Commonly used Bayesian diversification methods lead to biologically meaningful differences in branch-specific rates on empirical phylogenies

Abstract

Abstract Identifying along which lineages shifts in diversification rates occur is a central goal of comparative phylogenetics; these shifts may coincide with key evolutionary events such as the development of novel morphological characters, the acquisition of adaptive traits, polyploidization or other structural genomic changes, or dispersal to a new habitat and subsequent increase in environmental niche space. However, while multiple methods now exist to estimate diversification rates and identify shifts using phylogenetic topologies, the appropriate use and accuracy of these methods are hotly debated. Here we test whether five Bayesian methods—Bayesian Analysis of Macroevolutionary Mixtures (BAMM), two implementations of the Lineage-Specific Birth–Death–Shift model (LSBDS and PESTO), the approximate Multi-Type Birth–Death model (MTBD; implemented in BEAST2), and the Cladogenetic Diversification Rate Shift model (ClaDS2)—produce comparable results. We apply each of these methods to a set of 65 empirical time-calibrated phylogenies and compare inferences of speciation rate, extinction rate, and net diversification rate. We find that the five methods often infer different speciation, extinction, and net-diversification rates. Consequently, these different estimates may lead to different interpretations of the macroevolutionary dynamics. The different estimates can be attributed to fundamental differences among the compared models. Therefore, the inference of shifts in diversification rates is strongly method dependent. We advise biologists to apply multiple methods to test the robustness of the conclusions or to carefully select the method based on the validity of the underlying model assumptions to their particular empirical system.