Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Andy Purvis.
Phylogenies provide new ways to measure biodiversity, to assess conservation priorities, and to quantify the evolutionary history in any set of species. Methodological problems and a lack of knowledge about most species have so far hampered their use. In the future, as techniques improve and more data become accessible, we will have an expanded set of conservation options, including ways to prioritize outcomes from evolutionary and ecological processes.
We investigated patterns and processes of extinction and threat in bats using a multivariate phylogenetic comparative approach. Of nearly 1,000 species worldwide, 239 are considered threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and 12 are extinct. Small geographic ranges and low wing aspect ratios are independently found to predict extinction risk in bats, which explains 48% of the total variance in IUCN assessments of threat. The pattern and correlates of extinction risk in the two bat suborders are significantly different. A higher proportion (4%) of megachiropteran species have gone extinct in the last 500 years than microchiropteran bats (0.3%), and a higher proportion is currently at risk of extinction (Megachiroptera: 34%; Microchiroptera: 22%). While correlates of microchiropteran extinction risk are the same as in the order as a whole, megachiropteran extinction is correlated more with reproductive rate and less with wing morphology. Bat extinction risk is not randomly distributed phylogenetically: closely related species have more similar levels of threat than would be expected if extinction risk were random. Given the unbalanced nature of the evolutionary diversification of bats, it is probable that the amount of phylogenetic diversity lost if currently threatened taxa disappear may be greater than in other clades with numerically more threatened species.
Explaining the uneven distribution of species among lineages is one of the oldest questions in evolution. Proposed correlations between biological traits and species diversity are routinely tested by making comparisons between phylogenetic sister clades. Several recent studies have used nested sister-clade comparisons to test hypotheses linking continuously varying traits, such as body size, with diversity. Evaluating the findings of these studies is complicated because they differ in the index of species richness difference used, the way in which trait differences were treated, and the statistical tests employed. In this paper, we use simulations to compare the performance of four species richness indices, two choices about the branch lengths used to estimate trait values for internal nodes and two statistical tests under a range of models of clade growth and character evolution. All four indices returned appropriate Type I error rates when the assumptions of the method were met and when branch lengths were set proportional to time. Only two of the indices were robust to the different evolutionary models and to different choices of branch lengths and statistical tests. These robust indices had comparable power under one nonnull scenario. Regression through the origin was consistently more powerful than the t-test, and the choice of branch lengths exerts a strong effect on both the validity and power. In the light of our simulations, we re-evaluate the findings of those who have previously used nested comparisons in the context of species richness. We provide a set of simple guidelines to maximize the performance of phylogenetically nested comparisons in tests of putative correlates of species richness.
The robust macro-ecological observation that there are more small-bodied species implies that small-bodied organisms have experienced elevated net rates of diversification. We investigate the role of body size in creating non-random differences in rates of cladogenesis using a set of 38 species-level phylogenies drawn from a range of animal groups. We use independent contrasts to explore the relationship between body size and species richness within individual phylogenies and across related sets of phylogenies. We also carry out a meta-analysis looking for associations between body size and species richness across the taxa. We find little evidence for increased cladogenesis among small-bodied organisms within taxa, and no evidence for any consistent differences between taxa. We explore possible explanations for the inconsistency of our findings with macro-ecological patterns.
Species diversity is unevenly distributed across the globe, with terrestrial diversity concentrated in a few restricted biodiversity hotspots. These areas are associated with high losses of primary vegetation and increased human population density, resulting in growing numbers of threatened species. We show that conservation of these hotspots is critical because they harbor even greater amounts of evolutionary history than expected by species numbers alone. We used supertrees for carnivores and primates to estimate that nearly 70% of the total amount of evolutionary history represented in these groups is found in 25 biodiversity hotspots.
Many methods are available for estimating ancestral values of continuous characteristics, but little is known about how well these methods perform. Here we compare six methods: linear parsimony, squared-change parsimony, one-parameter maximum likelihood (Brownian motion), two-parameter maximum likelihood (Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process), and independent comparisons with and without branch-length information. We apply these methods to data from 20 morphospecies of Pleistocene planktic Foraminifera in order to estimate ancestral size and shape variables, and compare these estimates with measurements on fossils close to the phylogenetic position of 13 ancestors. No method produced accurate estimates for any variable: estimates were consistently less good as predictors of the observed values than were the averages of the observed values. The two-parameter maximum-likelihood model consistently produces the most accurate size estimates overall. Estimation of ancestral sizes is confounded by an evolutionary trend towards increasing size. Shape showed no trend but was still estimated very poorly: we consider possible reasons. We discuss the implications of our results for the use of estimates of ancestral characteristics.
