Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-4lvx9 Total loading time: 0.383 Render date: 2021-09-26T11:18:47.050Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

The preservational fidelity of evenness in molluscan death assemblages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Thomas D. Olszewski
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Geophysics and Faculty of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843. E-mail: tomo@geo.tamu.edu
Susan M. Kidwell
Affiliation:
Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637. E-mail: skidwell@uchicago.edu

Abstract

The richness (number of species) and evenness (uniformity of species abundances) of death assemblages can differ from corresponding living communities due to processes such as between-habitat transport, environmental condensation, and differential taphonomic destruction. Analysis of 132 single-census live-dead comparisons of benthic molluscs from a variety of soft-bottom marine settings indicates that on average evenness does not differ greatly between live and dead assemblages, regardless of the particular depositional setting or grain size of associated sediment. However, individual death assemblages can deviate quite substantially from their corresponding living assemblages, especially if processed using a fine mesh. In addition, death assemblages collected using sieves with 2 mm mesh or coarser showed consistently and significantly greater evenness than corresponding living assemblages. These results are encouraging for broad-scale assessments of evenness in the fossil record based on the comparison of average values (rather than for individual assemblages) and where trends in evenness are the aim of the study.

Our live-dead comparisons of richness sample-size corrected by rarefaction revealed that death assemblages were on average ~1.45 times richer than the corresponding living assemblages regardless of rarefied size. In 63.6% of death assemblages both dead richness and dead evenness were greater than live, suggesting sufficient time-averaging to catch significant random or directional changes in the living community and/or introduction of individuals from outside the sampled habitat. In 12.9% of collections both dead richness and dead evenness were less than live, suggesting either rapid loss of dead shells so that dead diversity is depressed below the local living community or selective loss of taphonomically vulnerable taxa. In 18.2% of data sets dead richness was elevated but dead evenness was depressed relative to live: these are interpreted to reflect the addition of low-evenness allochthonous material. The remaining 4.5% of data sets had elevated dead evenness but depressed dead richness, suggesting that live and dead in this case may not be closely related.

