Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T07:20:58.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inferring phenotypic evolution in the fossil record by Bayesian inversion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Bjarte Hannisdal
Bjarte Hannisdal*
Affiliation:
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 5734 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60637. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper takes an alternative approach to the problem of inferring patterns of phenotypic evolution in the fossil record. Reconstructing temporal biological signal from noisy stratophenetic data is an inverse problem analogous to subsurface reconstructions in geophysics, and similar methods apply. To increase the information content of stratophenetic series, available geological data on sample ages and environments are included as prior knowledge, and all inferences are conditioned on the uncertainty in these geological variables. This uncertainty, as well as data error and the stochasticity of fossil preservation and evolution, prevents any unique solution to the stratophenetic inverse problem. Instead, the solution is defined as a distribution of model parameter values that explain the data to varying degrees. This distribution is obtained by direct Monte Carlo sampling of the parameter space, and evaluated with Bayesian integrals. The Bayesian inversion is illustrated with Miocene stratigraphic data from the ODP Leg 174AX Bethany Beach borehole. A sample of the benthic foraminifer Pseudononion pizarrensis is used to obtain a phenotypic covariance matrix for outline shape, which constrains a model of multivariate shape evolution. The forward model combines this evolutionary model and stochastic models of fossil occurrence with the empirical sedimentary record to generate predicted stratophenetic series. A synthetic data set is inverted, using the Neighbourhood Algorithm to sample the parameter space and characterize the posterior probability distribution. Despite small sample sizes and noisy shape data, most of the generating parameter values are well resolved, and the underlying pattern of phenotypic evolution can be reconstructed, with quantitative measures of uncertainty. Inversion of a stratigraphic series into a time series can significantly improve our perception and interpretation of an evolutionary pattern.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , Winter 2007 , pp. 98 - 115
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. 1994. Appearance event ordination; a new biochronologic method. Paleobiology 20:191–207.Google Scholar
Arnold, S. J., Pfrender, M. E., and Jones, A. G. 2001. The adaptive landscape as a conceptual bridge between micro- and macroevolution. Genetica 112–113:9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backus, G. 1988. Bayesian inference in geomagnetism. Geophysical Journal Oxford 92:125–142.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1987. Random walks and the existence of evolutionary rates. Paleobiology 13:446–464.Google Scholar
Bretthorst, G. L. 1996. An introduction to model selection using probability theory as logic. In Heidbreder, G. R., ed. Maximum entropy and Bayesian methods, Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A., 1993 (Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Workshop on Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods). Fundamental Theories of Physics 62:1–42. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Browning, J. V., Miller, K. G., McLaughlin, P. P., Kominz, M. A., Sugarman, P. J., Monteverde, D., Feigenson, M. D., and Hernández, J. C. 2006. Quantification of the effects of eustasy, subsidence, and sediment supply on Miocene sequences, mid-Atlantic margin of the United States. Geological Society of America Bulletin 118:567–588.Google Scholar
Cheetham, A. H. 1986. Tempo of evolution in a Neogene bryozoan: rates of morphological change within and across species boundaries. Paleobiology 12:190–202.Google Scholar
Connolly, S. R., and Miller, A. I. 2001. Joint estimation of sampling and turnover rates from fossil databases: capture-mark-recapture methods revisited. Paleobiology 27:751–767.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, A., and Wood, R., eds. 2004. Geological prior information: informing science and engineering. Geological Society of London Special Publication 239.Google Scholar
