Should Comparative Models Be Weighted when Accounting for Phylogenetic Uncertainty?

2025/10/28 by Costanza Piccoli, Eva de la Peña, Roberto Del Amparo +2 · 2 voices
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology · Earth and Planetary Sciences · #Evolution and Genetic Dynamics #Evolution and Paleontology Studies #Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies

paper · doi:10.1007/s11692-025-09658-7

crossref issued 2025/10/28 · crossref published 2025/10/28 · crossref published-online 2025/10/28 · openalex created_date 2025/10/28 · openalex publication_date 2025/10/28 · crossref created 2025/10/28 · crossref deposited 2025/11/13 · crossref published-print 2025/12/01 · crossref indexed 2026/03/20 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/23

Citations

• Phylogenetic uncertainty revisited: Implications for ecological analyses
• AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons
• Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach
• phytools 2.0: an updated R ecosystem for phylogenetic comparative methods (and other things)

Discussions

• doi.org/10.1007/s116... #SPEetologia #SPEmembers Weighting comparative models by Akaike weights (w) reliably improves accuracy under phylogenetic uncertainty. Benefits are greatest when tree quality [bsky, 2 points, 1 comments]
• New paper on accounting for phylogenetic uncertainty in comparative analyses: Weighted model-averaging is helpful, but usually not by much. Piccoli et al. @evolbiology.bsky.social, here: doi.org/10.1 [bsky, 0 points, 0 comments]