Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T19:28:17.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Geographic range and genus longevity of late Paleozoic brachiopods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Matthew G. Powell
Matthew G. Powell*
Affiliation:
Institut für Geowissenschaften, Facheinheit Paläontologie, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Altenhöferallee 1, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany. E-mail: powell@jhu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Geographic range size is one of the few traits that promoted survivorship during both mass and background extinctions, but the exact reason (or reasons) why a large geographic range confers extinction resistance remains unclear. Proposed explanations have focused on the roles of dispersal ability, climate tolerance, global abundance, and widespread ranges in predicting taxon longevities. This study uses biogeographic data for late Paleozoic brachiopod genera to test the relative contribution of these traits to genus longevities, using simple but accurate proxy measurements. The results demonstrate a strong positive relationship between genus longevity and geographic range size, which is robust to several potential errors. Further, latitudinal range, which predominantly reflects climate tolerance, was no more important than longitudinal range, which predominantly reflects dispersal ability, in predicting genus longevities. Rather, longevities were an outcome of the total number of occurrences, which estimates global abundance, and the advantages of widespread distribution, regardless of which particular traits were responsible for generating the total geographic range. The advantages of a large geographic range were apparent during both background and mass extinctions of late Paleozoic time. Although not statistically significant, there was a tendency for the greatest selectivity to occur in intervals with the lowest extinction rates. The correlation of genus longevity and geographic range size had a profound consequence for the secular pattern of global brachiopod diversity: because the diversity of genera with small geographic ranges was more volatile owing to their correspondingly shorter longevities, global diversity and mean geographic range size paralleled each other almost exactly. Given that the correlation between taxon longevity and geographic range size has also been demonstrated for other taxonomic groups and at other time intervals, these results suggest that global diversity curves compiled from taxonomic databases dominantly reflect changes in the diversity of genera with small geographic ranges.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , Fall 2007 , pp. 530 - 546
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

Literature Cited

Alroy, J. 2000. New methods for quantifying macroevolutionary patterns and processes. Paleobiology 26: 707–733.Google Scholar
Bambach, R. K., Knoll, A. H., and Wang, S. C. 2004. Origination, extinction, and mass depletions of marine diversity. Paleobiology 30: 522–542.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, A., and Boyajian, G. 1996. Changing biologic selectivity of extinction in the foraminifera over the past 150 m.y. Geology 24: 607–610.Google Scholar
Barnes, R. S. K., and Hughes, R. N. 1988. An introduction to marine ecology. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar
Beadle, S. C. 1991. The biogeography of origin and radiation: dendrasterid sand dollars in the northeastern Pacific. Paleobiology 17: 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornholdt, S., Sneppen, K., and Westphal, H. 2006. Longevity of orders is related to the longevity of their constituent genera rather than genus richness. http://arxiv.Org//pdf/q-bio.PE/0608033. Checked March 2007.Google Scholar
Bown, P. 2005. Selective calcareous nannoplankton survivorship at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. Geology 33: 653–656.Google Scholar
Brown, J. H., Stevens, G. C., and Kaufman, D. M. 1996. The geographic range: size, shape, boundaries, and internal structure. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 27: 597–623.Google Scholar
Buzas, M. A., and Culver, S. J. 1984. Species duration and evolution: benthic foraminifera on the Atlantic continental margin of North America. Science 225: 829–830.Google Scholar
Buzas, M. A., and Culver, S. J. 1989. Biogeographic and evolutionary patterns of continental margin benthic foraminifera. Paleobiology 15: 11–19.Google Scholar
Buzas, M. A., Koch, C. F., Culver, S. J., and Sohl, N. F. 1982. On the distribution of species occurrence. Paleobiology 8: 143–150.Google Scholar
Carter, J. L., Johnson, J. G., Gourvennec, R., and Fei, H. H. 1994. A revised classification of the spiriferid brachiopods. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 63: 327–374.Google Scholar
Chown, S. L., and Gaston, K. J. 2000. Areas, cradles, and museums: the latitudinal gradient in species richness. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15: 311–315.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2d ed. Lawrence Earlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J. Google Scholar
