Los Métodos Comparativos Filogenéticos en el estudio de las aves

Bettina Mahler; Pablo L. Tubaro

doi:10.56178/eh.v17i1.883

Points of View Published 01 August 2002 https://doi.org/10.56178/eh.v17i1.883

Phylogenetic Comparative Methods in the study of birds

birds concentrated-changes contingent-states independent contrasts phylogenetic comparative method

Bettina Mahler División Ornitología, Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia”, Av. Ángel Gallardo 470, C1405DJR Buenos Aires, Argentina

Pablo L. Tubaro División Ornitología, Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia”, Av. Ángel Gallardo 470, C1405DJR Buenos Aires, Argentina

Abstract

In the past ten years, the realization that species are not independent evolutionary products because of their shared phylogenetic history has changed the way in which comparative studies are done. The phylogenetic comparative methods are based on the consideration that the degrees of freedom are not simply given by the number of species involved in the study but by the number of independent instances of evolution of the characters. In this review we describe three of the more frequently used methods (Phylogenetically Independent Contrasts, Concentrated-changes and Contingent-states) and show examples of their use in ornithological studies. We also discuss some of the objections made on the use of phylogenetic comparative methods, such as the lack of robust phylogenies and the problems in reconstructing ancestral character states.

PDF (Spanish)

References

BENNETT PM Y OWENS IPF (2002) Evolutionary ecology of birds. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
BROOKS DR Y MCLENNAN DA (1991) Phylogeny, ecology and behavior: a research program in comparative biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
HARVEY PH Y PAGEL MD (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Londres.
MADDISON WP Y MADDISON DR (1992) MacClade: analysis of phylogeny and character evolution. Version 3.0. Sinauer, Sunderland.
RIDLEY M (1983) The explanation of organic diversity: the comparative method and adaptations for mating. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
RIDLEY M (1989) Why not to use species in comparative tests. Journal of Theoretical Biology 136:361–364.
FELSENSTEIN J (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist 125:1–15.
HÖGLUND J (1989) Size and plumage dimorphism in lek-breeding birds: a comparative analysis. American Naturalist 134:72–87.
MADDISON WP (1990) A method for testing the correlated evolution of two binary characters: are gains or losses concentrated on certain branches of a phylogenetic tree? Evolution 44:539–557.
SILLÉN-TULLBERG B (1993) The effect of biased inclusion of taxa on the correlation between discrete characters in phylogenetic trees. Evolution 47:1182–1191.
GITTLEMAN JL Y LUH H-K (1992) On comparing comparative methods. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:383–404.
MILES DB Y DUNHAM AE (1993) Historical perspectives in ecology and evolutionary biology: the use of phylogenetic comparative analyses. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 24:587–619.
WENZEL JW Y CARPENTER JM (1994) Comparing methods: adaptive traits and tests of adaptation. Pp. 79–101 en: EGGLETON P Y VANE-WRIGHT R (eds) Phylogenetics and ecology. Academic Press, Londres.
MARTINS EP Y HANSEN TF (1996) The statistical analysis of interspecific data: a review and evaluation of phylogenetic comparative methods. Pp. 22–75 en: MARTINS EP (ed) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Oxford University Press, New York.
MARTINS EP Y HANSEN TF (1997) Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into analysis of interspecific data. American Naturalist 149:646–667.
CUNNINGHAM CW, OMLAND KE Y OAKLEY TH (1998) Reconstructing ancestral character states: a critical reappraisal. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:1335–1351.
LOSOS JB (1999) Uncertainty in the reconstruction of ancestral character states and limitations on the use of phylogenetic comparative methods. Animal Behaviour 58:1319–1324.
MARTINS EP (2000) Adaptation and the comparative method. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15:296–299.
WALLSCHLÄGER D (1980) Correlation of song frequency and body weight in passerine birds. Experientia 36:412.
RYAN MJ Y BRENOWITZ EA (1985) The role of body size, phylogeny, and ambient noise in the evolution of bird song. American Naturalist 126:87–100.
TUBARO PL Y MAHLER B (1998) Acoustic frequencies and body mass in New World doves. Condor 100:54–61.
HOWARD RD (1974) The influence of sexual selection and interspecific competition on Mockingbird song (Mimus polyglottos). Evolution 28:428–438.
CRAIG JL Y JENKINS PF (1982) The evolution of complexity in broadcast song of Passerines. Journal of Theoretical Biology 95:415–422.
GRAY DA Y HAGELIN JC (1996) Song repertoires and sensory exploitation: reconsidering the case of the Common Grackle. Animal Behaviour 52:795–800.
LANYON SM (1994) Polyphyly of the blackbird genus Agelaius and the importance of assumptions of monophyly in comparative studies. Evolution 48:679–693.
IRWIN RE (1988) The evolutionary importance of behavioural development: the ontogeny and phylogeny of bird song. Animal Behaviour 36:814–824.
WERDELIN L Y SILLÉN-TULLBERG B (1995) A comparison of two methods to study correlated discrete characters on phylogenetic trees. Cladistics 11:265–277.
GOODWIN D (1983) Pigeons and doves of the world. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
MAHLER B Y TUBARO PL (2001) Attenuated outer primaries in pigeons and doves: a comparative test fails to support the flight performance hypothesis. Condor 103:449–454.
STARCK JM Y RICKLEFS RE (1998) Variation, constraint, and phylogeny: comparative analysis of variation in growth. Pp. 247–265 en: STARCK JM Y RICKLEFS RE (eds) Avian growth and development. Oxford University Press, New York.
SWOFFORD DL Y MADDISON WP (1992) Parsimony, character-state reconstructions, and evolutionary inferences. Pp. 186–223 en: MAYDEN RL (ed) Systematics, historical ecology, and North American freshwater fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
HUELSENBECK JP, RANNALA B Y MASLY JP (2000) Accommodating phylogenetic uncertainty in evolutionary studies. Science 288:2349–2350.
SOBER E (1988) Reconstructing the past: parsimony, evolution, and inference. MIT Press, Cambridge.
OMLAND KE (1997) Examining two standard assumptions of ancestral reconstructions: repeated loss of dichromatism in dabbling ducks (Anatini). Evolution 51:1636–1646.
LIVEZEY BC (1991) A phylogenetic analysis and classification of recent dabbling ducks (tribe Anatini) based on comparative morphology. Auk 108:471–508.
SCHLUTER D, PRICE T, MOOERS AO Y LUDWIG D (1997) Likelihood of ancestor states in adaptive radiation. Evolution 51:1699–1711.
MARTINS EP (1999) Estimation of ancestral states of continuous characters: a computer simulation study. Systematic Biology 48:642–650.
CODDINGTON JA (1988) Cladistic tests of adaptational hypotheses. Cladistics 4:3–22.
CODDINGTON JA (1994) The roles of homology and convergence in studies of adaptation. Pp. 53–78 en: EGGLETON P Y VANE-WRIGHT R (eds) Phylogenetics and ecology. Academic Press, Londres.
REEVE HK Y SHERMAN PW (1993) Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research. Quarterly Review of Biology 68:1–32.
FRUMHOFF PC Y REEVE HK (1994) Using phylogenies to test hypotheses of adaptation: a critique of some current proposals. Evolution 48:172–180.
LEROI AM, ROSE MR Y LAUDER GV (1994) What does the comparative method reveal about adaptation? American Naturalist 132:381–402.
BJÖRKLUND M (1997) Are "comparative methods" always necessary? Oikos 80:607–612.
CHEVERUD JM, DOW MM Y LEUTENEGGER W (1985) The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: sexual dimorphism in body weight among primates. Evolution 39:1335–1351.
GITTLEMAN JL, ANDERSON CG, KOT M Y LUH H-K (1996) Phylogenetic lability and rates of evolution: a comparison of behavioral, morphological and life history traits. Pp. 166–205 en: MARTINS EP (ed) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Oxford University Press, New York.

