Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:23:14.197Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biomechanics, functional patterns, and disparity in Late Devonian arthrodires

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Philip S. L. Anderson
Philip S. L. Anderson*
Affiliation:
Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637
*
Present address: Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queens Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies of ecological structure and diversity over time in extinct groups have always been challenged by the inability to observe the behavior of fossil taxa directly. The only available evidence for function, behavior, and interactions between taxa is the morphological characteristics of the preserved fossils. Recent studies on modern groups have shown that morphological analyses may give misleading results in terms of ecological pattern and diversity. An alternative approach is to focus on functionally relevant aspects of morphology through a paleobiomechanical paradigm. The purpose of this research is to examine variation in the lower jaw morphology in Late Devonian arthrodire placoderms and develop biomechanical metrics that can be used to quantify functional diversity among this fossil group. Nine functionally relevant morphological characters were collected for 94 isolated arthrodire inferognathals from the Gogo Formation in Western Australia and the Cleveland Shale in Ohio. These data were used to address aspects of functional morphology, biomechanical disparity, and ecological structure in arthrodire placoderms from the Late Devonian. Results were compared with results from previous morphometric work on the same set of jaws.

Statistical tests show a significant difference in functional characters between the two faunas. The differences may be related to phylogenetic differences between faunas, as the two major clades of arthrodire taxa included in this study are almost completely segregated between faunas. Average pairwise disparity analyses of the mechanical characters indicate that there is no significant difference in overall functional diversity between the Cleveland Shale and Gogo Reef arthrodire faunas. This result is at odds with previous results that show overall morphological disparity to be much higher in the Cleveland Shale. Clustering patterns within a multivariate function-space show tightly constrained functional groups of taxa independent of phylogenetic or shape-based morphological similarity. These functional groups illustrate a level of ecological diversity in Late Devonian arthrodires that is comparable to that in certain modern faunas.

Further statistical analysis of the morphological and functional disparity of these Late Devonian taxa shows a disjoint between the two measures. Model I regression analysis of and Spearman rank-correlation analysis of average pairwise morphological and functional disparity measures indicate no significant relationship between morphological and functional disparity among the jaws used in this study. Although function is obviously derived from morphology, these results show that morphological shape analysis is not necessarily a good proxy for eco-functional diversity.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , Summer 2009 , pp. 321 - 342
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

Anderson, P. S. L. 2008. Shape variation between arthrodire morphotypes indicates possible feeding niches. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 28:961–969.Google Scholar
Anderson, P. S. L., and Westneat, M. W. 2007. Feeding mechanics and bite force modelling of the skull of Dunkleosteus terrelli, an ancient apex predator. Biology Letters 3:6–79.Google Scholar
Arnold, S. J. 1983. Morphology, performance and fitness. American Zoologist 23:47–361.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., and Bottjer, D. J. 1982. Tiering in suspension-feeding communities on soft substrata throughout the Phanerozoic. Science 216:73–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bambach, R. K., Bush, A. M., and Erwin, D. H. 2007. Autecology and the filling of ecospace: key metazoan radiations. Palaeontology 50:1–22.Google Scholar
Barel, C. D. N. 1983. Toward a constructional morphology of cichlid fishes (Teleostei, Perciformes). Netherlands Journal of Zoology 33:57–424.Google Scholar
Bellwood, D. R., Wainwright, P. C., Fulton, C. J., and Hoey, A. 2002. Assembly rules and functional groups at global biogeographical scales. Functional Ecology 16:7–562.Google Scholar
Bottjer, D. J., and Ausich, W. I. 1986. Phanerozoic development of tiering in soft substrata suspension-feeding communities. Paleobiology 12:400–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brazeau, M. D. 2009. The braincase and jaws of a Devonian “acanthodian” and modern gnathostome origins. Nature 457:305–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brenchley, P. J., Marshall, J. D., and Underwood, C. J. 2001. Do all mass extinctions represent an ecological crisis? Evidence from the Late Ordovician. Geological Journal 36:329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, R. K. 1991. Reanalysis of Heintzichthys gouldii (Newberry), an aspinothoracid arthrodire (Placodermi) from the Famennian of northern Ohio, with a review of brachythoracid systematics. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 103:349–390.Google Scholar
Carr, R. K. 1995. Placoderm diversity and evolution. In Arsenault, M., Lelièvre, H., and Janvier, P., eds. Studies on early vertebrates. Seventh International Symposium on Early Vertebrates, Miguasha, Quebec. Bulletin du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris 17:85–125.Google Scholar
