Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T17:50:21.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ecogeography and the Great American Interchange

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

S. David Webb
S. David Webb*
Affiliation:
Florida Museum, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When the isthmian land bridge triggered the Great American Interchange, a large majority of land-mammal families crossed reciprocally between North and South America at about 2.5 Ma (i.e., Late Pliocene). Initially land-mammal dynamics proceeded as predicted by equilibrium theory, with roughly equal reciprocal mingling on both continents. Also as predicted, the impact of the interchange faded in North America after about 1 m.y. In South America, contrary to such predictions, the interchange became decidedly unbalanced: during the Pleistocene, groups of North American origin continued to diversify at exponential rates. Whereas only about 10% of North American genera are derived from southern immigrants, more than half of the modern mammalian fauna of South America, measured at the generic level, stems from northern immigrants. In addition, extinctions more severely decimated interchange taxa in North America, where six families were lost, than in South America, where only two immigrant families became extinct.

This paper presents a two-phase ecogeographic model to explain the asymmetrical results of the land-mammal interchange. During the humid interglacial phase, the tropics were dominated by rain forests, and the principal biotic movement was from Amazonia to Central America and southern Mexico. During the more arid glacial phase, savanna habitats extended broadly right through tropical latitudes. Because the source area in the temperate north was six times as large as that in the south, immigrants from the north outnumbered those from the south. One prediction of this hypothesis is that immigrants from the north generally should reach higher latitudes in South America than the opposing contingent of land-mammal taxa in North America. Another prediction is that successful interchange families from the north should experience much of their phylogenetic diversification in low latitudes of North America before the interchange. Insofar as these predictions can be tested, they appear to be upheld.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , Summer 1991 , pp. 266 - 280
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

