On the effect of asymmetrical trait inheritance on models of trait evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Current phylogenetic comparative methods modeling quantitative trait evolution generally assume that, during speciation, phenotypes are inherited identically between the two daughter species. This, however, neglects the fact that species consist of a set of individuals, each bearing its own trait value. Indeed, because descendent populations after speciation are samples of a parent population, we can expect their mean phenotypes to randomly differ from one another potentially generating a “jump” of mean phenotypes due to asymmetrical trait inheritance at cladogenesis. Here, we aim to clarify the effect of asymmetrical trait inheritance at speciation on macroevolutionary analyses, focusing on model testing and parameter estimation using some of the most common models of quantitative trait evolution. We developed an individual-based simulation framework in which the evolution of species phenotypes is determined by trait changes at the individual level accumulating across generations and cladogenesis occurs then by separation of subsets of the individuals into new lineages. Through simulations, we assess the magnitude of phenotypic jumps at cladogenesis under different modes of trait inheritance at speciation. We show that even small jumps can strongly alter both the results of model selection and parameter estimations, potentially affecting the biological interpretation of the estimated mode of evolution of a trait. Our results call for caution when interpreting analyses of trait evolution, while highlighting the importance of testing a wide range of alternative models. In the light of our findings, we propose that future methodological advances in comparative methods should more explicitly model the intra-specific variability around species mean phenotypes and how it is inherited at speciation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".