↓ Skip to main content

Approaches to Macroevolution: 2. Sorting of Variation, Some Overarching Issues, and General Conclusions

Overview of attention for article published in Evolutionary Biology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 329)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
19 X users
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
194 Mendeley
Title
Approaches to Macroevolution: 2. Sorting of Variation, Some Overarching Issues, and General Conclusions
Published in
Evolutionary Biology, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11692-017-9434-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Jablonski

Abstract

Approaches to macroevolution require integration of its two fundamental components, within a hierarchical framework. Following a companion paper on the origin of variation, I here discuss sorting within an evolutionary hierarchy. Species sorting-sometimes termed species selection in the broad sense, meaning differential origination and extinction owing to intrinsic biological properties-can be split into strict-sense species selection, in which rate differentials are governed by emergent, species-level traits such as geographic range size, and effect macroevolution, in which rates are governed by organism-level traits such as body size; both processes can create hitchhiking effects, indirectly causing the proliferation or decline of other traits. Several methods can operationalize the concept of emergence, so that rigorous separation of these processes is increasingly feasible. A macroevolutionary tradeoff, underlain by the intrinsic traits that influence evolutionary dynamics, causes speciation and extinction rates to covary in many clades, resulting in evolutionary volatility of some clades and more subdued behavior of others; the few clades that break the tradeoff can achieve especially prolific diversification. In addition to intrinsic biological traits at multiple levels, extrinsic events can drive the waxing and waning of clades, and the interaction of traits and events are difficult but important to disentangle. Evolutionary trends can arise in many ways, and at any hierarchical level; descriptive models can be fitted to clade trajectories in phenotypic or functional spaces, but they may not be diagnostic regarding processes, and close attention must be paid to both leading and trailing edges of apparent trends. Biotic interactions can have negative or positive effects on taxonomic diversity within a clade, but cannot be readily extrapolated from the nature of such interactions at the organismic level. The relationships among macroevolutionary currencies through time (taxonomic richness, morphologic disparity, functional variety) are crucial for understanding the nature of evolutionary diversification. A novel approach to diversity-disparity analysis shows that taxonomic diversifications can lag behind, occur in concert with, or precede, increases in disparity. Some overarching issues relating to both the origin and sorting of clades and phenotypes include the macroevolutionary role of mass extinctions, the potential differences between plant and animal macroevolution, whether macroevolutionary processes have changed through geologic time, and the growing human impact on present-day macroevolution. Many challenges remain, but progress is being made on two of the key ones: (a) the integration of variation-generating mechanisms and the multilevel sorting processes that act on that variation, and (b) the integration of paleontological and neontological approaches to historical biology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 194 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 194 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 17%
Researcher 29 15%
Student > Bachelor 25 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 12%
Student > Master 20 10%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 33 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 86 44%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 27 14%
Environmental Science 19 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 6%
Mathematics 2 1%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 39 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,429,468
of 25,079,481 outputs
Outputs from Evolutionary Biology
#24
of 329 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,733
of 334,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Evolutionary Biology
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,079,481 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 329 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,039 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.