Dowd, M., and Meyer, R. 2003. A Bayesian approach to the ecosystem inverse problem. Ecological Modelling 168:39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldredge, N., and Gould, S. J. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. Pp. 82–115 in Schopf, T. J. M., ed. Models in paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 2001. Inferring temporal patterns of preservation, origination, and extinction from taxonomic survivorship analysis. Paleobiology 27:602–630.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 2003. Origination and extinction through the Phanerozoic: a new approach. Journal of Geology 111:125–148.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 2005. Pulsed origination and extinction in the marine realm. Paleobiology 31:6–20.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A. B., Carlin, J. S., Stern, H. S., and Rubin, D. B. 1995. Bayesian data analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla. Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: patterns of evolution at the species level in early Tertiary mammals. American Journal of Science 276:1–28.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 1983. Rates of evolution: effects of time and temporal scaling. Science 222:159–161.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 1993. Quantification and comparison of evolutionary rates. American Journal of Science 293-A:453–478.Google Scholar
Gouveia, W. P. J., and Scales, J. A. 1998. Bayesian seismic wave-form inversion: parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis. Journal of Geophysical Research 103-B2:2759–2779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, P. J. 1995. Reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo computation and Bayesian model determination. Biometrika 82:711–732.Google Scholar
Greenlee, S., Devlin, W., Miller, K. G., Mountain, G., and Flemings, P. 1992. Integrated sequence stratigraphy of Neogene deposits, New Jersey continental shelf and slope: comparison with the Exxon model. Geological Society of America Bulletin 104:1403–1411.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunning, J., and Glinsky, M. E. 2004. Delivery: an open-source model-based Bayesian seismic inversion program. Computers and Geosciences 30:619–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannisdal, B. 2006. Phenotypic evolution in the fossil record: numerical experiments. Journal of Geology 114:133–153.Google Scholar
Hayward, B. W., Holzmann, M., Grenfell, H. R., Pawlowski, J., and Triggs, C. M. 2004. Morphological distinction of molecular types in Ammonia—towards a taxonomic revision of the world's most commonly misidentified foraminifera. Marine Micropaleontology 50:237–271.Google Scholar
Hendry, A. P., and Kinnison, M. T. 2001. An introduction to microevolution: rate, pattern, process. Genetica 112–113:1–8.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M. 1995. The stratigraphic distribution of fossils. Paleobiology 21:92–109.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M. 2000. The quality of the fossil record: a sequence stratigraphic perspective. In Erwin, D. H. and Wing, S. L., eds. Deep time: Paleobiology‘s perspective. Paleobiology 26(Suppl. to No. 4):148–168.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P., Ronquist, F., Nielsen, R., and Bollback, J. 2001. Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology. Science 294:2310–2314.Google Scholar
Hunt, G. 2006. Fitting and comparing models of phyletic evolution: random walks and beyond. Paleobiology 32:579–602.Google Scholar
Jaynes, E. T. 2003. Probability theory—the logic of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lande, R. 1976. Natural selection and random genetic drift in phenotypic evolution. Evolution 30:314–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lande, R. 1979. Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain: body size allometry. Evolution 33:402–416.Google Scholar
Lohmann, G. P. 1983. Eigenshape analysis of microfossils: a general morphometric procedure for describing changes in shape. Mathematical Geology 15:659–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, N. 1999. Generalizing and extending the eigenshape method of shape space visualization and analysis. Paleobiology 25:107–138.Google Scholar
Malinverno, A. 2002. Parsimonious Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo inversion in a nonlinear geophysical problem. Geophysical Journal International 151:675–688.Google Scholar
Malmgren, B. A., Berggren, W. A., and Lohmann, G. P. 1983. Evidence for punctuated gradualism in the Late Neogene Globorotalia tumida lineage of planktonic foraminifera. Paleobiology 9:377–389.Google Scholar
Miller, K. G., and Mountain, G. S. 1996. Drilling and dating New Jersey Oligocene-Miocene sequences: ice volume, global sea level, and Exxon records. Science 271:1092–1095.Google Scholar
Miller, K. G., and Sugarman, P. 1995. Correlating Miocene sequences in onshore New Jersey boreholes (ODP Leg 150X) with global δ18O and Maryland outcrops. Geology 23:747–750.Google Scholar
