4.2 Review

A Comparative Analysis of Integration Indices

期刊

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
卷 38, 期 4, 页码 476-488

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11692-011-9137-4

关键词

Correlation; Morphological integration; Modularity; Quantitative genetics; Statistical power

资金

  1. Biological Sciences Division
  2. Committee on Evolutionary Biology at the University of Chicago
  3. Planning and Grants Committee of the Council of Higher Education in Israel (VATAT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The degree of integration of multidimensional phenotypes has an important place in evolutionary biology, pertaining to the structure of variation that is available for natural selection to work on and therefore to the evolutionary potential of the phenotype. Various indices have been suggested in the literature for measuring integration level, yet their statistical properties have remained mostly unstudied to date. In this study, I used simulations and resampling procedures in order to compare the distributions and sampling properties of different indices. I simulated heterogeneous correlation matrices that ranged widely in their integration level. I applied non-parametric bootstrapping to explore the effect of sampling on recovering the true integration value of these matrices. In addition, I generated the statistical power space for one of the integration indices-the relative standard deviation of the eigenvalues. The results show that the relative variance of eigenvalues maps exactly onto the mean coefficient of determination, and that the index suggested by Hansen and Houle (J Evol Biol 21:1201-1219, 2008) is the same as Van Valen's (J Theor Biol 45:235-247, 1974) redundancy index, both of which have some undesirable sampling properties that render them less useful in most practical situations. Based on the power analysis, a sample of 30-40 specimens can be considered a sufficient minimum for most studies. The R codes provided here can be utilized by other researchers to yield case-specific insights.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据