An official website of the United States government
Abstract Time‐scaled phylogenies underpin the interrogation of evolutionary processes across deep timescales, as well as attempts to link these to Earth's history. By inferring the placement of fossils and using their ages as temporal constraints, tip dating under the fossilized birth–death (FBD) process provides a coherent prior on divergence times. At the same time, it also links topological and temporal accuracy, as incorrectly placed fossil terminals should misinform divergence times. This could pose serious issues for obtaining accurate node ages, yet the interaction between topological and temporal error has not been thoroughly explored. We simulate phylogenies and associated morphological datasets using methodologies that incorporate evolution under selection, and are benchmarked against empirical datasets. We find that datasets of 300 characters and realistic levels of missing data generally succeed in inferring the correct placement of fossils on a constrained extant backbone topology, and that true node ages are usually contained within Bayesian posterior distributions. While increased fossil sampling improves the accuracy of inferred ages, topological and temporal errors do not seem to be linked: analyses in which fossils resolve less accurately do not exhibit elevated errors in node age estimates. At the same time, inferred divergence times are biased, probably due to a mismatch between the FBD prior and the shape of our simulated trees. While these results are encouraging, suggesting that even fossils with uncertain affinities can provide useful temporal information, they also emphasize that palaeontological information cannot overturn discrepancies between model priors and the true diversification history.
more »
« less
Navigating “tip fog”: Embracing uncertainty in tip measurements
Abstract Nature is full of messy variation, which serves as the raw material for evolution. However, in comparative biology this variation is smoothed into averages. Overlooking this variation not only weakens our analyses but also risks selecting inaccurate models, generating false precision in parameter estimates, and creating artificial patterns. Furthermore, the complexity of uncertainty extends beyond traditional “measurement error,” encompassing various sources of intraspecific variance. To address this, we propose the term “tip fog” to describe the variance between the true species mean and what is recorded, without implying a specific mechanism. We show why accounting for tip fog remains critical by showing its impact on continuous comparative models and discrete comparative and diversification models. We rederive methods to estimate this variance and use simulations to assess its feasibility and importance in a comparative context. Our findings reveal that ignoring tip fog substantially affects the accuracy of rate estimates, with higher tip fog levels showing greater biases from the true rates, as well as affecting which models are chosen. The findings underscore the importance of model selection and the potential consequences of neglecting tip fog, providing insights for improving the accuracy of comparative methods in evolutionary biology.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1916558
- PAR ID:
- 10557014
- Publisher / Repository:
- bioRxiv
- Date Published:
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Institution:
- bioRxiv
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Understanding patterns of diversity is central to ecology and conservation, yet estimates of diversity are often biased by imperfect detection. In recent years, multi‐species occupancy models (MSOM) have been developed as a statistical tool to account for species‐specific heterogeneity in detection while estimating true measures of diversity. Although the power of these models has been tested in various ways, their ability to estimate gamma diversity—or true community size,Nis a largely unrecognized feature that needs rigorous evaluation.We use both simulations and an empirical dataset to evaluate the bias, precision, accuracy and coverage of estimates ofNfrom MSOM compared to the widely applied iChao2 non‐parametric estimator. We simulated 5,600 datasets across seven scenarios of varying average occupancy and detectability covariates, as well as varying numbers of sites, replicates and true community size. Additionally, we use a real dataset of surveys over 9 years (where species accumulation reached an asymptote, indicating trueN), to estimateNfrom each annual survey.Simulations showed that both MSOM and iChao2 estimators are generally accurate (i.e. unbiased and precise) except under unideal scenarios where mean species occupancy is low. In such scenarios, MSOM frequently overestimatedN. Across all scenarios, MSOM estimates were less certain than iChao2, but this led to over‐confident iChao2 estimates that showed poor coverage. Results from the real dataset largely confirmed the simulation findings, with MSOM estimates showing greater accuracy and coverage than iChao2.Community ecologists have a wide choice of analytical methods, and both iChao2 and MSOM estimates ofNare substantially preferable to raw species counts. The simplicity of non‐parametric estimators has obvious advantages, but our results show that in many cases, MSOM may provide superior estimates that also account more accurately for uncertainty. Both methods can show strong bias when average occupancy is very low, and practitioners should show caution when using estimates derived from either method under such conditions.