Crame, J. A. 1997. An evolutionary framework for the polar regions. Journal of Biogeography 24: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erwin, D. H. 1996. Understanding biotic recoveries: extinction, survival, and preservation during the end-Permian mass extinction. Pp. 419–433 in Jablonski, D., Erwin, D. H., and Lipps, J. H., eds. Evolutionary paleobiology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Flessa, K. W., and Jablonski, D. 1996. The geography of evolutionary turnover: a global analysis of extant bivalves. Pp. 376–397 in Jablonski, D., Erwin, D. H., and Lipps, J. H., eds. Evolutionary paleobiology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Gaston, K. J. 1994. Geographic range sizes and trajectories to extinction. Biodiversity Letters 2: 163–170.Google Scholar
Gili, C., and Martinell, J. 1994. Relationship between species longevity and larval ecology in nassariid gastropods. Lethaia 27: 291–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gradstein, F. M., Ogg, J. G., and Smith, A. G. 2005. A geologic time scale 2004. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, T. A. 1978. Larval dispersal and species longevity in lower Tertiary gastropods. Science 199: 885–887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, T. A. 1980. Influence of larval dispersal and geographic distribution on species longevity in Neogastropods. Paleobiology 6: 193–207.Google Scholar
He, F. L., and Gaston, K. J. 2000. Estimating species abundance from occurrence. American Naturalist 156: 553–559.Google Scholar
He, F. L., and Gaston, K. J. 2003. Occupancy, spatial variance, and the abundance of species. American Naturalist 162: 366–375.Google Scholar
Hedges, L. V., and Olkin, I. 1985. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Hellberg, M. E., Balch, D. P., and Roy, K. 2001. Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707–1710.Google Scholar
Hutchins, L. W. 1947. The bases for temperature zonation in geographical distribution. Ecological Monographs 17: 325–335.Google Scholar
Huyer, A. 1977. Seasonal variation in temperature, salinity, and density over the continental shelf off Oregon. Limnology and Oceanography 22: 442–453.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1986a. Background and mass extinctions: the alternation of macroevolutionary regimes. Science 231: 129–133.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1986b. Larval ecology and macroevolution of marine invertebrates. Bulletin of Marine Science 39: 565–587.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1987. Heritability at the species level: analysis of geographic ranges of Cretaceous mollusks. Science 238: 360–363.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1993. The tropics as a source of evolutionary novelty through geological time. Nature 364: 142–144.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1995. Extinction in the fossil record. Pp. 25–44 in May, R. M. and Lawton, J. H., eds. Extinction rates. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jablonski, D. 2005. Mass extinctions and macroevolution. Paleobiology 31: 192–210.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D., and Hunt, G. 2006. Larval ecology, geographic range, and species survivorship in Cretaceous mollusks: organismic versus species-level explanations. American Naturalist 168: 556–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jablonski, D., and Raup, D. M. 1995. Selectivity of end-Cretaceous marine bivalve extinctions. Science 268: 389–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, J. B. C. 1974. Biogeographic consequences of eurytopy and stenotopy among marine bivalves and their evolutionary significance. American Naturalist 108: 541–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, M. A., Ansell, A. D., Collins, M. J., Curry, G. B., Peck, L. S., and Rhodes, M. C. 1992. Biology of living brachiopods. Advances in Marine Biology 28: 175–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kammer, T. W., Baumiller, T. K., and Ausich, W. I. 1997. Species longevity as a function of niche breadth: evidence from fossil crinoids. Geology 25: 219–222.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W., Baumiller, T. K., and Ausich, W. I. 1998. Evolutionary significance of differential species longevity in Osagean–Meramecian (Mississippian) crinoid clades. Paleobiology 24: 155–176.Google Scholar
Kiessling, W., and Aberhan, M. 2007. Geographical distribution and extinction risk: lessons from Triassic-Jurassic marine benthic organisms. Journal of Biogeography (in press).Google Scholar
Kitamura, A., Omote, H., and Oda, M. 2000. Molluscan response to early Pleistocene rapid warming in the Sea of Japan. Geology 28: 723–726.Google Scholar
Koch, C. F. 1980. Bivalve species duration, areal extent and population size in a Cretaceous sea. Paleobiology 6: 184–192.Google Scholar
Kunin, W. 1998. Extrapolating species abundance across spatial scales. Science 281: 1513–1515.Google Scholar
Law, R. H., and Thayer, C. W. 1991. Articulate fecundity in the Phanerozoic: steady state or what? Pp. 183–190 in Mackinnon, D. I., Lee, D. E., and Campbell, J. D., eds. Brachiopods through time. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Liow, L. H. 2007. Does versatility as measured by geographic range, bathymetric range and morphological variability contribute to taxon longevity? Global Ecology and Biogeography 16: 117–128.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. R. 1994. Confidence intervals on stratigraphic ranges: partial relaxation of the assumption of randomly distributed fossil horizons. Paleobiology 20: 459–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClure, M., and Bohonak, A. J. 1995. Non-selectivity in extinction of bivalves in the Late Cretaceous of the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plain of North America. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 8: 779–794.Google Scholar