Baskin, J. A. 1982. Tertiary Procyoninae (Mammalia: Carnivora) of North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 2:71–93.Google Scholar
Baskin, J. A. 1986. The Late Miocene radiation of Neotropical Sigmodontine rodents in North America. Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming Special Paper 3:287–303.Google Scholar
Berta, A. 1988. Quaternary evolution and biogeography of the large South American Canidae (Mammalia: Carnivora). University of California Publications in Geological Science 132:1–149.Google Scholar
Cabrera, A., and Yepes, J.. 1960. Mamiferos Sudamericanos, second edition. Ediar S. A. Editores; Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Carleton, M. D. 1980. Phylogenetic relationships in neotomine-peromyscine rodents (Muroidea) and a reappraisal of the dichotomy within New World Cricetinae. University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology Miscellaneous Publications 157:1–146.Google Scholar
Cifelli, R. L. 1985. South American ungulate evolution and extinction. Pp. 249–266. In Stehli, F. G., and Webb, S. D. (eds.), The Great American Biotic Interchange. Plenum Press; New York.Google Scholar
Cohmap, . 1988. Climatic changes of the last 18,000 years: observations and model simulations. Science 241:1043–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colinvaux, P. 1987. Amazon diversity in light of the paleoecological record. Quaternary Science Review 6:93–114.Google Scholar
Duellman, W. E. 1966. The Central American herpetofauna: an ecological perspective. Copeia 1966:700–719.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, J. F. 1989. Mammals of the Neotropics: the northern Neotropics. Volume 1. University of Chicago Press; Chicago.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, J. F., and Redford, K. H.. 1982. Comparative niche structure and evolution of mammals of the Nearctic and southern South America. Pp. 77–84. In Mares, M. A., and Genoways, H. H. (eds.), Mammalian Biology in South America. Special Publication Series, Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology, Volume 6. University of Pittsburgh; Linesville, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Emmons, L. H., and Feer, F.. 1990. Neotropical Rainforest Mammals: a Field Guide. University of Chicago Press; Chicago.Google Scholar
Gentry, A. H. 1982. Neotropical floristic diversity: phytogeographical connections between Central America and South America, Pleistocene climatic fluctuations or an accident of the Andean Orogeny? Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 69:557–593.Google Scholar
Graham, A. In press. Utilization of the Isthmian Land Bridge during the Cenozoic—Paleobotanical constraints on the Age of Closure.Google Scholar
Haffer, J. 1974. Avian speciation in tropical South America. Publications of the Nuttall Ornithological Club, Cambridge 14.Google Scholar
Hoffstetter, R. 1986. High Andean mammalian faunas during the Plio-Pleistocene. Pp. 218–245. In Vuilleumier, F., and Monasterio, M. (eds.), High-Altitude Tropical Biogeography. Plenum Press; New York.Google Scholar
Krause, D. W. 1986. Competitive exclusion and taxonomic displacement in the fossil record: the case of rodents and multituberculates in North America. University of Wyoming Contributions to Geology, Special Papers 3:95–117.Google Scholar
Kam-Biu, Liu, and Counvaux, P.. 1985. Forest changes in the Amazon Basin during the last glacial Maximum. Nature 318:556–557.Google Scholar
Mares, M. A. 1985. Mammal faunas of xeric habitats and the Great American Interchange. Pp. 489–520. In Stehli, F. G., and Webb, S. D. (eds.), The Great American Biotic Interchange. Plenum Press; New York.Google Scholar
Marshall, L. G. 1977. Evolution of the carnivorous adaptive zone in South America. Pp. 709–721. In Hecht, M. K., Goody, P. C., and Hecht, B. M. (eds.), Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution. Plenum Press; New York.Google Scholar
Marshall, L. G. 1988. Land mammals and the Great American Interchange. American Scientist 76:380–388.Google Scholar
Marshall, L. G., and Cifelli, R. L.. 1990. Analysis of changing diversity patterns in Cenozoic land mammal age faunas, South America. Palaeovertebrata 19:169–210.Google Scholar
Marshall, L. G., Berta, A., Hioffstetter, R., Pascual, R., Reig, O., Bombin, M., and Mones, A.. 1984. Mammals and stratigraphy: geochronology of the continental mammal-bearing Quaternary of South America. Palaeovertebrata Memoire Extraordinaire 1984:1–76.Google Scholar
Marshall, L. G., Webb, S. D., Sepkoski, J. J., and Raup, D. M.. 1982. Mammalian evolution and the Great American Interchange. Science 215:1351–1357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mones, A. 1986. Palaeovertebrata Sudamericana: Catalogo Sistematico de los Vertebrados Fosiles de America del Sur, Parte I: Lista Preliminar y Bibliografia. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 82:1–625.Google Scholar
Müller, P. 1973. Dispersal Centers of Terrestrial Vertebrates in the Neotropical Realm. Biogeographica, Volume 2. Junk; The Hague.Google Scholar
Owen-Smith, R. N. 1988. Megaherbivores: The Influence of Very Large Body Size on Ecology. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, B., and Pascual, R.. 1972. The fossil mammal fauna of South America. Pp. 247–309. In Keast, A., Erk, F. C., and Glass, B. (eds.), Evolution, Mammals and Southern Continents. State University of New York Press; Albany.Google Scholar
Pascual, R., and Ortiz Jaureguizar, E.. 1990. Evolving climates and mammal faunas in Cenozoic South America. Journal of Human Evolution 19:23–60.Google Scholar
Rich, P. V., and Rich, T. H.. 1983. The Central American dispersal route: biotic history and paleogeography. Pp. 12–34. In Janzen, D. H. (ed.), Costa Rican Natural History. University of Chicago Press; Chicago.Google Scholar
Sarmiento, G. 1976. Evolution of arid vegetation in tropical America. Pp. 65–99. In Goodall, D. W. (ed.), Evolution of Desert Biota. University of Texas Press; Austin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, C. A., and McDonald, H. G.. 1987. First record of giant Anteater (Xenarthra, Myrmecophagidae) in North America. Science 236:186–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, B. B., and Neff, J. L.. 1985. Plants, their pollinating bees, and the Great American Interchange. Pp. 427–452. In Stehli, F. G., and Webb, S. D. (eds.), The Great American Biotic Interchange. Plenum Press; New York.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1950. History of the fauna of Latin America. American Scientist 38:261–389.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1980. Splendid Isolation: The Curious History of South American Mammals. Yale University Press; New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Solbrig, O. 1976. The origin and floristic affinities of the South American temperate desert and semidesert regions. Pp. 7–49. In Goodall, D. W. (ed.), Evolution of Desert Biota. University of Texas Press; Austin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stehli, F. G., and Webb, S. D.. 1985. The Great American Biotic Interchange. Plenum Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanzolini, P. E. 1974. Ecological and geographical distribution of lizards in Pernambuco, northeastern Brazil (Sauria). Pap. Avulsos Zoologia, Sao Paulo 28:61–70.Google Scholar
Webb, S. D. 1976. Mammalian faunal dynamics of the Great American Interchange. Paleobiology 2:216–234.Google Scholar
Webb, S. D. 1978. A history of Savanna Vertebrates in the New World. Part II: South America and the Great Interchange. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 9:393–426.Google Scholar
Webb, S. D. 1984. Ten million years of mammal extinctions in North America. Pp. 189–210. In Martin, P. S., and Klein, R. G. (eds.), Quaternary Extinctions: a Prehistoric Revolution. University of Arizona Press; Tucson.Google Scholar
Webb, S. D. 1985. Late Cenozoic mammal dispersals between the Americas. Pp. 357–386. In Stehli, F. G., and Webb, S. D. (eds.), The Great American Biotic Interchange. Plenum Press; New York.Google Scholar
Webb, S. D., and Marshall, L. G.. 1982. Historical biogeography of Recent South American land mammals. Pp. 39–52. In Mares, M. A., and Genoways, H. H. (eds.), Mammalian Biology in South America. Special Publication Series Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology, Volume 6. University of Pittsburgh; Linesville, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Webb, S. D., and Perrigo, S. C.. 1984. Late Cenozoic vertebrates from Honduras and El Salvador. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 4:237–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitmore, T. C., and Prance, G. T. (eds.) 1987. Biogeography and Quaternary History in Tropical America. Oxford Monographs on Biogeography, 3. Clarendon Press; Oxford.Google Scholar
Woodburne, M. O. 1969. The cranial myology and osteology of Dycotyles tajacu, the collared peccary, and its bearing on classification. Memoirs of the Southern California Academy of Science 7:1–48.Google Scholar
Wright, D. B. 1989. Phylogenetic relationships of Catagonus wagneri: sister taxa from the Tertiary of North America. Pp. 281–308. In Redford, K. H. and Eisenberg, J. F. (eds.), Advances in Neotropical Mammalogy. Sandhill Crane Press; Gainesville, Florida.Google Scholar