Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T01:56:21.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring relative abundance in fossil and living assemblages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Geerat J. Vermeij  and
Gregory S. Herbert
Geerat J. Vermeij
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of California at Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616. E-mail: vermeij@geology.ucdavis.edu, E-mail: herbert@geology.ucdavis.edu
Gregory S. Herbert
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of California at Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616. E-mail: vermeij@geology.ucdavis.edu, E-mail: herbert@geology.ucdavis.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Paleontologists increasingly appreciate the importance of studying the ecological context of fossil species and communities. Measuring abundance is a vital component not just for describing this context, but also for evaluating biases related to preservation and sampling and for estimating species richness (Jackson et al. 1999; Jackson and Johnson 2001; Kidwell 2001). Our purpose here is to identify a previously unrecognized problem that could lead to incorrect interpretation of observed patterns of abundance.

Type
Matters of the Record
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , Winter 2004 , pp. 1 - 4
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

Bakker, R. T. 1973. Anatomical and ecological evidence of endothermy in dinosaurs. Nature 238:81–85.Google Scholar
Birkeland, C. 1996. Why some species are especially influential on coral-reef communities and others are not. Galaxea 13:77–84.Google Scholar
Dietl, G. P., Kelley, P. H., Berrick, R., and Showers, W. 2002. Escalation and extinction selectivity: morphology versus isotopic reconstruction of bivalve metabolism. Evolution 56:284–291.Google Scholar
Feeny, P. 1975. Biochemical coevolution between plants and their insect herbivores. Pp. 3–19in Gilbert, L. E. and Raven, P. H., eds. Coevolution of animals and plants. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., and Calloway, C. B. 1980. Clams and brachiopods—ships that pass in the night. Paleobiology 6:381–396.Google Scholar
Hansen, T. A., and Kelley, P. H. 1995. Spatial variation of naticid gastropod predation in the Eocene of North America. Palaios 10:267–278.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C., and Johnson, K. G. 2001. Measuring past biodiversity. Science 293:2401–2404.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C., Todd, J. A., Fortunato, H., and Jung, P. 1999. Diversity and assemblages of Neogene Caribbean Mollusca of lower Central America. Bulletins of American Paleontology 356:193–230.Google Scholar
Jernvall, J., and Fortelius, M. 2002. Common mammals drive the evolutionary increase of hypsodonty in the Neogene. Nature 417:538–540.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 2001. Preservation of species abundance in marine death assemblages. Science 294:1091–1094.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 2002a. Time-averaged molluscan death assemblages: palimpsests of richness, snapshots of abundance. Geology 30:803–806.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 2002b. Mesh-size effects on the ecological fidelity of death assemblages: a meta-analysis of molluscan live-dead studies. Geobios Mémoir Spécial 24:107–119.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M., and Brenchley, P. J. 1994. Patterns in bioclastic accumulation through the Phanerozoic: changes in input or in destruction? Geology 22:1139–1143.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M., and Brenchley, P. J. 1996. Evolution of the fossil record: thickness trends in marine skeletal accumulations and their implications. Pp. 299–336in Jablonski, D., Erwin, D. H., and Lipps, J. H., eds. Evolutionary paleobiology: in honor of James W. Valentine. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Kirby, M. X. 2001. Differences in growth rate and environment between Tertiary and Quaternary Crassostrea oysters. Paleobiology 27:84–103.Google Scholar
Kirby, M. X., Soniat, T. M., and Spero, H. J. 1998. Stable isotope sclerochronology of Pleistocene and Recent oyster shells. Palaios 13:560–569.Google Scholar
Kojumdgieva, E. 1974. Les gastéropodes perceurs et leurs vic-times du Miocène de Bulgarie du nord-ouest. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulletin of the Geological Institute (Paleontology) 25:5–24.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I. 1989. Spatio-temporal transition in Paleozoic Bivalvia: a field comparison of Upper Ordovician and Upper Paleozoic bivalve-dominated fossil assemblages. Historical Biology 2:227–260.Google Scholar
Scriber, J. M., and Feeny, P. 1979. Growth of herbivorous caterpillars in relation to feeding specialization and to the growth form of their host. Ecology 60:829–850.Google Scholar
Thayer, C. W. 1985. Brachiopods versus mussels: competition, predation, and palatability. Science 228:1527–1528.Google Scholar
Todd, J. A., Jackson, J. B. C., Johnson, K. G., Fortunato, H. M., Heitz, A., Alvarez, M., and Jung, P. 2002. The ecology of extinction: molluscan feeding and faunal turnover in the Caribbean Neogene. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269:571–577.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 2002. Evolution in the consumer age: predators and the history of life. in Kowalewski, M. and Kelley, P. H., eds. The fossil record of predation. Paleontological Society Papers 8:375–393.Google Scholar