In defence of model-based inference in phylogeography REPLY

MA Beaumont, R Nielsen, C Robert, J Hey, O Gaggiotti, L Knowles, A Estoup, M Panchal, J Corander, M Hickerson, SA Sisson, N Fagundes, L Chikhi, P Beerli, R Vitalis, JM Cornuet, J Huelsenbeck, M Foll, ZH Yang, F RoussetD Balding, L Escoffier

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

121 Citations (Scopus)


Recent papers have promoted the view that model-based methods in general, and those based on Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) in particular, are flawed in a number of ways, and are therefore inappropriate for the analysis of phylogeographic data. These papers further argue that Nested Clade Phylogeographic Analysis (NCPA) offers the best approach in statistical phylogeography. In order to remove the confusion and misconceptions introduced by these papers, we justify and explain the reasoning behind model-based inference. We argue that ABC is a statistically valid approach, alongside other computational statistical techniques that have been successfully used to infer parameters and compare models in population genetics. We also examine the NCPA method and highlight numerous deficiencies, either when used with single or multiple loci. We further show that the ages of clades are carelessly used to infer ages of demographic events, that these ages are estimated under a simple model of panmixia and population stationarity but are then used under different and unspecified models to test hypotheses, a usage the invalidates these testing procedures. We conclude by encouraging researchers to study and use model-based inference in population genetics.
Translated title of the contributionIn defence of model-based inference in phylogeography REPLY
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)436 - 446
Number of pages11
JournalMolecular Ecology
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2010

Bibliographical note

Publisher: Wiley (formerly Blackwell)


Dive into the research topics of 'In defence of model-based inference in phylogeography REPLY'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this