skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Search for: All records

Creators/Authors contains: "Kiang, Woodrow_Hao C"

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. Gonzalez-Voyer, Alejandro; Rohner, Patrick (Ed.)
    Abstract Phylogenetic comparative methods are a major tool for evaluating macroevolutionary hypotheses. Methods based on the mean-reverting stochastic Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process allow for modelling adaptation on a phenotypic adaptive landscape that itself evolves and where fitness peaks depend on measured characteristics of the external environment and/or other organismal traits. Here, we give an overview of the conceptual framework for the many implementations of these methods and discuss how we might interpret estimated parameters. We emphasize that the ability to model a changing adaptive landscape sets these methods apart from other approaches and discuss why this aspect captures long-term trait evolution more realistically. Recent multivariate extensions of these methods provide a powerful framework for testing evolutionary hypotheses but are also more complicated to use and interpret. We provide some guidance on their usage and put recent literature on the topic in biological rather than mathematical terms. We further show how these methods provide a starting point for modelling reciprocal selection (i.e., coevolution) between interacting lineages. We then briefly review some critiques of the methodologies. Finally, we provide some ideas for future developments that we think will be useful to evolutionary biologists. 
    more » « less