Incompletely resolved phylogenetic trees inflate estimates of phylogenetic conservatism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tendency for more closely related species to share similar traits and ecological strategies can be explained by their longer shared evolutionary histories and represents phylogenetic conservatism. How strongly species traits co-vary with phylogeny can significantly impact how we analyze cross-species data and can influence our interpretation of assembly rules in the rapidly expanding field of community phylogenetics. Phylogenetic conservatism is typically quantified by analyzing the distribution of species values on the phylogenetic tree that connects them. Many phylogenetic approaches, however, assume a completely sampled phylogeny: while we have good estimates of deeper phylogenetic relationships for many species-rich groups, such as birds and flowering plants, we often lack information on more recent interspecific relationships (i.e., within a genus). A common solution has been to represent these relationships as polytomies on trees using taxonomy as a guide. Here we show that such trees can dramatically inflate estimates of phylogenetic conservatism quantified using S. P. Blomberg et al.'s K statistic. Using simulations, we show that even randomly generated traits can appear to be phylogenetically conserved on poorly resolved trees. We provide a simple rarefaction-based solution that can reliably retrieve unbiased estimates of K, and we illustrate our method using data on first flowering times from Thoreau's woods (Concord, Massachusetts, USA).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".