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Soft, tip-extending "vine" robots offer a unique mode of inspection and manipulation in highly constrained environments. For practicality, it is desirable that the distal end of the robot can be manipulated freely, while the body remains stationary. However, in previous vine robots, either the shape of the body was fixed after growth with no ability to manipulate the distal end, or the whole body moved together with the tip. Here, we present a concept for shape-locking that enables a vine robot to move only its distal tip, while the body is locked in place. This is achieved using two inextensible, pressurized, tip-extending, chambers that "grow" along the sides of the robot body, preserving curvature in the section where they have been deployed. The length of the locked and free sections can be varied by controlling the extension and retraction of these chambers. We present models describing this shape-locking mechanism and workspace of the robot in both free and constrained environments. We experimentally validate these models, showing an increased dexterous workspace compared to previous vine robots. Our shape-locking concept allows improved performance for vine robots, advancing the field of soft robotics for inspection and manipulation in highly constrained environments.more » « less
-
Phylogenetic comparative methods have long been a mainstay of evolutionary biology, allowing for the study of trait evolution across species while accounting for their common ancestry. These analyses typically assume a single, bifurcating phylogenetic tree describing the shared history among species. However, modern phylogenomic analyses have shown that genomes are often composed of mosaic histories that can disagree both with the species tree and with each other—so-called discordant gene trees. These gene trees describe shared histories that are not captured by the species tree, and therefore that are unaccounted for in classic comparative approaches. The application of standard comparative methods to species histories containing discordance leads to incorrect inferences about the timing, direction, and rate of evolution. Here, we develop two approaches for incorporating gene tree histories into comparative methods: one that constructs an updated phylogenetic variance–covariance matrix from gene trees, and another that applies Felsenstein's pruning algorithm over a set of gene trees to calculate trait histories and likelihoods. Using simulation, we demonstrate that our approaches generate much more accurate estimates of tree-wide rates of trait evolution than standard methods. We apply our methods to two clades of the wild tomato genusSolanumwith varying rates of discordance, demonstrating the contribution of gene tree discordance to variation in a set of floral traits. Our approaches have the potential to be applied to a broad range of classic inference problems in phylogenetics, including ancestral state reconstruction and the inference of lineage-specific rate shifts.more » « less
-
Abstract Modern comparative biology owes much to phylogenetic regression. At its conception, this technique sparked a revolution that armed biologists with phylogenetic comparative methods (PCMs) for disentangling evolutionary correlations from those arising from hierarchical phylogenetic relationships. Over the past few decades, the phylogenetic regression framework has become a paradigm of modern comparative biology that has been widely embraced as a remedy for shared ancestry. However, recent evidence has shown doubt over the efficacy of phylogenetic regression, and PCMs more generally, with the suggestion that many of these methods fail to provide an adequate defense against unreplicated evolution—the primary justification for using them in the first place. Importantly, some of the most compelling examples of biological innovation in nature result from abrupt lineage-specific evolutionary shifts, which current regression models are largely ill equipped to deal with. Here we explore a solution to this problem by applying robust linear regression to comparative trait data. We formally introduce robust phylogenetic regression to the PCM toolkit with linear estimators that are less sensitive to model violations than the standard least-squares estimator, while still retaining high power to detect true trait associations. Our analyses also highlight an ingenuity of the original algorithm for phylogenetic regression based on independent contrasts, whereby robust estimators are particularly effective. Collectively, we find that robust estimators hold promise for improving tests of trait associations and offer a path forward in scenarios where classical approaches may fail. Our study joins recent arguments for increased vigilance against unreplicated evolution and a better understanding of evolutionary model performance in challenging—yet biologically important—settings.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Posted Content:
- https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.19.608647
