COMPARATIVE METHODS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF CONTINUOUS VARIABLES: GEOMETRIC INTERPRETATIONS

By F. James Rohlf. Evolution; international journal of organic evolution, 2001

642 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Geometry and Topology, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Paleontology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b7809b4e5c7cf00f79e0327bba58c684a313991e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Geometry and Topology

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

In Paleontology

Citations in the corpus

Plant traits that predict resistance to herbivores (2011, methodology): “We then converted this ultrametric tree into a phylogenetic correlation matrix (P) that has the standardized shared BL distance of each species in off-diagonals and ones in the main diagonal (Grafen 1989; Rohlf 2001).”
Phylogenetic Principal Components Analysis and Geometric Morphometrics (2013, methodology): “In order for the pPCA eigenvalues to be proportional to the original shape variance, the branch lengths would have to be converted to phenotypic variance units so they would be on the same scale as the data (Rohlf, 2001; Felsenstein, 2003).”
Phylogenetic signal, evolutionary process, and rate. (2008, methodology): “In this equation, w is individual fitness, y is the value of the phenotypic trait, θ is the position of the phenotypic optimum, set to θ = 0.0 in all simulations, and ω2 is a parameter of the stabilizing selection surface that determines the width of the peak around the optimum. ω2 was set to 10, 1.”
Natural variation and QTL analysis for cationic mineral content in seeds of Arabidopsis thaliana (2004, neutral): “1 (Rohlf 2001) with standardized data,”
Phylogenetic imputation of plant functional trait databases (2014, methodology): “This lack of a model of trait evolution and the requirement to not use all PEVs in the regression model have been criticized and suggest that pERMs may not perform as well as pGLMs (Rohlf 2001, Freckleton et al. 2011).”
Phylogenetic Comparative Methods and the Evolution of Multivariate Phenotypes (2019, background): “Phylomorphospaces are ordination plots with the phylogeny superimposed (Klingenberg & Ekau 1996, Rohlf 2002).”
Phylogenetic approaches in comparative physiology (2005, methodology): “Subsequently, phylogenetic GLS methods were promoted by other workers (Martins and Hansen, 1997; Butler et al., 2000; Garland and Ives, 2000; Rohlf, 2001) and are now becoming a routine comparative tool (e.”
Constraint and adaptation in the evolution of carnivoran skull shape (2011, background): “…given appropriate conformance of the data at hand to the model being estimated, are capable of more accurately estimating the standard errors of trait data and so provide a more powerful basis for both the assessment and statistical testing of associations between traits (see Rohlf 2001, 2006).”
Relationships among different geographical groups, agro-morphology, fatty acid composition and RAPD marker diversity in Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius) (2009, methodology): “For the similarity analysis, NTSYS-pc software version 2.1 ( Rohlf 2001 ) was applied.”
Phylogenetic signal and linear regression on species data (2010, methodology): “C „ kI for k 2 R and k > 0.0), then fitting the regression model becomes a generalized (instead of ordinary) least squares problem (Rohlf 2001; Kariya & Karuta 2004; Rencher & Schaalje 2008).”
How to measure and test phylogenetic signal (2012, methodology): “All indices and tests of phylogenetic signal require good estimates of the phylogeny and trait values for the organisms under scrutiny (Rohlf 2001).”
TESTING FOR PHYLOGENETIC SIGNAL IN COMPARATIVE DATA: BEHAVIORAL TRAITS ARE MORE LABILE (2003, methodology): “The test can be implemented via a GLS approach (Grafen 1989; Martins and Hansen 1997; Garland et al. 1999; Pagel 1999; Butler et al. 2000; Garland and Ives 2000; Rohlf 2001), for which we have written the MatLab program PHYSIG.”
Size-Correction and Principal Components for Interspecific Comparative Studies (2009, methodology): “There is a growing consensus in evolutionary biology that phylogenetic information should not be ignored in the analysis of species data (e.g., Harvey and Pagel 1991; Martins and Hansen 1997; Rohlf 2001; Butler and King 2004; Garland et al. 2005; but see Price 1997).”
Chronic exposure to low-dose radiation at Chernobyl favours adaptation to oxidative stress in birds (2014, methodology): “However, PVR can ignore important phylogenetic information if traits evolve under Brownian motion (Rohlf 2001), so we first tested the evolutionary model of our response variables by using phylogenetic signal-representation (PSR) curves (Diniz-Filho et al. 2011).”