Back

Ambiguous support for extra-tropical accelerated diversification of rosids

Gamisch, A.

2020-12-07 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2020.12.07.411439 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Sun et al.1 used a comprehensive phylogenetic and a locality based climatic dataset to examine how past climates have driven diversification across 17 orders of rosids. They concluded that tropical rosids diversify slower than the (younger) non-tropical counterparts in part due to a strong negative relationship between paleo-temperature and diversification (i.e. higher diversification rates under lower temperatures). Their conclusions are based on tip rates (derived from BAMM2; DR3) and correlations with current temperature (e-SIM4) or binary tropicality data sets (BAMM/STRAPP5; FiSSE6) as well as tree-wide estimates of diversification with paleo-temperature (BAMM; RPANDA7) or tropicality (BiSSE8; HiSSE9). Here, I highlight several inconsistencies in their diversification analyses as well as a systematic error pertaining to the RPANDA model selection procedure, which, together with several minor technical issues, weaken the support for Sun et al.s1 conclusions. A re-analysis of their BiSSE/HiSSE and RPANDA analyses are performed.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Global Ecology and Biogeography
○ 47 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.1%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Systematic Biology
◐ 144 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
9.6%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 11%
6.6%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
● 393 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.7%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Ecology Letters
○ 135 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.9%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Current Biology
○ 665 papers in training set
Top 4%
3.1%
7
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
8
Peer Community Journal
● 281 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
9
Genome Biology and Evolution
◐ 338 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
10
New Phytologist
○ 346 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.1%
11
Evolution
◐ 225 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
12
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
○ 69 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.3%
13
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
○ 69 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.3%
14
Ecology and Evolution
○ 267 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
15
Molecular Biology and Evolution
◐ 542 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
16
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
◐ 110 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
17
Nature Ecology & Evolution
131 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
18
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.6%
19
Ecography
○ 54 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.6%
20
Journal of Biogeography
○ 46 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
21
BMC Ecology and Evolution
○ 51 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.4%
22
PLOS Biology
● 486 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.4%
23
BMC Evolutionary Biology
○ 18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
24
Molecular Ecology
○ 336 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
25
Evolution Letters
◐ 85 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
26
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 23%
1.1%
27
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.0%
28
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 38%
1.0%
29
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
○ 176 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
30
Biological Reviews
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.