Mileikovsky, S. A. 1971. Types of larval development in marine bottom invertebrates, their distribution and ecology significance: a re-evaluation. Marine Biology 10: 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, A. I. 1997. A new look at age and area: the geographic and environmental expansion of genera during the Ordovician radiation. Paleobiology 23: 410–419.Google Scholar
Parker, W. C., Feldman, A., and Arnold, A. J. 1999. Paleobiogeographic patterns in the morphologic diversification of the Neogene planktonic foraminifera. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 152: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmesan, C., Gaines, S., Gonzalez, L., Kaufman, D. M., Kingsolver, J., Townsend Peterson, A., and Sagarin, R. 2005. Empirical perspectives on species borders: from traditional biogeography to global change. Oikos 108: 58–75.Google Scholar
Peck, L. S., and Robinson, K. 1994. Pelagic larval development in the brooding Antarctic brachiopod Liothyrella uva . Marine Biology 120: 279–286.Google Scholar
Powell, M. G. 2005. Climatic basis for sluggish macroevolution during the late Paleozoic ice age. Geology 33: 381–384.Google Scholar
Powell, M. G. 2007. Latitudinal diversity gradients for brachiopod genera during late Palaeozoic time: links between climate, biogeography and evolutionary rates. Global Ecology and Biogeography 16: 519–528.Google Scholar
Root, T. L., Price, J. T., Paul, K. R., Schneider, S. H., Rosenzweig, C., and Pounds, J. A. 2003. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421: 57–60.Google Scholar
Rowell, A. J. 1986. The distribution and inferred larval dispersion of Rhondellina dorei: a new Cambrian brachiopod (Acrotretida). Journal of Paleontology 60: 1056–1065.Google Scholar
Scheltema, R. S. 1977. Dispersal of marine invertebrate organisms: paleobiogeographic and biostratigraphic implications. Pp. 73–108 in Kauffman, E. G. and Hazel, J. E., eds. Concepts and methods of biostratigraphy. Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Stroudsburg, Penn. Google Scholar
Scotese, C. R. 2002. PointTracker [software]. PaleoMap Program, Department of Geology, University of Texas.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 2002. A compendium of fossil marine animal genera. Bulletins of American Paleontology 363: 1–560.Google Scholar
Smith, L. B., and Read, J. F. 2000. Rapid onset of late Paleozoic glaciation on Gondwana: evidence from upper Mississippian strata of the midcontinent, United States. Geology 28: 279–282.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1979. Macroevolution: pattern and process. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1986a. Population size, extinction, and speciation: the fission effect in Neogene Bivalvia. Paleobiology 12: 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1986b. Anatomy of a regional mass extinction: Plio-Pleistocene decimation of the western Atlantic bivalve fauna. Palaios 1: 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1990. The general correlation between rate of speciation and rate of extinction: fortuitous causal linkages. Pp. 103–127 in Ross, R. M. and Allmon, W. D., eds. Causes of evolution: a paleontological perspective. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M., and Powell, M. G. 2003. Depressed rates of origination and extinction during the late Paleozoic ice age: a new state for the global marine ecosystem. Geology 31: 877–880.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M., Wetmore, K. L., and Kennett, J. P. 1988. Macroevolutionary differences between two major clades of Neogene planktonic foraminifera. Paleobiology 14: 235–249.Google Scholar
Stehli, F. G., and Wells, J. W. 1971. Diversity and age patterns in hermatypic corals. Systematic Zoology 20: 115–126.Google Scholar
Thayer, C. W. 1981. Ecology of living brachiopods. Pp. 110–126 in Dutro, J. T. Jr. and Boardman, R. S., eds. Lophophorates: notes for a short course. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Tukey, J. W. 1977. Exploratory data analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.Google Scholar
Valentine, J., and Jablonski, D. 1983. Larval adaptations and patterns of brachiopod diversity in space and time. Evolution 37: 1052–1061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valentine, J., and Jablonski, D. 1986. Mass extinctions: sensitivity of marine larval types. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 83: 6912–6914.Google Scholar
Williams, A., Brunton, C. H. C., and Carlson, S. J. 2000. Linguliformea, Craniiformea, Rhynchonelliformea [part]. Brachiopoda 2 & 3. Part H (revised) of Kaesler, R. L., ed. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo., and University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Williams, A., Brunton, C. H. C., and Carlson, S. J. 2002. Rhynchonelliformea [part]. Brachiopoda 4. Part H (revised) of Kaesler, R. L., ed. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo., and University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Williams, A., Brunton, C. H. C., and Carlson, S. J. 2006. Rhynchonelliformea [part], Spiriferida, Spiriferinida, Thecideida, and Terebratulida. Brachiopoda 5. Part H (revised) of Kaesler, R. L., ed. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo., and University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Zacherl, D., Gaines, S. D., and Lonhart, S. I. 2003. The limits to biogeographical distributions: insights from the northward range extension of the marine snail, Kelletia kelletii (Forbes, 1852). Journal of Biogeography 30: 913–924.Google Scholar