Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T15:25:02.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of rarity and abundance distributions on measurements of local morphological disparity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Bradley Deline
Bradley Deline*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45221. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding the relationships between morphological disparity and environment, geography, and scale require examination at the local level. Even with disparity metrics that are inherently sample size independent, the nature of rare species and the segregation of common and rare species within morphospace can create substantial sampling issues. Eight well-sampled, Late Ordovician crinoid assemblages were examined for potential biases in the study of local disparity. Disparity is based on the ordination of discrete characters. The rare and common species within these assemblages contributed equally to disparity. In spite of this pattern, rare species in some localities occupy a different area of morphospace, causing disparity to vary greatly with sampling intensity. Morphological rarefaction based on the number of specimens shows that disparity weighted by abundance is constant past a sample size of approximately 30 individuals. This metric is dependent on the evenness within an assemblage as well as the abundance within subgroups in morphospace. Disparity weighted according to abundance gives a view of the functional disparity of an assemblage, which is more applicable in studies of local disparity, though unweighted disparity is still preferred in regional-scale studies and in investigations of morphospace filling through a clade's history.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , Spring 2009 , pp. 175 - 189
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

Adrain, J. M., Westrop, S. R., and Chatterton, D. E. 2000. Silurian trilobite alpha diversity and the end-Ordovician mass extinction. Paleobiology 26:625–646.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1980. A model for niche differentiation in Lower Mississippian crinoid communities. Journal of Paleontology 60:84–106.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., and Peters, S. E. 2005. A revised macroevolutionary history of Ordovician–Early Silurian crinoids. Paleobiology 31:538–551.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1993. Survivorship analysis of Paleozoic Crinoidea: effect of filter morphology on evolutionary rates. Paleobiology 19:304–321.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., Moffat, H. A., and Taylor, W. L. 1997. Echinoderm taphonomy, taphofacies, and lagerstätten. Pp. 147–190 in Maples, C. and Waters, J., eds. Geobiology of echinoderms. Paleontological Society Special Paper 3: 147–190. Paleontology Society, Pittsburgh, Penn. Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., Deline, B., and McLaughlin, P. I. 2008. Attachment, facies distribution, and life history strategies in crinoids from the Upper Ordovician of Kentucky. Pp. 23–55 in Ausich, W. and Webster, G., eds. Echinoderm paleobiology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1973. Crinoids from the Girardeau Limestone (Ordovician). Palaeontographica Americana 7:263–499.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C., and Veinus, J. 1974. Middle Ordovician crinoids from southwestern Virginia and Eastern Tennessee. Bulletins of American Paleontology 66:1–125.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C., and Veinus, J. 1978. Middle Ordovician crinoids from the Twin Cities area of Minnesota. Bulletins of American Paleontology 74:372–506.Google Scholar
Bulinski, K. E. 2007. Analysis of sample-level properties along a paleoenvironmental gradient: the behavior of evenness as a function of sample size. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 253:490–508.Google Scholar
Ciampaglio, C. N. 2002. Determining the role that ecological and developmental constraints play in controlling disparity: examples from crinoid and blastozoan fossil record. Evolution and Development 4:170–188 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ciampaglio, C. N., Kemp, M., and McShea, D. W. 2001. Detecting changes in morphospace occupation patterns in the fossil record: characterization and analysis of measures of disparity. Paleobiology 27:695–715.Google Scholar
Davis, E. B., and Pyenson, N. D. 2007. Diversity biases in terrestrial mammalian assemblages and quantifying the differences between museum collections and published accounts; a case study from the Miocene of Nevada. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 250:139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryden, I. L., and Mardia, K. V. 1998. Statistical shape analysis. Wiley, Chichester, U.K. Google Scholar
Eble, G. J. 2000. Contrasting evolutionary flexibility in sister groups: disparity and diversity in Mesozoic atelostomate echinoids. Paleobiology 26:56–79.Google Scholar
Erwin, D. H. 1993. The origin of metazoan development: a palaeobiological perspective. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 50:225–274.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1992. Rarefaction analysis of morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 18:1–16.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1993a. Contributions of individual taxa to overall morphological disparity. Paleobiology 19:403–419.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1993b. Discordance and concordance between morphologic and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 19:185–204.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1994. Morphological disparity in Ordovician-Devonian crinoids and the early saturation of morphological space. Paleobiology 20:320–344.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1997. Sampling, taxonomic description, and our evolving knowledge of morphological diversity. Paleobiology 23:181–206.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1999. Morphological diversity in the evolutionary radiation of Paleozoic and post-Paleozoic crinoids. Paleobiology Memoirs 25:1–115.Google Scholar
