2018
DOI: 10.1111/ecog.03480
| View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Phylogenetic imputation has recently emerged as a potentially powerful tool for predicting missing data in functional traits datasets. As such, understanding the limitations of phylogenetic modelling in predicting trait values is critical if we are to use them in subsequent analyses. Previous studies have focused on the relationship between phylogenetic signal and clade‐level prediction accuracy, yet variability in prediction accuracy among individual tips of phylogenies remains largely unexplored. Here, we us… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
34
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
(65 reference statements)
3
34
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Traits were simulated under a Brownian model of evolution, with a Gaussian distribution of values ranging from zero to 10 to mimic the distribution of real trait data on a logarithmic scale (a transformation often used in comparative studies). The impact of phylogenetic signal strength on imputation performance was already tested by Kim et al (2018) and Molina‐Venegas et al (2018); therefore, we standardized Pagel’s λ between the phylogeny and traits at approximately one. The response was simulated as a product of a trait, rather than through the phylogeny, and has a Gaussian distribution ranging from zero to 10.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We assumed that the trait evolved in a steady manner throughout the phylogeny and consistently we assigned a single pair of values (a and ϕ), but it is possible to assign specific pairs of parameters to each node in a given phylogeny [22]. Under pure Brownian motion ( purely neutral evolution), a = 0 and the expected changes are proportional to the square root of the branch lengths [22,50]. By contrast, when a = 1, evolutionary change occurs at a fixed rate irrespective of branch length [22,50].…”
Section: (Iv) Phylogenetic Eigenvector Mapsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the area of phylogenetic methods for data imputation, PWR could be an especially useful new approach. By optimizing the bandwidth that informs the local regression, PWR might overcome some of the shortfalls of existing phylogenetic imputation methods, which often have low prediction accuracy (Molina‐Venegas et al, ), and imputation is already embedded within the cross‐validation heuristic of the method.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used a species-level time-calibrated molecular phylogeny including native tree species (woody plants growing to ≥ 4 m) of Europe and North America that was pruned to retain only the 61 species of our study (see [ 39 ] for details on the phylogenetic procedure). The phylogeny was inferred with maximum-likelihood methods based on a mixed supertree-supermatrix approach [ 40 ], with sequences corresponding to various chloroplastic (i.e.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The integration of disparate types of data enabled by developments in digital infrastructure and statistical approaches has opened new avenues for achieving this goal. For instance, phylogenetic information can help estimate functional traits for species missing information (Swenson, 2014; but see Molina-Venegas et al, 2018), avoiding the exclusion of many species from predictions based on trait-environment relationships. Co-occurrence patterns from plots can serve to infer pairwise species dependencies (e.g., Morueta-Holme et al, 2016 and references therein) to include the effect of biotic interactions in distribution modeling (Wisz et al, 2013).…”
Section: Moving On To Predictionmentioning
confidence: 99%