Phylogenetic niche conservatism - common pitfalls and ways forward.
1. The prevalence of phylogenetic niche conservatism (PNC) in nature is still a conflicting issue. Disagreement arises from confusion over its precise definition and the variety of approaches to measure its prevalence. Recent work highlighted that common measures of PNC strongly depend on the assumptions of the underlying model of niche evolution. However, this warning has not been well recognized in the applied literature and questionable approaches are still frequently applied. 2. The aim of this paper is to draw attention to the assumptions underlying commonly applied simple measures of PNC. We used a series of simulations to illustrate how misleading results can be if assumptions of niche evolution are violated, that the violation of assumptions is a common phenomenon and that testing assumptions requires in-depth pre-test. 3. We conclude that the seemingly simple measures of PNC, such as phylogenetic sign6al and evolutionary rate, are not so easy to apply if one accounts for the necessity to test model assumptions. In addition, these measures can be difficult to interpret. The common assumption that strong phylogenetic signal indicates PNC will be often invalid. In addition, the interpretation of some measures, e.g. the conclusion that evolutionary rate is slow enough to indicate PNC, requires a comparison with another clade, another trait or well-developed null model assumptions and thus additional data. 4. We suggest that studies investigating PNC should always compare alternative evolutionary models, and that model comparisons should in particular include flexible niche evolution models such as multiple-optima OU models, although these are computational intensive. These models are directly inherited from the concept of macro-evolutionary adaptive landscape, and can indicate PNC either by relative few peak shifts or by narrow peaks in the adaptive landscape. A test of PNC thus requires comparing these parameters of the macroevolutionary landscape between clades or time periods. 5. The general prevalence of PNC in nature should be evaluated only based on studies keeping up to the high standards of communicating the used definition of PNC, testing the assumptions made in the modelling approaches and including newly developed models in a model comparison approach.
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, LECA, F-38000 Grenoble, France ; CNRS, LECA, F-38000 Grenoble, France.
Tamara
T
Münkemüller
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, LECA, F-38000 Grenoble, France ; CNRS, LECA, F-38000 Grenoble, France ; Institut für Systematische Botanik, Universität Zürich, Zollikerstrasse 107, CH-8008 Zürich, Switzerland.
Florian C
FC
Boucher
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, LECA, F-38000 Grenoble, France ; CNRS, LECA, F-38000 Grenoble, France.
Wilfried
W
Thuiller
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, LECA, F-38000 Grenoble, France ; CNRS, LECA, F-38000 Grenoble, France.
Sébastien
S
Lavergne
Brownian motion; Ornstein-Uhlenbeck; macroevolutionary model; neutral drift; niche lability; rates of evolution