Measurement of the degree of asymmetry in phylogenetic trees is important because a tree's shape reflects the process by which it has grown. For example, highly asymmetric trees are evidence that species have had different potential for diversification. Of the tree shape measures in the literature, that proposed by Fusco & Cronk (J. theor. Biol.175, 235-243) appears to be particularly useful, because it does not require fully-resolved trees whose terminals are of equal taxonomic rank. The value of the asymmetry or imbalance at a node is intended to be independent of the number of species ultimately descended from the node. In this paper, however, we point out that the value does depend upon species number. We propose two modifications that remove the dependency and so increase the measure's usefulness. We illustrate the use of the modified measures, which are implemented in a freely-available program, MESA.
Comparative biology provides a framework for the study of evolution, by seeking answers to the question of why traits evolved. However, the difficulties of making inferences about the biological causes of trait variation and covariation resulted in the development of very different approaches to comparative analyses, which are outlined and contrasted here. The Homology approach differs from all other approaches as it attempts to explain historical uniques, whereas the various homoplasy approaches draw inferences from repeated origination of correlated traits. A distinction is made between those approaches deriving information from correlated transitions of characters on a cladogram (Homoplasy I) and those that simply extract correlated differences between pairs of phylogenetically independent taxa (Homoplasy II). The latter approach has been implemented in well-developed analytical procedures ("comparative methods") which, however, are principally non-historical and thus their inferences about evolution are indirect. In contrast, the study of correlation of character transitions seeks to explain trait variation as the outcome of evolution, but is hampered by the difficulty of reconstructing ancestral character states, a prerequisite for the analysis of correlated transitions. Model-based techniques for ancestral state reconstruction are being developed, but the lack of data contained in single characters limits the biological reality of parameter-intensive models.
We present the first estimate of the phylogenetic relationships among all 916 extant and nine recently extinct species of bats Mammalia: Chiroptera), a group that accounts for almost one-quarter of extant mammalian diversity. This phylogeny was derived by combining 105 estimates of bat phylogenetic relationships published since 1970 using the supertree construction technique of Matrix Representation with Parsimony (MRP). Despite the explosive growth in the number of phylogenetic studies of bats since 1990, phylogenetic relationships in the order have been studied non-randomly. For example, over one-third of all bat systematic studies to date have locused on relationships within Phyllostomidae, whereas relationships within clades such as Kerivoulinae and Murinae have never been studied using cladistic methods. Resolution in the supertree similarly differs among clades: overall resolution is poor (46.4%, of a fully bifurcating solution) but reaches 100% in some groups (e.g. relationships within Mormoopidae). The supertree analysis does not support a recent proposal that Microchiroptera is paraphyletic with respect to Megachiroptera, as the majority of source topologies support microbat monophyly. Although it is not a substitute for comprehensive phylogenetic analyses of primary molecular and morphological data, the bat supertree provides a useful tool for future phylogenetic comparative and macroevolutionary studies. Additionally, it identifies clades that have been little studied, highlights groups within which relationships are controversial, and like all phylogenetic studies, provides preliminary hypotheses that can form starting points for future phylogenetic studies of bats.
Two lines of evidence indicate that the degree of symmetry in phylogenetic topologies differs at different hierarchical levels. First, in a set of 61 phylogenies with superspecific taxa as their terminals, trees were on average more unbalanced (asymmetric) when the species richness of terminals was considered than when it was not. Second, nodes with a given number of higher taxa descended from them were on average more unbalanced than were nodes with the same number of species as descendants. There are several possible reasons--some biological, some artifactual--for the differences. Whatever the reason, these results caution against treating species-level and higher level phylogenies as equivalent when considering tree shape. The imbalance measure adopted here permits the use of trees that contain polytomies, facilitating a larger sample than has been achieved previously.
We used simulations to compare the relative power of eight statistical tests to detect imbalance in phylogenies that is too great to be ascribed to an equal-rates Markov null model. Three of these tests have never had their power assessed before. Our simulations are the first to assess performance under scenarios in which the speciation rates of various lineages can evolve independently. In one of the scenarios explored, rates depend upon the value of an evolving trait, whereas in the other the probability that a species will speciate declines with the time since it last did so. The results indicate that the relative performance of the methods depends upon how the imbalance is generated. Different types of processes lead to different imbalance signatures, i.e., different patterns of imbalance at different depths in the phylogeny, and the measures of tree shape differ in the depth of phylogeny at which they are most sensitive. Relative performance is also affected by tree size but does not appear to depend greatly upon the degree of speciation rate variation among lineages. Two of the indices (Colless's index I(c) and Shao and Sokal's Nmacr;) show reasonable performance throughout, but another (Shao and Sokal's B(2)) is never indicated to be a preferred method. Two tests that do not require completely resolved phylogenies, mean I' and mean I'(10), have reasonable power.