Disparity analyses are robust to ancestral state estimation uncertainty
Scutt, C. N.; Cooper, N.; Thomas, G. H.; Guillerme, T.
Show abstract
Morphological trait datasets and phylogenies are routinely paired to investigate macroevolutionary patterns during disparity analyses. However, incomplete fossil sampling can distort disparity estimates, obscuring true evolutionary signals. Ancestral state estimation can be used for both continuous and discrete traits to extend these analyses beyond incomplete fossil data, such as investigations into disparity through time. However, when ancestral state estimation occur in the disparity pipeline, and the inevitable uncertainty in these estimates, complicate their integration. Determining the most robust workflow for integrating ancestral state estimation in disparity analyses remains a critical methodological challenge. Using simulations to attain a ground-truth disparity value, we evaluated different approaches to performing ancestral state estimation and incorporating uncertainty across varying continuous and discrete trait models, fossil sampling densities and disparity metrics. Ancestral state estimation generally improved recovery of true disparity relative to tip-only analyses, though the optimal approach depended on the interaction between trait model and fossil sampling density. For continuous traits, probabilistic approaches were most accurate, but were sensitive to model misspecification under low fossil sampling density. For discrete traits, pre-ordination methods were most reliable and probabilistic approaches outperformed point estimates under low sampling, while point estimates became increasingly accurate as sampling density increased. Fossil sampling density was a stronger predictor of disparity accuracy than estimation method choice, underscoring that methodologies are only as powerful as the data provided. Our findings offer a practical decision framework for selecting the most appropriate workflow given the sampling density and trait characteristics of a dataset.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.