Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:32:18.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Association between geographic range and initial survival of Mesozoic marine animal genera: circumventing the confounding effects of temporal and taxonomic heterogeneity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2017

Kathleen A. Ritterbush  and
Michael Foote
Kathleen A. Ritterbush
Affiliation:
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected].
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

We investigate the association between geographic range and survival in Mesozoic marine animal genera. Previous work using data from the Paleobiology Database (paleobiodb.org) demonstrated greater survivorship overall among Phanerozoic genera that were widespread during their stage of first appearance, but this relationship did not hold during the Mesozoic. To explore this unexpected result, we consider geographic range in conjunction with temporal variation in survival and variation in survival among higher taxa. Because average range and average survival are negatively correlated among stages, for reasons that are still unclear, and because the data are heavily influenced by cephalopods, which include many wide-ranging and short-lived genera, the effect of geographic range on survival is obscured in the aggregate data. Thus, range is not a significant predictor of survival when data are analyzed in aggregate, but it does have a significant effect when variation in average range and average survival among stages and classes is taken into account. The best-fitting models combine range with both temporal and taxonomic heterogeneity as predictive factors. Moreover, when we take stage-to-stage variation into account, geographic range is an important predictor of survival within most classes. Cephalopod genera must be more widespread than genera in other classes for geographic range to significantly increase odds of survival, and factoring in survival heterogeneity of superfamilies further increases model fit, demonstrating a nested nature in the sensitivity of range and taxonomic aggregation.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , May 2017 , pp. 209 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 The Paleontological Society. All rights reserved 

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. 1990. Categorical data analysis. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Arkell, W. J., Kummel, B., and Wright, C. W.. 1957). Mesozoic Ammonoidea. Pp. L80–L465 in W. J. Arkell et al. Mollusca 4, Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea. Part L of R. C. Moore, ed. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geological Society of America, New York, and University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Bruhwiler, T., Bucher, H., Goudemand, N., and Galfetti, T.. 2012. Smithian (Early Triassic) ammonoid faunas from Exotic Blocks from Oman: taxonomy and biochronology. Palaeontographica A 296:3–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R.. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Crampton, J. S., Cooper, R., Beu, A. G., Foote, M., and Marshall, B. A.. 2010. Biotic influences on species duration: interactions between traits in marine molluscs. Paleobiology 36:204–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagys, A. 1997. A new late Olenekian (Triassic) ammonoid of low palaeolatitude affinity from Arctic Asia (Eastern Taimyr). Palaeontologische Zeitschrift 71:217–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, D. T., Callomon, J. H., and Howarth, M. K.. 1981. Classification of the Jurassic Ammonitina. In M. R. House, and J. R. Senior, eds. The Ammonoidea. Systematics Association Special Volume 18: 101–156. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Finnegan, S., Payne, J. L., and Wang, S. C.. 2008. The Red Queen revisited: reevaluating the age selectivity of Phanerozoic marine genus extinctions. Paleobiology 34:318–341.Google Scholar
Finnegan, S., Anderson, S. C., Harnik, P. G., Simpson, C., Tittensor, D. P., Byrnes, J. E., Finkel, Z. V., Lindberg, D. R., Liow, L. H., Lockwood, R., Lotze, H. K., McClain, C. R., McGuire, J. L., O’Dea, A., and Pandolfi, J. M.. 2015. Paleontological baselines for evaluating extinction risk in the modern oceans. Science 348:567–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foote, M. 1994. Temporal variation in extinction risk and temporal scaling of extinction metrics. Paleobiology 20:424–444.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., and Raup, D. M.. 1996. Fossil preservation and the stratigraphic ranges of taxa. Paleobiology 22:121–140.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M., Ritterbush, K. A., and Miller, A. I.. 2016. Geographic ranges of genera and their constituent species: structure, evolutionary dynamics, and extinction resistance. Paleobiology 42:269–288.Google Scholar
Galácz, A., and Kassai, P.. 2012. New species and stratigraphic data on Lower Bajocian (Middle Jurassic) lytoceratids (Ammonoidea) from Lókút, Bakony Mts, Hungary. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 86:281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guex, J., Hungerbühler, A., Jenks, J. F., O’Dogherty, L., Atudorei, V., Taylor, D. G., Bucher, H., and Bartolini, A.. 2010. Spathian (Lower Triassic) ammonoids from western USA (Idaho, California, Utah and Nevada). Mémoires de Géologie (Lausanne). 49:1–80.Google Scholar
Harnik, P. G., Simpson, C., and Payne, J. L.. 2012. Long-term differences in extinction risk among the seven forms of rarity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 279:4969–4976.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, R., and Keupp, H.. 2010. The myth of the Triassic lytoceratid ammonite Trachyphyllites Arthaber, 1927, in reality an Early Jurassic Analytoceras hermanni Gümbel, 1861. Acta Geologica Polonica 60:219–229.Google Scholar
Howarth, M. K. 2013. Part L (revised), vol. 3B, chap. 4: Psiloceratoidea, Eodoceratoidea, Hildoceratoidea. Treatise Online 57:1–139.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 2008. Species selection: theory and data. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39:501–524.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D., and Raup, D. M.. 1995. Selectivity of end-Cretaceous marine bivalve extinctions. Science 268:389–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiessling, W., and Aberhan, M.. 2007. Geographical distribution and extinction risk: lessons from Triassic–Jurassic marine benthic organisms. Journal of Biogeography 34:1473–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, K. N. 1996. Mesozoic ammonoids in space and time. Pp. 755–794. in N. Landman, K. Tanabe, and R. A. Davis, eds. Ammonoid paleobiology. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1982. The adequacy of the fossil record. In K. A. Joysey and A. E. Friday, eds. Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction. Systematics Association Special Volume 21, 75–117. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Payne, J. L., and Finnegan, S.. 2007. The effect of geographic range on extinction risk during background and mass extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104:10506–10511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powell, M. G. 2007. Geographic range and genus longevity of late Paleozoic brachiopods. Paleobiology 33:530–546.Google Scholar
Shigeta, Y., and Nguyen, H. D.. 2014. Cephalopods. In Y. Shigeta, T. Komatsu, T. Maekawa, and H. T. Dang, eds. Olenekian (Early Triassic) stratigraphy and fossil assemblages in northeastern Vietnam. National Museum of Nature and Science Monographs 45: 65–167.Google Scholar
Tozer, E. T. 1981. Triassic Ammonoidea: classification, evolution and relationship with Permian and Jurassic forms. In M. R. House, and J. R. Senior, eds. The Ammonoidea. Systematics Association Special Volume 18: 66–100. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Wang, S. C., and Bush, A. M.. 2008. Adjusting global extinction rates to account for taxonomic susceptibility. Paleobiology 34:434–455.Google Scholar
Ware, D., Jenks, J. F., Hautmann, M., and Bucher, H.. 2011. Dienerian (Early Triassic) ammonoids from the Candelaria Hills (Nevada, USA) and their significance for palaeobiogeography and palaeoceanography. Swiss Journal of Geosciences 104:161–181.Google Scholar
Wright, C. W., Calloman, J. H., and Howarth, M. K., eds. 1996. Mollusca 4 (revised), Cretaceous Ammonoidea, vol. 4. Part L of R. C. Moore, ed. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo., and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar