast the phylogenetic hypotheses but to evaluate how analyses of body size evolution patterns can be affected by the phylogeny used for comparative analyses (CA). Both phylogenies produced a strong phylogenetic pattern, with closely related species having similar body sizes and the similarity decreasing with increasing distances in time. The PVR explained 65% to 67% of body size variation and all Moran's I values for the PVR residuals were non-significant, indicating that both these models explained phylogenetic structures in trait variation. Even though our results did not suggest that any phylogeny can be used for CA with the same power, or that good phylogenies are unnecessary for the correct interpretation of the evolutionary dynamics of ecological, biogeographical, physiological or behavioral patterns, it does suggest that developments in CA can, and indeed should, proceed without waiting for perfect and fully resolved phylogenies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available