Carr, R. K. 2004. Recognizing paraphyletic stem groups: a case study in the analysis of eubrachythoracid arthrodires (Placodermi). Pp. 127–138in Arratia, G., Wilson, M. V. H., and Cloutier, R., eds. Recent advances in the origin and early radiation of vertebrates. Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, Munich.Google Scholar
Carr, R. K., and Hlavin, W. J. 1995. Dinichthyidae (Placodermi): a paleontological fiction? Geobios 19:85–87.Google Scholar
Carroll, A. M., Wainwright, P. C., Huskey, S. H., Collar, D. C., and Turingan, R. G. 2004. Morphology predicts suction feeding performance in centrarchid fishes. Journal of Experimental Biology 207:3873–3881.Google Scholar
Chapin, F. S. I., Zavaleta, E. S., Eviner, V. T., Naylor, R. L., Vitousek, P. M., Reynolds, H. L., Hooper, D. U., Lavorel, S., Sala, O. E., Hobbie, S. E., Mack, M. C., and Diaz, S. 2000. Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234–242.Google Scholar
Ciampaglio, C. N., Kemp, M., and McShea, D. W. 2001. Detecting changes in morphospace occupation patterns in the fossil record: characterization and analysis of measures of disparity. Paleobiology 27:695–715.Google Scholar
Collar, D. C., and Wainwright, P. C. 2006. Discordance between morphological and mechanical diversity in the feeding mechanism of centrarchid fishes. Evolution 60:2575–2584.Google Scholar
Copper, P. 1994. Ancient reef ecosystem expansion and collapse. Coral Reefs 13:3–12.Google Scholar
Debelius, H., Tanaka, H., and Kuiter, R. H. 2003. Angelfishes, a comprehensive guide to Pomacanthidae. TMC Publishing, Chorley, U.K.Google Scholar
Droser, M. L., Bottjer, D. J., and Sheehan, P. M. 1997. Evaluating the ecological architecture of major events in the Phanerozoic history of marine invertebrate life. Geology 25:167–170.Google Scholar
Droser, M. L., Bottjer, D. J., Sheehan, P. M., and McGhee, G. R. 2000. Decoupling of taxonomic and ecologic severity of Phanerozoic marine mass extinctions. Geology 28:657–678.Google Scholar
Dupret, V. 2004. The phylogenetic relationships between actinolepids (Placodermi: Arthrodira) and other arthrodires (phlyctaeniids and brachythoracids). Pp. 44–55in Young, G. C., ed. Lower vertebrates from the Palaeozoic. First International Palaeontological Congress (IPC 2002), Sydney, Australia, 6–10 July 2002. Proceedings of Symposium 6 (Palaeozoic Vertebrates).Google Scholar
Erwin, D. H. 2007. Disparity: morphological pattern and developmental context. Palaeontology 50:57–73.Google Scholar
Evans, A. R., and Sanson, G. D. 1998. The effect of tooth shape on the breakdown of insects. Journal of the Zoological Society of London 246:91–400.Google Scholar
Evans, A. R. 2003. The tooth of perfection: functional and spatial constraints on mammalian tooth shape. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 78:173–191.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783–791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foote, M. 1991. Morphologic patterns of diversification: examples from trilobites. Palaeontology 34:461–485.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1992. Paleozoic record of morphological diversity in blastozoan echinoderms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 89:7325–7329.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1993. Discordance and concordance between morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 19:185–204.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1994. Morphological disparity in Ordovician-Devonian crinoids and the early saturation of morphological space. Paleobiology 20:320–344.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1995. Morphological diversification of Paleozoic crinoids. Paleobiology 21:271–299.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1997. The evolution of morphological diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:129–152.Google Scholar
Gardiner, B. G., and Miles, R. S. 1994. Eubrachythoracid arthrodires from Gogo, Western Australia. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 112:443–477.Google Scholar
Goujet, D. F. 1984. Placoderm interrelationships: a new interpretation, with a short review of placoderm classifications. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 107:211–244.Google Scholar
Greaves, W. S. 1974. Functional implications of mammalian jaw joint position. Forma et Functio 7:363–376.Google Scholar
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T., and Ryan, P. D. 2001. PAST: palaeontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4:1–9.Google Scholar
Herring, S. W. 1993. Functional morphology of mammalian mastication. American Zoologist 33:289–299.Google Scholar
Huckins, C. J. F. 1997. Functional linkages among morphology, feeding performance, diet, and competitive ability in molluscivorous sunfish. Ecology 78:2401–2414.Google Scholar
Hulsey, C. D., and Wainwright, P. C. 2002. Projecting mechanics into morphospace: disparity in the feeding system of labrid fishes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269:317–326.Google Scholar
Jaminski, J., Algeo, T. J., Maynard, J. B., and Hower, J. C. 1998. Climatic origin of dm-scale compositional cyclicity in the Cleveland Member of the Ohio Shale (Upper Devonian), Central Appalachian Basin, U.S.A. Pp. 217–242in Scheiber, J., Zimmerle, W., and Sethi, P. S., eds. Shales and mudstones. I. E. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Janvier, P. 1996. Early vertebrates. Clarendon, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jernvall, J., Hunter, J. P., and Fortelius, M. 1996. Molar tooth diversity, disparity, and ecology in Cenozoic ungulate radiations. Science 274:1489–1492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, J. A. 1995. The rise of fishes. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Long, J. A., and Trinajstic, K. 2000. Devonian micro vertebrate faunas of Western Australia. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 22:471–485.Google Scholar