Miller, K. G., Sugarman, P., Browning, J.V., et al., eds. 1998. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Initial Reports, 174AX. Ocean Drilling Program, Texas A&M University, College Station.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, K. G., McLaughlin, P., and Browning, J. V., et al. 2003. Bethany Beach Site. Pp. 1–85 in Miller, K. G., Sugarman, P., Browning, J. V., et al., eds. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Initial Reports 174AX(Suppl.). Ocean Drilling Program, Texas A&M University, College Station.Google Scholar
Miller, K. G., Kominz, M., Browning, J., Wright, J., Mountain, G., Katz, M., Sugarman, P., Cramer, B., Christie-Blick, N., and Pekar, S. 2005. The Phanerozoic record of sea-level change. Science 310:1293–1298.Google Scholar
Mosegaard, K., and Sambridge, M. 2002. Monte Carlo analysis of inverse problems. Inverse Problems 18:R29–R54.Google Scholar
Pekar, S. F., Christie-Blick, N., Kominz, M. A., and Miller, K. G. 2001. Evaluating the stratigraphic response to eustasy from Oligocene strata in New Jersey. Geology 29:55–58.Google Scholar
Polly, P. D. 2004. On the simulation of the evolution of morphological shape: multivariate shape under selection and drift. Palaeontologia Electronica 7 (2)7A:1–28.Google Scholar
Raup, D. 1991. A kill curve for Phanerozoic marine species. Paleobiology 17:37–48.Google Scholar
Raup, D., and Crick, R. E. 1981. Evolution of single characters in the Jurassic ammonite Kosmoceras . Paleobiology 7:200–215.Google Scholar
Reyment, R. A. 1985. Phenotypic evolution in a lineage of the Eocene ostracod Echinocythereis . Paleobiology 11:174–194.Google Scholar
Roopnarine, P. D. 2001. The description and classification of evolutionary mode: a computational approach. Paleobiology 27:446–465.Google Scholar
Roopnarine, P. D. 2003. Analysis of rates of morphological evolution. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34:605–632.Google Scholar
Roopnarine, P. D. 2005. The likelihood of stratophenetic-based hypotheses of genealogical succession. Special Papers in Palaeontology 73:143–157.Google Scholar
Sadler, P. M. 2001. Constrained optimization—approaches to paleobiologic correlation and seriation problems: user's guide and reference manual to the CONOP program family, Version 6. 1. Riverside, Calif. Google Scholar
Sambridge, M. 1999a. Geophysical inversion with a neighbourhood algorithm. I. Searching a parameter space. Geophysical Journal International 138:479–494.Google Scholar
Sambridge, M. 1999b. Geophysical inversion with a neighbourhood algorithm. II. Appraising the ensemble. Geophysical Journal International 138:727–746.Google Scholar
Sambridge, M. 2001. Finding acceptable models in nonlinear inverse problems using a neighbourhood algorithm. Inverse Problems 17:387–403.Google Scholar
Sambridge, M., and Mosegaard, K. 2002. Monte Carlo methods in geophysical inverse problems. Reviews of Geophysics 40:1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scales, J. A., and Tenorio, L. 2001. Tutorial: prior information and uncertainty in inverse problems. Geophysics 66:389–397.Google Scholar
Sheets, D. H., and Mitchell, C. E. 2001. Why the null matters: statistical tests, random walks and evolution. Genetica 112–113:105–125.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. 1944. Tempo and mode in evolution. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Steckler, M. S., Mountain, G. S., Miller, K. G., and Christie-Blick, N. 1999. Reconstruction of Tertiary progradation and clinoform development on the New Jersey passive margin by 2-D backstripping. Marine Geology 154:399–420.Google Scholar
Sugarman, P. J., and Miller, K. G. 1997. Correlation of Miocene sequences and hydrogeologic units, New Jersey coastal plain. Sedimentary Geology 108:3–18.Google Scholar
Tarantola, A. 1987. Inverse problem theory: methods for data fitting and parameter estimation. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Van Sickel, W. A., Kominz, M. A., Miller, K. G., and Browning, J. V. 2004. Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic sea-level estimates: backstripping analysis of borehole data, onshore New Jersey. Basin Research 16:451–465.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J. 1998. A likelihood approach for evaluating estimates of phylogenetic relationships among fossil taxa. Paleobiology 24:430–449.Google Scholar
Zahn, C. T., and Roskies, R. Z. 1972. Fourier descriptors for plane closed curves. IEEE Transactions on Computers C- 21:269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Hannisdal supplementary material

Appendix

Download Hannisdal supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 57.6 KB