Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:03:40.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diversification and diversity partitioning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Michael Hautmann
Michael Hautmann*
Affiliation:
Paläontologisches Institut und Museum, Karl Schmid-Strasse 4, CH-8006 Zürich, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Model calculations predict that pathways of alpha- and beta-diversity in diversifying ecosystems notably differ depending on the relative role of competition, predation, positive effects of species' interactions, and environmental parameters. Four scenarios are discussed, in which alpha- and beta-diversity are modeled as a function of increasing gamma-diversity. The graphic illustration of this approach is herein called α-β-γ plot, in which the x-axis indicates increasing diversification rather than absolute time. In purely environmentally controlled systems, beta-diversity maintains near-maximum values throughout the diversification interval, whereas mean alpha-diversity increases linearly, with a slope being reciprocal to beta-diversity. A second scenario is based on the assumption that increasing richness will have predominantly positive effects on the addition of further species; here, alpha- and beta-diversity increase simultaneously (though not necessarily at the same rates) and without reaching a predictable upper limit. In ecosystems that are characterized by low competition between species, mean alpha-diversity asymptotically approaches a saturation level, whereas the increase in beta-diversity accelerates until alpha-diversity stagnates, and then continues to rise linearly. If competition is high, addition of species first increases beta-diversity until no further habitat contraction is possible, followed by a period in which alpha-diversity increase through adaptive divergence becomes the principal drive of diversification. Because there is a continuous transition between the late stage of the low-competition model and the early stage of the high-competition scenario, both can be combined in a single model of diversity partitioning under the premise of a diversity-dependent increase of competition. This summary model predicts three phases of diversity accumulation: (1) a niche overlap phase, (2) a habitat contraction phase, and (3) a niche differentiation phase. The models herein discussed provide a potential tool to assess the question which factors primary controlled the diversification of life over geological times.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , Spring 2014 , pp. 162 - 176
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

Aberhan, M. 1992. Palökologie und zeitliche Verbreitung benthischer Faunengemeinschaften im Unterjura von Chile. Beringeria 5:3–174.Google Scholar
Aberhan, M., and Baumiller, T. K. 2003. Selective extinction among Early Jurassic bivalves: a consequence of anoxia. Geology 31:1077–1080.Google Scholar
Alroy, J. 2010. Geographical, environmental and intrinsic biotic controls on Phanerozoic marine diversification. Palaeontology 53:1211–1235.Google Scholar
Alroy, J., Aberhan, M., Bottjer, D. J., Foote, M., Fürsich, F. T., Harries, P. J., Hendy, A. J. W., Holland, S. M., Ivany, L. C., Kiessling, W., Kosnik, M. A., Marshall, C. R., McGowan, A. J., Miller, A. I., Olszewski, T. D., Patzkowsky, M. E., Peters, S. E., Villier, L., Wagner, P. J., Bonuso, N., Borkow, P. S., Brenneis, B., Clapham, M. E., Fall, L. M., Ferguson, C. A., Hanson, V. L., Krug, A. Z., Layou, K. M., Leckey, E. H., Nürnberg, S., Powers, C. M., Sessa, J. A., Simpson, C., Tomašových, A., and Visaggi, C. C. 2008. Phanerozoic trends in the global diversity of marine invertebrates. Science 321:97–100.Google Scholar
Bambach, R. K., and Bennington, J. B. 1996. Do communities evolve? A major question in evolutionary paleoecology. Pp. 123–160in Jablonski et al. 1996.Google Scholar
Barnosky, A. D. 2001. Distinguishing the effects of the Red Queen and Court Jester on Miocene mammal evolution in the northern Rocky Mountains. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 21:172–185.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J. 2001. Biodiversity on land and in the sea. Geological Journal 36:211–230.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J., and Emerson, B. C. 2007. How did life become so diverse? The dynamics of diversification according to the fossil record and molecular phylogenetics. Palaeontology 50:23–40.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J. 1981. Principles of benthic marine paleoecology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Brayard, A., Escarguel, G., Bucher, H., Monnet, C., Brühwiler, T., Goudemand, N., Galfetti, T., and Guex, J. 2009. Good genes and good luck: ammonoid diversity and the end-Permian mass extinction. Science 325:1118–1121.Google Scholar
Elliot, M., and Gray, J. S. 2009. Ecology of marine sediments. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Fürsich, F. T. 1977. Corallian (Upper Jurassic) marine benthic associations from England and Normandy. Palaeontology 20:337–385.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1985. The paradox of the first tier: an agenda for paleobiology. Paleobiology 11:2–12.Google Scholar