In seven available time series, temporal volatility in living communities over 6–24 months was considerable but could not account for observed (mostly higher) evenness values in corresponding death assemblages, whose evenness and composition were quite stable in the few examined studies. A densely sampled spatial transect shows that changes in living-assemblage evenness along an environmental gradient were preserved in the corresponding death assemblages, although dead evenness at any location on the gradient was substantially higher than living evenness.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aller, J. Y. 1995. Molluscan death assemblages on the Amazon Shelf: implication for physical and biological controls on benthic populations. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 118:181212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bambach, R. K. 1977. Species richness in marine benthic habitats through the Phanerozoic. Paleobiology 3:152167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennington, J. B. 2003. Transcending patchiness in the comparative analysis of paleocommunities: a test case from the Upper Cretaceous of New Jersey. Palaios 18:2233.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, A. W., and Bambach, R. K. 2004. Did alpha diversity increase during the Phanerozoic? Lifting the veils of taphonomic, latitudinal, and environmental biases. Journal of Geology 112:625642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzas, M. A., and Hayek, L.-A. C. 2005. On richness and evenness within and between communities. Paleobiology 31:199220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carthew, R., and Bosence, D. 1986. Community preservation in Recent shell-gravels, English Channel. Palaeontology 29:243268.Google Scholar
Clarke, K. R., and Warwick, R. M. 2001. Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation, 2d ed. Primer-E, Plymouth, U.K. Google Scholar
Connolly, S. R., Hughes, T. P., Bellwood, D. R., and Karlson, R. H. 2005. Community structure of corals and reef fishes at multiple scales. Science 309:13631365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crist, T. O., Veech, J. A., Gering, J. C., and Summerville, K. S. 2003. Partitioning species diversity across landscapes and regions: a hierarchical analysis of a, b, and g diversity. American Naturalist 162:734743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, H., Powell, E. N., Newton, H. J., Stanton, R. J. Jr., and Staff, G. 1986a. The size-frequency distribution in palaeoecology: effects of taphonomic processes during formation of molluscan death assemblages. Palaeontology 29:495518.Google Scholar
Cummins, H., Powell, E. N., Newton, H. J., Stanton, R. J. Jr., and Staff, G. 1986b. Assessing transportation by the covariance of species with comments on contagious and random distributions. Lethaia 19:122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, H., Powell, E. N., Stanton, R. J. Jr., and Staff, G. 1986c. The rate of taphonomic loss in modern benthic habitats: how much of the potentially preservable community is preserved? Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 52:291320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, J. R., and Stanton, R. J. 1990. Paleoecology, concepts and applications, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A., and Miller, A. I. 2003. A sea change in Smuggler's Cove: compositional dynamics of subfossil molluscan assemblages. Geological Society of America Program with Abstracts 35:591.Google Scholar
Fürsich, F. T. 1978. The influence of faunal condensation and mixing on the preservation of fossil benthic communities. Lethaia 11:243250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fürsich, F. T., and Aberhan, M. 1990. Significance of time-averaging for paleocommunity analysis. Lethaia 23:143152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gering, J. C., Crist, T. O., and Veech, J. A. 2003. Additive partitioning of species diversity across multiple spatial scales: implications for regional conservation of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 17:488499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotelli, N. J., and Colwell, R. K. 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 4:379391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotelli, N. J., and Graves, G. R. 1996. Null models in ecology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Hayek, L. C., and Buzas, M. A. 1997. Surveying natural populations. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Holyoak, M., Leibold, M. A., Mouquet, N., Holt, R. D., and Hoopes, M. F. 2005. Metacommunities: a framework for large-scale community ecology. Pp. 131 in Holyoak, M., Leibold, M. A., and Holt, R. D., eds. Metacommunities: spatial dynamics and ecological communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Hubálek, Z. 2000. Measures of species diversity in ecology: an evaluation. Folia Zoologica 49:241260.Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. 2001. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. Google Scholar
Hurlbert, S. H. 1971. The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52:577586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, R. G. 1960. Models and methods for analysis of the mode of formation of fossil assemblages. Geological Society of America Bulletin 71:10751086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. G. 1965. Pelecypod death assemblages in Tomales Bay, California. Journal of Paleontology 39:8085.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. G. 1972. Conceptual models of benthic marine communities. Pp. 148159 in Schopf, T. J. M., ed. Models in paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 1991. The stratigraphy of shell concentrations. Pp. 211290 in Allison, P. A. and Briggs, D. E. G., eds. Taphonomy: releasing the data locked in the fossil record. Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 1998. Time-averaging in the marine fossil record: overview of strategies and uncertainties. Geobios 30:977995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 2001. Preservation of species abundance in marine death assemblages. Science 294:10911094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kidwell, S. M. 2002a. Time-averaged molluscan death assemblages; palimpsests of richness, snapshots of abundance. Geology 30:803806.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 2002b. Mesh-size effects on the ecological fidelity of death assemblages: a meta-analysis of molluscan live-dead studies. Geobios Mémoire Speciale 24:107119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, S. M., and Bosence, D. W. J. 1991. Taphonomy and time-averaging of marine shelly faunas. Pp. 211290 in Allison, P. A. and Briggs, D. E. G., eds. Taphonomy: releasing the data locked in the fossil record. Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalewski, M. 1996. Time-averaging, overcompleteness, and the geological record. Journal of Geology 104:317326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalewski, M. 2001. Applied marine paleoecology: an oxymoron or reality? Palaios 16:444460.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalewski, M. L., and Hoffmeister, A. P. 2003. Sieves and fossils: effects of mesh size on paleontological patterns. Palaios 18:460469.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalewski, M., Carroll, M., Casazza, L., Gupta, N. S., Hannisdal, B., Hendy, A., Krause, R. A. Jr., LaBarbera, M., Lazo, D. G., Messina, C., Puchalski, S., Rothfus, T. A., Sälgeback, J., Stempien, J., Terry, R. C., and Tomašovych, A. 2003. Quantitative fidelity of brachiopod-mollusk assemblages from Modern subtidal environments of San Juan Islands, USA. Journal of Taphonomy 1:4465.Google Scholar
