Hi Jonathan - Rich Glor and I published a paper about Mantel tests and comparative methods. The short version of the story is that Mantel tests have low power and need to be corrected when using species that evolved on trees. I think they are probably only useful when data only exists as differences and can't be expressed any other way.
Harmon, L. J. and R. E. Glor. 2010. Poor statistical performance of the Mantel test in phylogenetic comparative analyses. Evolution 64: 2173-2178. Hope this is helpful- Luke On Jan 24, 2011, at 7:18 AM, Jonathan Hughes wrote: > > > Hello again, > It's come to my attention this paper: > Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., Terribile, L. C., Da Cruz, M. J. R., & Vieira, L. C. > G. 2010. Hidden patterns of phylogenetic non-stationarity overwhelm > comparative analyses of niche conservatism and divergence. Global ecology and > biogeography 19: 916ˆ926. > Here, the authors use modified mantel tests to compare phenotypic (niche) > distances and phylogenetic distances to test for phylogenetic niche > conservatism. Any thoughts on this? > thanks, > Jonathan > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > _______________________________________________ > R-sig-phylo mailing list > [email protected] > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-phylo Luke Harmon Assistant Professor Biological Sciences University of Idaho 208-885-0346 [email protected] _______________________________________________ R-sig-phylo mailing list [email protected] https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-phylo