How to cite

Bettina Mahler, Pablo L. Tubaro (2002). Phylogenetic Comparative Methods in the study of birds. El Hornero, Vol. 17 No. 1 (2002), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.56178/eh.v17i1.883

Downloads

757Abstract views

1Formats

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

[1] BENNETT PM Y OWENS IPF (2002) Evolutionary ecology of birds. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[2] BROOKS DR Y MCLENNAN DA (1991) Phylogeny, ecology and behavior: a research program in comparative biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

[3] HARVEY PH Y PAGEL MD (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Londres.

[4] MADDISON WP Y MADDISON DR (1992) MacClade: analysis of phylogeny and character evolution. Version 3.0. Sinauer, Sunderland.

[5] RIDLEY M (1983) The explanation of organic diversity: the comparative method and adaptations for mating. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

[6] RIDLEY M (1989) Why not to use species in comparative tests. Journal of Theoretical Biology 136:361–364.

[7] FELSENSTEIN J (1985) Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist 125:1–15.

[8] HÖGLUND J (1989) Size and plumage dimorphism in lek-breeding birds: a comparative analysis. American Naturalist 134:72–87.

[9] MADDISON WP (1990) A method for testing the correlated evolution of two binary characters: are gains or losses concentrated on certain branches of a phylogenetic tree? Evolution 44:539–557.

[10] SILLÉN-TULLBERG B (1993) The effect of biased inclusion of taxa on the correlation between discrete characters in phylogenetic trees. Evolution 47:1182–1191.

[11] GITTLEMAN JL Y LUH H-K (1992) On comparing comparative methods. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:383–404.

[12] MILES DB Y DUNHAM AE (1993) Historical perspectives in ecology and evolutionary biology: the use of phylogenetic comparative analyses. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 24:587–619.

[13] WENZEL JW Y CARPENTER JM (1994) Comparing methods: adaptive traits and tests of adaptation. Pp. 79–101 en: EGGLETON P Y VANE-WRIGHT R (eds) Phylogenetics and ecology. Academic Press, Londres.

[14] MARTINS EP Y HANSEN TF (1996) The statistical analysis of interspecific data: a review and evaluation of phylogenetic comparative methods. Pp. 22–75 en: MARTINS EP (ed) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Oxford University Press, New York.