Heim, N. A. 2009. Stability of regional brachiopod diversity structure across the Mississippian/Pennsylvanian boundary. Paleobiology 35:393–412.Google Scholar
Hofmann, R., Hautmann, M., and Bucher, H. 2013a. A new paleoecological look at the Dinwoody Formation (Lower Triassic, Western U.S.): intrinsic versus extrinsic controls on ecosystem recovery after the end-Permian mass extinction. Journal of Paleontology 87:854–880.Google Scholar
Hofmann, R., Hautmann, M., Wasmer, M., and Bucher, H. 2013b. Palaeoecology of the Virgin Formation (Utah, USA) and its implications for the Early Triassic recovery. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 58:149–173.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M. 2010. Additive diversity partitioning in palaeobiology: revisiting Sepkoski's question. Palaeontology 53:1237–1254.Google Scholar
Jablonski, J., Erwin, D. H., and Lipps, J. H., eds. 1996. Evolutionary paleobiology: essays in honor of James W. Valentine. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Jost, L. 2006. Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113:363–375.Google Scholar
Lande, R. 1996. Statistics and partitioning of species diversity, and similarity among multiple communities. Oikos 76:5–13.Google Scholar
Lane, A., and Benton, M. J. 2003. Taxonomic level as a determinant of the shape of the Phanerozoic marine biodiversity curve. American Naturalist 162:265–276.Google Scholar
Mills, E. L. 1969. The community concept in marine zoology, with comments on continua and instability in some marine communities: a review. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 26:1415–1428.Google Scholar
Olszewski, T. D. 2010. Diversity partitioning using Shannon's entropy and its relationship to rarefaction. InAlroy, J. and Hunt, G., eds. Quantitative methods in paleobiology. Paleontological Society Papers 16:95–116.Google Scholar
Olszewski, T. D. 2012. Persistence of high diversity in nonequilibrium ecological communities: Implications for modern and fossil ecosystems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 279:230–236.Google ScholarPubMed
Patzkowsky, M. E., and Holland, S. M. 2003. Lack of community saturation at the beginning of the Paleozoic plateau: the dominance of regional over local processes. Paleobiology 29:545–560.Google Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. E., 2007. Diversity partitioning of a Late Ordovician marine biotic invasion: controls on diversity in regional ecosystems. Paleobiology 33:295–309.Google Scholar
Pianka, E. R. 1974. Niche overlap and diffuse competition. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences USA 71:2141–2145.Google Scholar
Ricklefs, R. E. 1987. Community diversity: relative roles of local and regional processes. Science 235:167–171.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1978. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity. I. Analysis of marine orders. Paleobiology 4:223–251.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1979. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity. II. Early Phanerozoic families and multiple equilibria. Paleobiology 5:222–251.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1981. A factor analytic description of the Phanerozoic marine fossil record. Paleobiology 7:36–53.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1984. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity. III. Post-Paleozoic families and mass extinctions. Paleobiology 10:246–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1988. Alpha, beta, or gamma: where does all the diversity go? Paleobiology 14:221–234.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1996. Competition in macroevolution: the double wedge revisited. Pp. 211–255in Jablonski et al. 1996.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1997. Biodiversity: past, present, and future. Journal of Paleontology 71:533–539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1998. Rates of speciation in the fossil record. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B 353:315–326.Google Scholar
Solé, R. V., Saldaña, J., Montoya, J. M., and Erwin, D. H. 2010. Simple model of recovery dynamics after mass extinction. Journal of Theoretical Biology 267:193–200.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 2007. An analysis of the history of marine animal diversity. Paleobiology Memoirs No. 4. Paleobiology 33(Suppl. to No. 4).Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 2008. Predation defeats competition on the seafloor. Paleobiology 34:1–21.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R. H. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecological Monographs 30:279–338.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R. H. 1972. Evolution and measurements of species diversity. Taxon 21:213–251.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R. H. 1975. Communities and ecosystems, 2nd ed. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R. H. 1977. Evolution of species diversity in land communities. Evolutionary Biology 10:1–67.Google Scholar