Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:19:18.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental controls on geographic range size in marine animal genera

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Michael Foote
Michael Foote*
Affiliation:
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Here I test the hypothesis that temporal variation in geographic range size within genera is affected by the expansion and contraction of their preferred environments. Using occurrence data from the Paleobiology Database, I identify genera that have a significant affinity for carbonate or terrigenous clastic depositional environments that transcends the Database's representation of these environments during the stratigraphic range of each genus. These affinity assignments are not a matter of arbitrarily subdividing a continuum in preference; rather, genera form distinct, nonrandom subsets with respect to environmental preference. I tabulate the stage-by-stage transitions in range size within individual genera and the stage-by-stage changes in the extent of each environment. Comparing the two shows that genera with a preference for a given environment are more likely to increase in geographic range, and to show a larger average increase in range, when that environment increases in areal extent, and likewise for decreases in geographic range and environmental area. Similar results obtain for genera with preferences for reefal and non-reef settings. Simulations and subsampling experiments suggest that these results are not artifacts of methodology or sampling bias. Nor are they confined to particular higher taxa. Genera with roughly equal preference for carbonates and clastics do not have substantially broader geographic ranges than those with a distinct affinity, suggesting that, at this scale of analysis, spatial extent of preferred environment outweighs breadth of environmental preference in governing geographic range. These results pertain to changes over actual geologic time within individual genera, not overall average ranges. Recent work has documented a regular expansion and contraction when absolute time is ignored and genera are superimposed to form a composite average. Environmental preference may contribute to this pattern, but its role appears to be minor, limited mainly to the initial expansion and final contraction of relatively short-lived genera.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , Summer 2014 , pp. 440 - 458
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

Agresti, A. 2007. An introduction to categorical data analysis, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, P. A., and Briggs, D. E. G. 1993. Paleolatitudinal sampling bias, Phanerozoic species diversity, and the end-Permian mass extinction. Geology 21:65–68.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, K. D. 1997. Evolution and ecology: the pace of life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bozinovic, F., Calosi, P., and Spicer, J. I. 2011. Physiological correlates of geographic range in animals. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 42:155–179.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., Hendy, A. J. W., Bartholomew, A. J., Bonelli, J. R. Jr., and McLaughlin, P. I. 2007. Response of shallow marine biotas to sea-level fluctuations: a review of faunal replacement and the process of habitat tracking. Palaios 22:228–244.Google Scholar
Cope, J. C. W., and Babin, C. 1999. Diversification of bivalves in the Ordovician. Geobios 32:175–185.Google Scholar
Curran-Everett, D. 2000. Multiple comparisons: philosophies and illustrations. American Journal of Physiology: Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 279:R1–R8.Google ScholarPubMed
Foote, M. 2006. Substrate affinity and diversity dynamics of Paleozoic marine animals. Paleobiology 32:345–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 2007. Symmetric waxing and waning of marine invertebrate genera. Paleobiology 33:517–529.Google Scholar
Foote, M., and Miller, A. I. 2013. Determinants of early survival in marine animal genera. Paleobiology 39:171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M., Crampton, J. S., Beu, A. G., Marshall, B. A., Cooper, R. A., Maxwell, P. A., and Matcham, I. 2007. Rise and fall of species occupancy in Cenozoic fossil mollusks. Science 318:1131–1134.Google Scholar
Foote, M., Crampton, J. S., Beu, A. G., and Cooper, R. A. 2008. On the bidirectional relationship between geographic range and taxonomic duration. Paleobiology 34:421–433.Google Scholar
Gaston, K. J. 1998. Species-range size distributions: products of speciation, extinction and transformation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 353:219–230.Google Scholar
Gaston, K. J. 2008. Biodiversity and extinction: the dynamics of geographic range size. Progress in Physical Geography 32:678–683.Google Scholar
Gaston, K. J. 2009. Geographic range limits: achieving synthesis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 276:1395–1406.Google Scholar
Gradstein, F. M., Ogg, J., Schmitz, M., and Ogg, G. 2012. The geologic time scale 2012. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hadly, E. A., Spaeth, P. A., and Li, C. 2009. Niche conservatism above the species level. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106:19,707–19,714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heim, N. A., and Peters, S. E. 2011. Regional environmental breadth predicts geographic range and longevity in fossil marine genera. PLoS ONE 6:e18946. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018946.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendy, A. J. W., and Kamp, P. J. J. 2007. Paleoecology of Late Miocene–Early Pliocene sixth-order glacioeustatic sequences in the Manutahi-1 core, Wanganui-Taranaki basin, New Zealand. Palaios 22:325–337.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., and Patzkowsky, M. E. 2007. Gradient ecology of a biotic invasion: biofacies of the type Cincinnatian Series (Upper Ordovician), Cincinnati, Ohio region, USA. Palaios 22:392–407.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., and Zaffos, A. 2011. Niche conservatism along an onshore-offshore gradient. Paleobiology 37:270–286.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., Miller, A. I., Meyer, D. L., and Datillo, B. F. 2001. The detection and importance of subtle biofacies variation within a single lithofacies: the Upper Ordovician Kope Formation of the Cincinnati, Ohio region. Palaios 16:205–217.Google Scholar
Hopkins, M. J., Simpson, C., and Kiessling, W. 2013. Differential niche dynamics among major marine invertebrate clades. Ecology Letters. doi: 10.1111/ele.12232, accessed 17 December 2013.CrossRefGoogle 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. 2008. Biotic interactions and macroevolution: extensions and mismatches across scales and levels. Evolution 62:715–739.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.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D., Roy, K., and Valentine, J. W. 2006. Out of the tropics: evolutionary dynamics of the latitudinal diversity gradient. Science 314:102–106.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D., Belanger, C. L., Berke, S. K., Huang, S., Krug, A. Z., Roy, K., Tomašových, A., and Valentine, J. W. 2013. Out of the tropics, but how? Fossils, bridge species, and thermal ranges in the dynamics of the marine latitudinal diversity gradient. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110:10,487–10,494.Google Scholar
Jackson, S. T., and Overpeck, J. T. 2000. Responses of plant populations and communities to environmental changes of the late Quaternary. InErwin, D. H. and Wing, S. L., eds. Deep time: Paleobiology's perspective Paleobiology 26 (Suppl. to No. 4):194–220.Google Scholar
Jernvall, J., and Fortelius, M. 2004. Maintenance of trophic structure in fossil mammal communities: site occupancy and taxon resilience. American Naturalist 164:614–624.Google Scholar
Kiessling, W., and Aberhan, M. 2007a. Environmental determinants of marine benthic biodiversity dynamics through Triassic–Jurassic time. Paleobiology 33:414–434.Google Scholar
Kiessling, W., and Aberhan, M. 2007b. Geographical distribution and extinction risk: lessons from Triassic–Jurassic marine benthic organisms. Journal of Biogeography 34:1473–1489.Google Scholar
Krug, A. Z., Jablonski, D., and Valentine, J. W. 2008. Species-genus ratios reflect a global history of diversification and range expansion in marine bivalves. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 275:1117–1123.Google Scholar
Lessios, H. A. 2008. The Great American Schism: divergence of marine organisms after the rise of the Central American isthmus. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39:63–91.Google Scholar
Liow, L. H., and Stenseth, N. C. 2007. The rise and fall of species: implications for macroevolutionary and macroecological studies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 274:2745–2752.Google Scholar
Liow, L. H., Skaug, H. J., Ergon, T., and Schweder, T. 2010. Global occurrence trajectories of microfossils: environmental volatility and the rise and fall of individual species. Paleobiology 36:224–252.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I. 1988. Spatio-temporal transitions in Paleozoic Bivalvia: an analysis of North American fossil assemblages. Historical Biology 1:251–273.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I., and Connolly, S. R. 2001. Substrate affinities of higher taxa and the Ordovician Radiation. Paleobiology 27:768–778.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I., and Foote, M. 2009. Epicontinental seas versus open-ocean settings: the kinetics of mass extinction and origination. Science 326:1106–1109.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I., and Mao, S. 1995. Association of orogenic activity with the Ordovician radiation of marine life. Geology 23:305–308.Google Scholar
Novack-Gottshall, P. M., and Miller, A. I. 2003. Comparative geographic and environmental diversity dynamics of gastropods and bivalves during the Ordovician Radiation. Paleobiology 29:576–604.Google Scholar
Nürnberg, S., and Aberhan, M. 2013. Habitat breadth and geographic range predict diversity dynamics in marine Mesozoic bivalves. Paleobiology 39:360–372.Google Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. E., and Holland, S. M. 2007. Diversity partitioning of a Late Ordovician marine biotic invasion: controls on diversity in regional ecosystems. Paleobiology 33:295–309.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E. 2008. Environmental determinants of extinction selectivity in the fossil record. Nature 454:626–629.Google Scholar
Pigot, A. L., Owens, I. P. F., and Orme, C. D. L. 2012. Speciation and extinction drive the appearance of directional range size evolution in phylogenies and the fossil record. PLoS Biology 10:e1001260. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001260.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2011. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Raia, P., Meloro, C., Loy, A., and Barbera, C. 2006. Species occupancy and its course in the past: macroecological patterns in extinct communities. Evolutionary Ecology Research 8:181–194.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. L., and McCord, R. D. 1991. Incumbent replacement: evidence for long-term evolutionary progress. Paleobiology 17:202–213.Google Scholar
Roy, K., Hunt, G., Jablonski, D., Krug, A. Z., and Valentine, J. W. 2009. A macroevolutionary perspective on species range limits. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 276:1485–1493.Google ScholarPubMed
Scotese, C. R., and Golonka, J. 1992. PALEOMAP paleogeographic atlas. PALEOMAP Progress Report No. 20. Department of Geology, University of Texas, Arlington.Google Scholar
Sheehan, P. M. 2008. Did incumbency play a role in maintaining boundaries between Late Ordovician brachiopod realms? Lethaia 41:147–153.Google Scholar
Slatyer, R. A., Hirst, M., and Sexton, J. P. 2013. Niche breadth predicts geographical range size: a general ecological pattern. Ecology Letters 16:1104–1114.Google Scholar
Tietje, M., and Kiessling, W. 2013. Predicting extinction from fossil trajectories of geographic ranges in benthic marine molluscs. Journal of Biogeography 40:790–799.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W., Jablonski, D., Krug, A. Z., and Roy, K. 2008. Incumbency, diversity, and latitudinal gradients. Paleobiology 34:169–178.Google Scholar
Vilhena, D. A., and Smith, A. B. 2013. Spatial bias in the marine fossil record. PLoS ONE 8:e74470. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074470.Google Scholar
Walker, L. J., Wilkinson, B. H., and Ivany, L. C. 2002. Continental drift and Phanerozoic carbonate accumulation in shallow-shelf and deep-marine settings. Journal of Geology 110:75–87.Google Scholar
Webb, S. D. 1991. Ecogeography of the Great American Interchange. Paleobiology 17:266–280.Google Scholar
Webb, S. D. 2006. The Great American Biotic Interchange: patterns and processes. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 93:245–257.Google Scholar
Willis, K. J., and MacDonald, G. M. 2011. Long-term ecological records and their relevance to climate change predictions for a warmer world. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 42:267–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. L. 1975. Carbonate facies in geologic history. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar