DRAFT: Phylogenetic
comparative analysis of r
2-20-2013
Fagan et al.
p 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Supplemental Online Figure 1. Histograms of cross-validated proportional prediction error
between observed r values and the mean predicted r̂ values from alternative predictive models of
maximum population growth rate for Caniformia (left column) and Cervidae (right column).
Results are for null models based on phylogenetically corrected allometric regressions (panels A
and B), for a Brownian motion null model based on star-shaped phylogenies lacking information
on species' relationships (panels C and D), and for Brownian Motion models of evolution on
phylogenetic trees estimated via phylogenetically independent contrasts (PIC, panels E-F) and
via PIC with biomass as a covariate (panels G-H).
DRAFT: Phylogenetic
comparative analysis of r
2-20-2013
Fagan et al.
p 2
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Supplemental Online Figure 2. Relationship between predicted r as estimated by the allometric
null model, and predicted r as estimated by the PIC-r model for (a) Caniformia and (b) Cervidae.
Points that fall along the dashed 1:1 line represent identical predicted values of r from both
models. Solid lines represent an ordinary least squares fit (Caniformia: y = 1.14x - 0.17, R2 =
0.62, Cervidae: y = 0.26x + 0.24, R2 = 0.09) of the relationship between predictions from the
Allometric Null LS model and predictions from the PIC-r model. In (a) individual families are:
Ailuridae (closed circles), Canidae (open circles), Mephitidae (closed triangles), Mustelidae
(open triangles), Otariidae (closed diamonds), Phocidae (open diamonds), Procyonidae (closed
squares), and Ursidae (open squares).
DRAFT: Phylogenetic
comparative analysis of r
2-20-2013
Fagan et al.
p 3
Supplemental Online Figure 3. Output from the allometric null and Brownian motion null
models for Caniformia providing a comparison of observed r values (filled circles) and r̂ values
predicted by cross-validation (open circles). Error bars on each model result give 1 SE (inner
pair) and 95% PI (outer pair) of the null model prediction.
DRAFT: Phylogenetic
comparative analysis of r
2-20-2013
Fagan et al.
p 4
Supplemental Online Figure 4. Output from the allometric null and Brownian motion null
models for Cervidae providing a comparison of observed r values (filled circles) and r̂ values
predicted by cross-validation (open circles). Error bars on each model result give 1 SE (inner
pair) and 95% PI (outer pair) of the null model prediction.
DRAFT: Phylogenetic
comparative analysis of r
2-20-2013
Fagan et al.
p 5
DRAFT: Phylogenetic
comparative analysis of r
2-20-2013
Fagan et al.
p 6
Supplemental Online Figure 5. Comparison of observed r values (filled circles) and r̂ values predicted by leave-one-out crossvalidation (open circles) for the Caniformia (Panel A) and the Cervidae (Panel B) using the predictions for the PIC-r (first and orange)
and the PIC-r-mass (second, blue). Error bars on each model result give 1 SE (inner pair) and 95% PI (outer pair). The data for PICr are plotted phylogenetically in Figure 2 in the main text.
DRAFT: Phylogenetic
comparative analysis of r
2-20-2013
Fagan et al.
p 7
Supplemental Online Figure 6. Cross-validated proportional prediction error between observed
r values and the mean predicted r̂ values from two phylogenetically structured evolutionary
models of maximum population growth rate for Caniformia. This figure plots data from Figure 2
on the phylogenetic tree to illustrate that large prediction errors are not strongly clustered
phylogenetically. The diameters are proportional to error magnitude (maximum = 6.11); white
circles are negative values (i.e., are underestimates).
DRAFT: Phylogenetic
comparative analysis of r
2-20-2013
Fagan et al.
p 8
Supplemental Online Figure 7. Cross-validated proportional prediction error between observed
r values and the mean predicted r̂ values from two phylogenetically structured evolutionary
models of maximum population growth rate for Cervidae. This figure plots data from Figure 2 on
the phylogenetic tree to illustrate that large prediction errors are not strongly clustered
phylogenetically. The diameters are proportional to error magnitude (maximum = 0.54); white
circles are negative values (i.e., are underestimates).