Gaston, K. J. 1994. Rarity. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Gower, J. C. 1971. A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27:857–874.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E. 1984. Echinodermata of the Middle Ordovician Lebanon Limestone, Central Tennessee. Bulletins of American Paleontology 86:1–100.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E., and Sprinkle, J. 1992. Rise of echinoderms in the Paleozoic evolutionary fauna: significance of paleoenvironmental controls. Geology 20:407–410.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E., and Sprinkle, J. 2007. The oldest known crinoids (Early Ordovician, Utah) and a new crinoid plate homology system. Bulletins of American Paleontology 364:1–43.Google Scholar
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T., and Ryan, P. D. 2001. PAST: palaeontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4:1–9.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., and Patzkowsky, M. E. 2007. Gradient ecology of a biotic invasion; biofacies of the type Cincinnatian Series (Upper Ordovician), Cincinnati, Ohio region, USA. Palaios 22:392–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurlbert, S. H. 1971. The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52:577–586.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. J., Roy, K., and Valentine, J. W. 2006. Out of the tropics; evolutionary dynamics of the latitudinal diversity gradient. Science 314:102–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jernvall, J., Hunter, J. P., and Fortelius, M. 1996. Molar tooth diversity, disparity, and Ecology in Cenozoic ungulate radiations. Science 274:1489–1492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kallmeyer, J. W., and Donovan, S. K. 1998. Tenuicrinus longibasalis, a new disparid in the subfamily Cincinnaticrinidae, Upper Ordovician, Edenian, North Central Kentucky. Northeastern Geology and Environmental Sciences 20:28–38.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W., Ausich, W. I., and Parrish, J. M. 1987. Aerosol suspension feeding and current velocities: distributional controls for late Osagean crinoids. Paleobiology 13:379–395.Google Scholar
Kesling, R. V. 1972. A new species of Porocrinus from the Middle Ordovician Kimmswick Limestone of Missouri. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan 24:1–7.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, M., and Lofsvold, D. 1992. Measuring selection and constraint in the evolution of growth. Evolution 46:954–971.Google Scholar
Liddell, W. D., and Brett, C. E. 1982. Skeletal overgrowths among epizoans from the Silurian (Wenlockian) Waldron Shale. Paleobiology 8:67–78.Google Scholar
Lofgren, A. S., Plotnick, R. E., and Wagner, P. J. 2003. Morphological diversity of Carboniferous arthropods and insights on disparity patterns through the Phanerozoic. Paleobiology 29:349–368.Google Scholar
Lupia, R. 1999. Discordant morphological disparity and taxonomic diversity during the Cretaceous angiosperm radiation: North American pollen record. Paleobiology 25:1–28.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L., Miller, A. I., Holland, S. M., and Dattilo, B. F. 2002. Crinoid distribution and feeding morphology through a depositional sequence: Kope and Fairview Formations, Upper Ordovician, Cincinnati Arch Region. Journal of Paleontology 76:725–732.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neige, . 2003. Spatial patterns of disparity and diversity of the Recent cuttlefishes (Cephalopoda) across the Old World. Journal of Biogeography 30:1125–1137.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2006. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Sanders, H. L. 1968. Marine benthic diversity: a comparative study. American Naturalist 102:243–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springer, F. 1911. On a Trenton echinoderm fauna. Canada Department of Mines Memoir 15-P:1–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprinkle, J. 1982. Echinoderm faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions 1:1–369.Google Scholar
Sundberg, F. A. 1996. Morphological diversification of Ptychopariida (Trilobita) from the Marjumiid biomere (Middle and Upper Cambrian). Paleobiology 22:49–65.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W., and Jablonski, D. 2003. Morphological and developmental macroevolution: a paleontological perspective. International Journal of Developmental Biology 47:517–522.Google Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B. 1994. Ecomorphological analysis of fossil vertebrates and their paleocommunities. Pp. 140–166 in Wainwright, P. C. and Reilly, S. M., eds. Ecological morphology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Villier, L., and Eble, G. J. 2004. Assessing the robustness of disparity estimates: the impact of morphometric scheme, temporal scale, and taxonomic level in spatangoid echinoids. Paleobiology 30:652–665.Google Scholar
Zelditch, M. L., Swiderski, H. D., Sheets, H. D., and Fink, W. L. 2004. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. Elsevier/Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar