Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T11:21:10.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating multivariate selection gradients in the fossil record: a naticid gastropod case study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Melissa Grey ,
Elizabeth G. Boulding  and
Michael E. Brookfield
Melissa Grey
Affiliation:
Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
Elizabeth G. Boulding
Affiliation:
Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
Michael E. Brookfield
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resource Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore the possibility and utility of estimating multivariate selection in fossil assemblages, using naticid gastropods as a case study. We used the presence or the absence of a naticid borehole as an index of survival with respect to drilling attacks, enabling us to estimate the multivariate selection gradient exerted by this predator on the shell length and shell thickness of two bivalve genera, Astarte and Spisula. We hypothesized that naticid selection pressure would favor the survival of large, thick-shelled bivalve prey throughout the Cenozoic.

Differential survival of prey was recorded over geologic time using processed bulk assemblages from the Miocene, Pliocene, and Pleistocene Epochs. Multivariate logistic regressions were performed by time period to determine if length and thickness were important factors affecting survival. The direction and magnitude of selection on length and thickness for the two genera ranged from zero (no selection) to large positive or negative values. Only two selection coefficients were significant after sequential Bonferroni corrections: thin-shelled Astarte survived substantially better than thick-shelled Astarte during the Pleistocene (βavggrad = −1.23) and large Spisula survived slightly better than small Spisula during the Miocene Epoch (βavggrad = 0.05).

This is the first study using fossils to calculate multivariate selection gradients. It suggests that naticids were not necessarily strong agents of selection on two traits previously thought to be important to survival of drilling attacks for two of their common prey species. We also show that multivariate selection gradient estimates differ from traditional predation intensity estimates but are superior for estimating the magnitude and direction of natural selection because they use differential mortality of different prey phenotypes rather than just absolute mortality from predation. This work is especially significant for research that involves estimating the relative importance of predation (naticid or otherwise) as an evolutionary force and will be useful for fossil studies where differential survival can be recorded.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , Winter 2006 , pp. 100 - 108
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

Ansell, A. D., and Morton, B. 1987. Alternative predation tactics of a tropical naticid gastropod. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 111:109–119.Google Scholar
Berg, C. J., and Nishenko, S. 1975. Stereotypy of predatory behavior of Pleistocene naticid gastropods. Paleobiology 1:258–260.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J., Brace, W., and DeMar, R. 1958. Distribution of brachiopod and pelecypod shells by currents. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 28:321–332.Google Scholar
Boulding, E. G. 1984. Crab-resistant features of shells of burrowing bivalves: decreasing vulnerability by increasing handling time. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 76:201–223.Google Scholar
Dietl, G. P., and Alexander, R. R. 2000. Post-Miocene shift in stereotypic naticid predation on confamilial prey from the mid-Atlantic Shelf: coevolution with dangerous prey. Palaios 15:414–429.Google Scholar
Endler, J. A. 1986. Natural selection in the wild. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. Google Scholar
Endler, J. A. 1995. Multiple-trait coevolution and environmental gradients in guppies. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10:22–29.Google Scholar
Fairbairn, D. J., and Reeve, J. P. 2001. Natural selection. Pp. 29–43 in Fox, C., Roff, D. A., and Fairbairn, D. J., eds. Evolutionary ecology: concepts and case studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar
Gahn, F. J., and Baumiller, T. K. 2005. Arm regeneration in Mississippian crinoids: evidence of intense predation pressure in the Paleozoic? Paleobiology 31:151–164.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, M. 2001. Predator-prey relationships of naticid gastropods and their bivalve prey. , University of Guelph, Guelph.Google Scholar
Grey, M., Boulding, E. G., and Brookfield, M. E. 2005. Shape differences among boreholes drilled by three species of naticid gastropods. Journal of Molluscan Studies 71:253–256.Google Scholar
Harper, E. M. 2003. Assessing the importance of drilling predation over the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 210:185–198.Google Scholar
Hereford, J., Hansen, T. F., and Houle, D. 2004. Comparing strengths of directional selection: how strong is strong? Evolution 58:2133–2143.Google Scholar
Janzen, F. J., and Stern, H. S. 1998. Logistic regression for empirical studies of multivariate selection. Evolution 52:1564–1571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kabat, A. R. 1990. Predatory ecology of naticid gastropods with a review of shell boring predation. Malacologia 32:155–193.Google Scholar
Kaplan, P., and Baumiller, T. Z. 2000. Taphonomic inferences on boring habit in the Richmondian Onniella meeki Epibole. Palaios 15:499–510.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1983. Evolutionary patterns of eight Chesapeake Group mollusks: evidence for the model of punctuated equilibria. Journal of Paleontology 57:581–598.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1984. Multivariate analysis of evolutionary patterns of seven Miocene Chesapeake Group mollusks. Journal of Paleontology 58:1235–1250.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1987. Naticid gastropod prey preference and predator-avoidance strategies of Chesapeake Group bivalves. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 6:557.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1988. Predation by Miocene gastropods of the Chesapeake Group: stereotyped and predictable. Palaios 3:436–448.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1989. Evolutionary trends within bivalve prey of Chesapeake Group naticid gastropods. Historical Biology 2:139–156.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1991a. The effect of predation intensity on rate of evolution of five Miocene bivalves. Historical Biology 5:65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1991b. Apparent cannibalism by Chesapeake Group naticid gastropods: a predictable result of selective predation. Journal of Paleontology 65:75–79.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1992. Evolutionary patterns of naticid gastropods of the Chesapeake Group: an example of coevolution? Journal of Paleontology 66:794–800.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H., and Hansen, T. A. 1993. Evolution of the naticid gastropod predator-prey system: an evaluation of the hypothesis of escalation. Palaios 8:358–375.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H., and Hansen, T. A. 1996. Naticid gastropod prey selectivity through time and the hypothesis of escalation. Palaios 11:437–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingsolver, J. G., Hoekstra, H. E., Hoekstra, J. M., Berrigan, D., Vignieri, S. N., Hill, C. E., Hoang, A., Gilbert, P., and Beerli, P. 2001. The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations. American Naturalist 157:245–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitchell, J. A. 1986. The evolution of predator-prey behavior: naticid gastropods and their molluscan prey. Pp. 88–110 in Nitecki, M. and Kitchell, J. A., eds. Evolution of animal behavior: paleontological and field approaches. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J. A., Boggs, C. H., Kitchell, J. F., and Rice, J. A. 1981. Prey selection by naticid gastropods: experimental tests and application to the fossil record. Paleobiology 7:533–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalewski, M. 1993. Morphometric analysis of predatory drillholes. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 102:69–88.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M. 2004. Drill holes produced by the predatory gastropod Nucella lamellosa (Muricidae): paleobiological and ecological implications. Journal of Molluscan Studies 70:359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lande, R. 1979. Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution applied to brain:body size allometry. Evolution 33:402–416.Google ScholarPubMed
Lande, R., and Arnold, S. J. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37:1210–1226.Google Scholar
Leighton, L. R. 2002. Inferring predation intensity in the marine fossil record. Paleobiology 28:328–342.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lever, J., and Thijssen, R. 1968. Sorting phenomena during the transport of shell valves on sandy beaches studied with the use of artificial valves. Pp. 259–271 in Fretter, V., ed. Studies in the structure, physiology, and ecology of molluscs (Symposia of the Zoological Society of London No. 22). Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Oij, T., Ogaya, C., and Sato, T. 2003. Increase of shell-crushing predation recorded in fossil shell fragmentation. Paleobiology 29:520–526.Google Scholar
Reimchen, T. E., and Nosil, P. 2002. Temporal variation in divergent selection on spine number in threespine stickleback. Evolution 56:2472–2483.Google Scholar
Rice, W. R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225.Google Scholar
Roopnarine, P. D., and Beussink, A. 1999. Extinction and naticid predation of the bivalve Chione von Muhlfeld in the Late Neogene of Florida. Palaeontologia Electronica 2.Google Scholar
Roy, K., Miller, D. J., and LaBarbara, M. 1994. Taphonomic bias in analyses of drilling predation: effects of gastropod drill holes on bivalve shell strength. Palaios 9:413–421.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. D. K. 1976. Gastropod predation on sympatric Neogene species of Glycymeris (Bivalvia) from the eastern United States. Journal of Paleontology 50:488–499.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1973. A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory 1:1–30.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1980. Drilling predation of bivalves in Guam: some paleoecological implications. Malacologia 19:329–334.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1983. Traces and trends of predation, with special reference to bivalved animals. Palaeontology 26:455–465.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and escalation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J., Dudley, E. C., and Zisper, E. 1989. Successful and unsuccessful drilling predation in recent pelecypods. Veliger 32:266–273.Google Scholar
Zuschin, M., and Stanton, R. J. Jr. 2001. Experimental measurement of shell strength and its taphonomic interpretation. Palaios 16:161–170.Google Scholar