Search for: All records

Evolutionary rates play a central role in connecting micro- and macroevolution. All evolutionary rate estimates, including rates of molecular evolution, trait evolution, and lineage diversification, share a similar scaling pattern with time: The highest rates are those measured over the shortest time interval. This creates a disconnect between micro- and macroevolution, although the pattern is the opposite of what some might expect: Patterns of change over short timescales predict that evolution has tremendous potential to create variation and that potential is barely tapped by macroevolution. In this review, we discuss this shared scaling pattern across evolutionary rates. We break down possible explanations for scaling into two categories, estimation error and model misspecification, and discuss how both apply to each type of rate. We also discuss the consequences of this ubiquitous pattern, which can lead to unexpected results when comparing ratesover different timescales. Finally, after addressing purely statistical concerns, we explore a few possibilities for a shared unifying explanation across the three types of rates that results from a failure to fully understand and account for how biological processes scale over time. 

Abstract Birth–death stochastic processes are the foundations of many phylogenetic models and are widely used to make inferences about epidemiological and macroevolutionary dynamics. There are a large number of birth–death model variants that have been developed; these impose different assumptions about the temporal dynamics of the parameters and about the sampling process. As each of these variants was individually derived, it has been difficult to understand the relationships between them as well as their precise biological and mathematical assumptions. Without a common mathematical foundation, deriving new models is nontrivial. Here, we unify these models into a single framework, prove that many previously developed epidemiological and macroevolutionary models are all special cases of a more general model, and illustrate the connections between these variants. This unification includes both models where the process is the same for all lineages and those in which it varies across types. We also outline a straightforward procedure for deriving likelihood functions for arbitrarily complex birth–death(-sampling) models that will hopefully allow researchers to explore a wider array of scenarios than was previously possible. By rederiving existing single-type birth–death sampling models, we clarify and synthesize the range of explicit and implicit assumptions made by these models. [Birth–death processes; epidemiology; macroevolution; phylogenetics; statistical inference.] 

Abstract Viral phylogenies provide crucial information on the spread of infectious diseases, and many studies fit mathematical models to phylogenetic data to estimate epidemiological parameters such as the effective reproduction ratio (Re) over time. Such phylodynamic inferences often complement or even substitute for conventional surveillance data, particularly when sampling is poor or delayed. It remains generally unknown, however, how robust phylodynamic epidemiological inferences are, especially when there is uncertainty regarding pathogen prevalence and sampling intensity. Here, we use recently developed mathematical techniques to fully characterize the information that can possibly be extracted from serially collected viral phylogenetic data, in the context of the commonly used birth-death-sampling model. We show that for any candidate epidemiological scenario, there exists a myriad of alternative, markedly different, and yet plausible “congruent” scenarios that cannot be distinguished using phylogenetic data alone, no matter how large the data set. In the absence of strong constraints or rate priors across the entire study period, neither maximum-likelihood fitting nor Bayesian inference can reliably reconstruct the true epidemiological dynamics from phylogenetic data alone; rather, estimators can only converge to the “congruence class” of the true dynamics. We propose concrete and feasible strategies for making more robust epidemiological inferences from viral phylogenetic data. 

Abstract It is widely recognized that different regions of a genome often have different evolutionary histories and that ignoring this variation when estimating phylogenies can be misleading. However, the extent to which this is also true for morphological data is still largely unknown. Discordance among morphological traits might plausibly arise due to either variable convergent selection pressures or else phenomena such as hemiplasy. Here we investigate patterns of discordance among 282 morphological characters, which we scored for 50 bee species particularly targeting corbiculate bees, a group that includes the well-known eusocial honeybees and bumblebees. As a starting point for selecting the most meaningful partitions in the data, we grouped characters as morphological modules, highly integrated trait complexes that as a result of developmental constraints or coordinated selection we expect to share an evolutionary history and trajectory. In order to assess conflict and coherence across and within these morphological modules, we used recently developed approaches for computing Bayesian phylogenetic information allied with model comparisons using Bayes factors. We found that despite considerable conflict among morphological complexes, accounting for among-character and among-partition rate variation with individual gamma distributions, rate multipliers, and linked branch lengths can lead to coherent phylogenetic inference using morphological data. We suggest that evaluating information content and dissonance among partitions is useful step in estimating phylogenies from morphological data, just as it is with molecular data. Furthermore, we argue that adopting emerging approaches for investigating dissonance in genomic datasets may provide new insights into the integration and evolution of anatomical complexes. 

For centuries, biologists have been captivated by the vast disparity in species richness between different groups of organisms. Variation in diversity is widely attributed to differences between groups in how fast they speciate or go extinct. Such macroevolutionary rates have been estimated for thousands of groups and have been correlated with an incredible variety of organismal traits. Here we analyze a large collection of phylogenetic trees and fossil time series and describe a hidden generality among these seemingly idiosyncratic results: speciation and extinction rates follow a scaling law in which both depend on the age of the group in which they are measured, with the fastest rates in the youngest clades. Using a series of simulations and sensitivity analyses, we demonstrate that the time dependency is unlikely to be a result of simple statistical artifacts. As such, this time scaling is likely a genuine feature of the tree of life, hinting that the dynamics of biodiversity over deep time may be driven in part by surprisingly simple and general principles.

 

Species interactions lie at the heart of many theories of macroevolution, from adaptive radiation to the Red Queen. Although some theories describe the imprint that interactions will have over long timescales, we are still missing a comprehensive understanding of the effects of interactions on macroevolution. Current research shows strong evidence for the impact of interactions on macroevolutionary patterns of trait evolution and diversification, yet many macroevolutionary studies have only a tenuous relationship to ecological studies of interactions over shorter timescales. We review current research in this area, highlighting approaches that explicitly model species interactions and connect them to broad‐scale macroevolutionary patterns. We also suggest that progress has been made by taking an integrative interdisciplinary look at individual clades. We focus on African cichlids as a case study of how this approach can be fruitful. Overall, although the evidence for species interactions shaping macroevolution is strong, further work using integrative and model‐based approaches is needed to spur progress towards understanding the complex dynamics that structure communities over time and space.

 

It is often claimed that conserving evolutionary history is more efficient than species‐based approaches for capturing the attributes of biodiversity that benefit people. This claim underpins academic analyses and recommendations about the distribution and prioritization of species and areas for conservation, but evolutionary history is rarely considered in practical conservation activities. One impediment to implementation is that arguments related to the human‐centric benefits of evolutionary history are often vague and the underlying mechanisms poorly explored. Herein we identify the arguments linking the prioritization of evolutionary history with benefits to people, and for each we explicate the purported mechanism, and evaluate its theoretical and empirical support. We find that, even after 25 years of academic research, the strength of evidence linking evolutionary history to human benefits is still fragile.

Most – but not all – arguments rely on the assumption that evolutionary history is a useful surrogate for phenotypic diversity. This surrogacy relationship in turn underlies additional arguments, particularly that, by capturing more phenotypic diversity, evolutionary history will preserve greater ecosystem functioning, capture more of the natural variety that humans prefer, and allow the maintenance of future benefits to humans. A surrogate relationship between evolutionary history and phenotypic diversity appears reasonable given theoretical and empirical results, but the strength of this relationship varies greatly. To the extent that evolutionary history captures unmeasured phenotypic diversity, maximizing the representation of evolutionary history should capture variation in species characteristics that are otherwise unknown, supporting some of the existing arguments. However, there is great variation in the strength and availability of evidence for benefits associated with protecting phenotypic diversity. There are many studies finding positive biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships, but little work exists on the maintenance of future benefits or the degree to which humans prefer sets of species with high phenotypic diversity or evolutionary history. Although several arguments link the protection of evolutionary history directly with the reduction of extinction rates, and with the production of relatively greater future biodiversityviaincreased adaptation or diversification, there are few direct tests. Several of these putative benefits have mismatches between the relevant spatial scales for conservation actions and the spatial scales at which benefits to humans are realized. It will be important for future work to fill in some of these gaps through direct tests of the arguments we define here.