Carlos Calderón del Cid, Torsten Hauffe, Juan D. Carrillo, Michael R. May, Rachel C. M. Warnock, Daniele Silvestro
{"title":"从系统发育树估计物种年龄的挑战","authors":"Carlos Calderón del Cid, Torsten Hauffe, Juan D. Carrillo, Michael R. May, Rachel C. M. Warnock, Daniele Silvestro","doi":"10.1111/geb.13890","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>Species age, the elapsed time since origination, can give insight into how species longevity might influence eco-evolutionary dynamics, which has been hypothesized to influence extinction risk. Traditionally, species' ages have been estimated from fossil records. However, numerous studies have recently used the branch lengths of time-calibrated phylogenies as estimates of the ages of extant species. This approach poses problems because phylogenetic trees only contain direct information about species identity at the tips and not along the branches. Here, we show that incomplete taxon sampling, extinction and different assumptions about speciation modes can significantly alter the relationship between true species age and phylogenetic branch lengths, leading to high error rates. We found that these biases can lead to erroneous interpretations of eco-evolutionary patterns derived from comparing phylogenetic age and other traits, such as extinction risk.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Innovation</h3>\n \n <p>For bifurcating speciation, the default assumption in most analyses of species age, we propose a probabilistic approach based on the properties of a birth–death process to improve the estimation of species ages. Our approach can reduce the error by one order of magnitude under cases of high extinction and a high percentage of unsampled extant species.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Our results call for caution in interpreting the relationship between phylogenetic ages and eco-evolutionary traits, as this can lead to biased and erroneous conclusions. We show that, under the assumption of bifurcating speciation, we can obtain unbiased approximations of species age by combining information from branch lengths with the expectations of a birth–death process.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":176,"journal":{"name":"Global Ecology and Biogeography","volume":"33 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/geb.13890","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Challenges in estimating species' age from phylogenetic trees\",\"authors\":\"Carlos Calderón del Cid, Torsten Hauffe, Juan D. Carrillo, Michael R. May, Rachel C. M. Warnock, Daniele Silvestro\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/geb.13890\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>Species age, the elapsed time since origination, can give insight into how species longevity might influence eco-evolutionary dynamics, which has been hypothesized to influence extinction risk. Traditionally, species' ages have been estimated from fossil records. However, numerous studies have recently used the branch lengths of time-calibrated phylogenies as estimates of the ages of extant species. This approach poses problems because phylogenetic trees only contain direct information about species identity at the tips and not along the branches. Here, we show that incomplete taxon sampling, extinction and different assumptions about speciation modes can significantly alter the relationship between true species age and phylogenetic branch lengths, leading to high error rates. We found that these biases can lead to erroneous interpretations of eco-evolutionary patterns derived from comparing phylogenetic age and other traits, such as extinction risk.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Innovation</h3>\\n \\n <p>For bifurcating speciation, the default assumption in most analyses of species age, we propose a probabilistic approach based on the properties of a birth–death process to improve the estimation of species ages. Our approach can reduce the error by one order of magnitude under cases of high extinction and a high percentage of unsampled extant species.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Our results call for caution in interpreting the relationship between phylogenetic ages and eco-evolutionary traits, as this can lead to biased and erroneous conclusions. We show that, under the assumption of bifurcating speciation, we can obtain unbiased approximations of species age by combining information from branch lengths with the expectations of a birth–death process.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":176,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Ecology and Biogeography\",\"volume\":\"33 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/geb.13890\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Ecology and Biogeography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13890\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Ecology and Biogeography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13890","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Challenges in estimating species' age from phylogenetic trees
Aim
Species age, the elapsed time since origination, can give insight into how species longevity might influence eco-evolutionary dynamics, which has been hypothesized to influence extinction risk. Traditionally, species' ages have been estimated from fossil records. However, numerous studies have recently used the branch lengths of time-calibrated phylogenies as estimates of the ages of extant species. This approach poses problems because phylogenetic trees only contain direct information about species identity at the tips and not along the branches. Here, we show that incomplete taxon sampling, extinction and different assumptions about speciation modes can significantly alter the relationship between true species age and phylogenetic branch lengths, leading to high error rates. We found that these biases can lead to erroneous interpretations of eco-evolutionary patterns derived from comparing phylogenetic age and other traits, such as extinction risk.
Innovation
For bifurcating speciation, the default assumption in most analyses of species age, we propose a probabilistic approach based on the properties of a birth–death process to improve the estimation of species ages. Our approach can reduce the error by one order of magnitude under cases of high extinction and a high percentage of unsampled extant species.
Main conclusion
Our results call for caution in interpreting the relationship between phylogenetic ages and eco-evolutionary traits, as this can lead to biased and erroneous conclusions. We show that, under the assumption of bifurcating speciation, we can obtain unbiased approximations of species age by combining information from branch lengths with the expectations of a birth–death process.
期刊介绍:
Global Ecology and Biogeography (GEB) welcomes papers that investigate broad-scale (in space, time and/or taxonomy), general patterns in the organization of ecological systems and assemblages, and the processes that underlie them. In particular, GEB welcomes studies that use macroecological methods, comparative analyses, meta-analyses, reviews, spatial analyses and modelling to arrive at general, conceptual conclusions. Studies in GEB need not be global in spatial extent, but the conclusions and implications of the study must be relevant to ecologists and biogeographers globally, rather than being limited to local areas, or specific taxa. Similarly, GEB is not limited to spatial studies; we are equally interested in the general patterns of nature through time, among taxa (e.g., body sizes, dispersal abilities), through the course of evolution, etc. Further, GEB welcomes papers that investigate general impacts of human activities on ecological systems in accordance with the above criteria.