Lucas, P. W. 2004. Dental functional morphology: how teeth work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lupia, R. 1999. Discordant morphological disparity and taxonomic diversity during the Cretaceous angiosperm radiation: North American pollen record. Paleobiology 25:1–28.Google Scholar
McGhee, G. R., Sheehan, P. M., Bottjer, D. J., and Droser, M. L. 2004. Ecological ranking of Phanerozoic biodiversity crises: ecological and taxonomic severities are decoupled. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 211:289–297.Google Scholar
Miles, R. S. 1969. Features of placoderm diversification and the evolution of the Arthrodire feeding mechanism. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 68:123–170.Google Scholar
Motta, P. J. 1988. Functional morphology of the feeding apparatus of ten species of Pacific butterflyfishes (Perciformes, Chaetodontidae): an ecomorphological approach. Environmental Biology of Fishes 22:39–67.Google Scholar
Norberg, U. M. 1994. Wing design, flight performance, and habitat uses in bats. Pp. 205–239in Wainwright, and Reilly, 1994.Google Scholar
Playford, P. E. 1980. Devonian “Great Barrier Reef” of Canning basin, Western Australia. AAPG Bulletin 64:814–840.Google Scholar
Prosser, C. S. 1913. The Huron and Cleveland Shales of northern Ohio. Journal of Geology 21:323–362.Google Scholar
Ramsay, J. B., and Wilga, C. D. 2007. Morphology and mechanics of the teeth and jaws of White-Spotted Bamboo Sharks (Chiloscyllium plagiosum). Journal of Morphology 268:664–682.Google Scholar
Ricklefs, R. E., and Miles, D. B. 1994. Ecological and evolutionary inferences from morphology: an ecological perspective. Pp. 13–41in Wainwright, and Reilly, 1994.Google Scholar
Roy, K., and Foote, M. 1997. Morphological approaches to modeling biological diversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12:277–281.Google Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Work, D. M. 1996. Shell morphology and suture complexity in Upper Carboniferous ammonoids. Paleobiology 22:189–218.Google Scholar
Steneck, R. S. 1997. Crustose corallines, other algal functional groups, herbivores and sediments: complex interactions along reef productivity gradients. Pp. 695–700in Lessios, H. A. and MacIntyre, I. G., eds. Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium, Panama, 24–29 June 1996.Google Scholar
Summers, A. P., Ketcham, R. A., and Rowe, T. 2004. Structure and function of the Horn Shark (Heterodontus francisci) Cranium through ontogeny: development of a hard prey specialist. Journal of Morphology 260:1–12.Google Scholar
Teichert, C. 1943. The Devonian of Western Australia: a preliminary review. American Journal of Science 241:69–94.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 2000. Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity. Nature 405:208–211.Google Scholar
Trinajstic, K. M., and Hazelton, M. 2007. Ontogeny, phenotypic variation and phylogenetic implications of arthrodires of the Gogo Formation, Western Australia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 27:571–583.Google Scholar
Turnbull, W. D. 1970. Mammalian masticatory apparatus. Fieldiana (Geology) 18:147–356.Google Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B. 1994. Ecomorphological analyses of fossil vertebrates and their paleocommunities. Pp. 140–166in Wainwright, and Reilly, 1994.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J. 1995. Testing evolutionary constraint hypotheses with early Paleozoic gastropods. Paleobiology 21:248–272.Google Scholar
Wainwright, P. C., and Bellwood, D. R. 2002. Ecomorphology of feeding in coral reef fishes. Pp. 33–55in Sale, P. F., ed. Coral reef fishes: dynamics and diversity in a complex system. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Wainwright, P. C., and Reilly, S. M., eds. 1994. Ecological morphology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Wainwright, P. C., and Richard, B. A. 1995. Predicting patterns of prey use from morphology of fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 44:97–113.Google Scholar
Wainwright, S. A., Biggs, W. D., Currey, J. D., and Gosline, J. M. 1976. Mechanical design in organisms. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Westneat, M. W. 1990. Feeding mechanics of teleost fishes (Labridae): a test of four-bar linkage models. Journal of Morphology 205:269–295.Google Scholar
Westneat, M. W. 1994. Transmission of force and velocity in the feeding mechanisms of labrid fishes (Teleostei, Perciformes). Zoomorphology 114:103–118.Google Scholar
Wignall, P. B. 1994. Black shales. Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics 30:1–127.Google Scholar
Williams, D. M., and Hatcher, A. I. 1983. Structure of fish communities on outer slopes of inshore, mid-shelf and outer shelf reefs of the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Ecology Progress Series 10:239–250.Google Scholar
Wills, M. A. 2001. Morphological disparity: a primer. Pp. 55–144in Adrain, J. M. ed. Fossils, phylogeny, and form. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Wills, M. A., Briggs, D. E. G., and Fortey, R. A. 1994. Disparity as an evolutionary index: a comparison of Cambrian and recent arthropods. Paleobiology 20:93–130.Google Scholar
Zelditch, M. L., Swiderski, D. L., Sheets, H. D., and Fink, W. L. 2004. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. Elsevier/Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar