Back

Sizing up phylogenetic testing in geometric morphometrics: A case study of allometry

Mitchell, D. R.; Halliwell, B.; Yates, L.; Potter, S.; Eldridge, M. D. B.; Weisbecker, V.

2025-10-28 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2025.10.27.684678 bioRxiv
Show abstract

AbstractAccounting for phylogenetic relatedness in the analysis of shape has become a common practice, deemed necessary to factor in the non-independence between species because of common ancestry. However, when adjusting error distributions to account for relatedness, the phylogenetic-generalised-least-squares (PGLS) test can obscure an important component of variation called conservative trait correlation (CTC). This is the amount of variation in a response variable that is both attributable to a predictor variable and phylogenetically structured. If CTC represents a large amount of correlated variation, true biological associations with strong phylogenetic signal (from unrepeated evolutionary events for example) might not be supported using a PGLS. We demonstrate this effect using geometric morphometric shape analysis on 370 crania from the speciose Australian rock- wallabies (genus Petrogale). In this clade, well-recognised allometric patterns such as scaling of the braincase (Hallers rule) and snout length (craniofacial evolutionary allometry) are supported using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression, but not PGLS, indicating that important between-species shape variation is lost. We then apply two methods capable of quantifying aspects of the missing variation: variation partitioning (VARPART), which estimates the proportion of variation shared between the predictor and phylogeny, and multi- response phylogenetic mixed models (MR-PMM), which identify the strength of correlation within the phylogenetic component of trait variance. Both methods show that CTC dominates the allometric shape variation in our sample, highlighting its importance in assessing phylogenetically informed models. We suggest approaches that can consider CTC become more widely used to better understand morphology and its predictors.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Evolution
199 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.7%
2
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.3%
3
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
8.2%
4
Evolution Letters
71 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.2%
5
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.1%
50% of probability mass above
6
Evolutionary Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.7%
7
Systematic Biology
121 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.2%
8
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
9
Molecular Biology and Evolution
488 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.0%
10
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.0%
11
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
12
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
13
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
14
The American Naturalist
114 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
15
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
16
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
17
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.2%
18
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.9%
19
Ecology Letters
121 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
20
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
21
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 67%
0.8%
22
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 74%
0.8%
23
Molecular Ecology Resources
161 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
24
Global Ecology and Biogeography
41 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
25
Integrative Organismal Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
26
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
27
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.6%