[15] MARTINS EP Y HANSEN TF (1997) Phylogenies and the comparative method: a general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into analysis of interspecific data. American Naturalist 149:646–667.

[16] CUNNINGHAM CW, OMLAND KE Y OAKLEY TH (1998) Reconstructing ancestral character states: a critical reappraisal. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:1335–1351.

[17] LOSOS JB (1999) Uncertainty in the reconstruction of ancestral character states and limitations on the use of phylogenetic comparative methods. Animal Behaviour 58:1319–1324.

[18] MARTINS EP (2000) Adaptation and the comparative method. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15:296–299.

[19] WALLSCHLÄGER D (1980) Correlation of song frequency and body weight in passerine birds. Experientia 36:412.

[20] RYAN MJ Y BRENOWITZ EA (1985) The role of body size, phylogeny, and ambient noise in the evolution of bird song. American Naturalist 126:87–100.

[21] TUBARO PL Y MAHLER B (1998) Acoustic frequencies and body mass in New World doves. Condor 100:54–61.

[22] HOWARD RD (1974) The influence of sexual selection and interspecific competition on Mockingbird song (Mimus polyglottos). Evolution 28:428–438.

[23] CRAIG JL Y JENKINS PF (1982) The evolution of complexity in broadcast song of Passerines. Journal of Theoretical Biology 95:415–422.

[24] GRAY DA Y HAGELIN JC (1996) Song repertoires and sensory exploitation: reconsidering the case of the Common Grackle. Animal Behaviour 52:795–800.

[25] LANYON SM (1994) Polyphyly of the blackbird genus Agelaius and the importance of assumptions of monophyly in comparative studies. Evolution 48:679–693.

[26] IRWIN RE (1988) The evolutionary importance of behavioural development: the ontogeny and phylogeny of bird song. Animal Behaviour 36:814–824.

[27] WERDELIN L Y SILLÉN-TULLBERG B (1995) A comparison of two methods to study correlated discrete characters on phylogenetic trees. Cladistics 11:265–277.

[28] GOODWIN D (1983) Pigeons and doves of the world. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

[29] MAHLER B Y TUBARO PL (2001) Attenuated outer primaries in pigeons and doves: a comparative test fails to support the flight performance hypothesis. Condor 103:449–454.

[30] STARCK JM Y RICKLEFS RE (1998) Variation, constraint, and phylogeny: comparative analysis of variation in growth. Pp. 247–265 en: STARCK JM Y RICKLEFS RE (eds) Avian growth and development. Oxford University Press, New York.

[31] SWOFFORD DL Y MADDISON WP (1992) Parsimony, character-state reconstructions, and evolutionary inferences. Pp. 186–223 en: MAYDEN RL (ed) Systematics, historical ecology, and North American freshwater fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

[32] HUELSENBECK JP, RANNALA B Y MASLY JP (2000) Accommodating phylogenetic uncertainty in evolutionary studies. Science 288:2349–2350.

[33] SOBER E (1988) Reconstructing the past: parsimony, evolution, and inference. MIT Press, Cambridge.

[34] OMLAND KE (1997) Examining two standard assumptions of ancestral reconstructions: repeated loss of dichromatism in dabbling ducks (Anatini). Evolution 51:1636–1646.

[35] LIVEZEY BC (1991) A phylogenetic analysis and classification of recent dabbling ducks (tribe Anatini) based on comparative morphology. Auk 108:471–508.

[36] SCHLUTER D, PRICE T, MOOERS AO Y LUDWIG D (1997) Likelihood of ancestor states in adaptive radiation. Evolution 51:1699–1711.

[37] MARTINS EP (1999) Estimation of ancestral states of continuous characters: a computer simulation study. Systematic Biology 48:642–650.

[38] CODDINGTON JA (1988) Cladistic tests of adaptational hypotheses. Cladistics 4:3–22.

[39] CODDINGTON JA (1994) The roles of homology and convergence in studies of adaptation. Pp. 53–78 en: EGGLETON P Y VANE-WRIGHT R (eds) Phylogenetics and ecology. Academic Press, Londres.

[40] REEVE HK Y SHERMAN PW (1993) Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research. Quarterly Review of Biology 68:1–32.

[41] FRUMHOFF PC Y REEVE HK (1994) Using phylogenies to test hypotheses of adaptation: a critique of some current proposals. Evolution 48:172–180.

[42] LEROI AM, ROSE MR Y LAUDER GV (1994) What does the comparative method reveal about adaptation? American Naturalist 132:381–402.

[43] BJÖRKLUND M (1997) Are "comparative methods" always necessary? Oikos 80:607–612.

[44] CHEVERUD JM, DOW MM Y LEUTENEGGER W (1985) The quantitative assessment of phylogenetic constraints in comparative analyses: sexual dimorphism in body weight among primates. Evolution 39:1335–1351.

[45] GITTLEMAN JL, ANDERSON CG, KOT M Y LUH H-K (1996) Phylogenetic lability and rates of evolution: a comparison of behavioral, morphological and life history traits. Pp. 166–205 en: MARTINS EP (ed) Phylogenies and the comparative method. Oxford University Press, New York.