Lande, R. 1996. Statistics and partitioning of species diversity, and similarity among multiple communities. Oikos 76:513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layou, K. M., and Holland, S. M. 2005. Bringing up beta: examining the effects of extinction on diversity with an additive partitioning model. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 37:461.Google Scholar
Leibold, M. A., Holyoak, M., Mouquet, N., Amarasekare, P., Chase, J. M., Hoopes, M. F., Holt, R. D., Shurin, J. B., Law, R., Tilman, D., Loreau, M., and Gonzalez, A. 2004. The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecology Letters 7:601613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, R. H. 1972. Geographical ecology. Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magurran, A. E. 2004. Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I. 1988. Spatial resolution in subfossil molluscan remains: implications for paleobiological analysis. Paleobiology 14:1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council. 2005. The geological record of ecological dynamics: understanding the biotic effects of future environmental change. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Nei, M., and Roychaudhury, A. K. 1973. Sampling variances of heterozygosity and genetic distance. Genetics 76:379390.Google Scholar
Olszewski, T. D. 2004. A unified mathematical framework for the measurement of richness and evenness within and among multiple communities. Oikos 104:377387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olszewski, T. D., and West, R. R. 1997. Influence of transportation and time-averaging in fossil assemblages from the Pennsylvanian of Oklahoma. Lethaia 30:315329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. E., and Holland, S. M. 2005. Additive diversity partitioning of a marine biotic invasion: Upper Ordovician of the Cincinnati Arch. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 37:461.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E. 2004. Evenness in Cambrian-Ordovician benthic marine communities in North America. Paleobiology 30:325346.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, C. H. 1976. Relative abundances of living and dead molluscs in two California lagoons. Lethaia 9:137148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, C. H. 1977. The paleoecological significance of undetected short-term temporal variability. Journal of Paleontology 51:976981.Google Scholar
Powell, E. N., Stanton, R. J. Jr., Cummins, H., and Staff, G. 1982. Temporal fluctuations in bay environments—the death assemblage as a key to the past. Pp. 203232 in Davie, J. R., ed. Proceedings of the symposium on recent benthological investigations in Texas and adjacent states. Texas Academy of Science, Austin.Google Scholar
Powell, M. G., and Kowalewski, M. 2002. Increase in evenness and sampled alpha diversity through the Phanerozoic: comparison of early Paleozoic and Cenozoic marine fossil assemblages. Geology 30:331334.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricklefs, R. E., and Schluter, D. 1993. Species diversity in ecological communities, historical and geographical perspectives. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. L. 1995. Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1988. Alpha, beta, or gamma: where does all the diversity go? Paleobiology 14:221234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, E. H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B., and Wilson, J. B. 1996. A consumer's guide to evenness indices. Oikos 76:7082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staff, G. M., and Powell, E. N. 1988. The paleoecological significance of diversity: the effect of time-averaging and differential preservation on macroinvertebrate species richness in death assemblages. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 63:7389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staff, G. M., Stanton, R. J. Jr., Powell, E. N., and Cummins, H. 1986. Time-averaging, taphonomy, and their impact on paleocommunity reconstruction: death assemblages in Texas bays. Geological Society of America Bulletin 97:428443.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanabe, K., Fujiki, T., and Katsuta, T. 1986. Comparative analysis of living and death bivalve assemblages on the Kawarazu Shore, Ehime Prefecture, west Japan. Bulletin of the Japanese Association of Benthology 30:1730.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1982. Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. Google ScholarPubMed
Tilman, D. 2004. Niche tradeoffs, neutrality, and community structure: a stochastic theory of resource competition, invasion, and community assembly. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101:1085410861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tipper, J. C. 1979. Rarefaction and rarefiction—the use and abuse of a method in paleoecology. Paleobiology 5:423434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokeshi, M. 1993. Species abundance patterns and community structure. Advances in Ecological Research 24:112186.Google Scholar
Tomašovych, A. 2006. Linking taphonomy to community-level abundance: insights into compositional fidelity of the Upper Triassic shell concentration (Eastern Alps). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 235:355381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomašovych, A., and Rothfus, T. A. 2005. Differential taphonomy of modern brachiopods (San Juan Islands, Washington State): effect of intrinsic factors on damage and community-level abundance: Lethaia 38:271292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1964. Relative abundance of species in some fossil mammal faunas. American Naturalist 98:109116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veech, J. A., Summerville, K. S., Crist, T. O., and Gering, J. C. 2002. The additive partitioning of species diversity: recent revival of an old idea. Oikos 99:39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J., and Herbert, G. S. 2004. Measuring relative abundance in fossil and living assemblages. Paleobiology 30:14.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, K. R., and Bambach, R. K. 1971. The significance of fossil assemblages from fine-grained sediments: time-averaged communities. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 3:783784.Google Scholar
Warme, J. E. 1969. Live and dead molluscs in a coastal lagoon. Journal of Paleontology 43:141150.Google Scholar
Warme, J. E., Ekdale, A. A., Ekdale, S. F., and Peterson, C. H. 1976. Raw material of the fossil record. Pp. 143169 in Scott, R.W. and West, R.R., eds. Structure and classification of paleocommunities. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, Pa. Google Scholar
Warwick, R. M., and Light, J. 2002. Death assemblages of molluscs on St Martin's Flats, Isles of Scilly: a surrogate for regional biodiversity? Biodiversity and Conservation 11:99112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, R. M., and Turk, S. M. 2002. Predicting climate change effects on marine biodiversity: comparison of recent and fossil molluscan death assemblages. Journal of the Marine Biological Association U.K. 82:847850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washington, H. G. 1984. Diversity, biotic and similarity indices: a review with special relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Water Resources 18:653694.Google Scholar
Zuschin, M., Harzhauser, M., and Sauermoser, K. 2006. Patchiness of local species richness and its implication for large-scale diversity patterns: an example from the middle Miocene of the Paratethys. Lethaia 39:6588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The preservational fidelity of evenness in molluscan death assemblages
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The preservational fidelity of evenness in molluscan death assemblages
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The preservational fidelity of evenness in molluscan death assemblages
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *