Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T07:20:30.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The geological completeness of paleontological sampling in North America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Shanan E. Peters  and
Noel A. Heim
Shanan E. Peters
Affiliation:
Department of Geoscience, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706. E-mail: [email protected]
Noel A. Heim
Affiliation:
Department of Geoscience, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A growing body of work has quantitatively linked many macroevolutionary patterns, including short- and long-term changes in biodiversity, rates of taxonomic extinction and origination, and patterns of extinction selectivity, to temporal variability in the sedimentary rock record. Here we establish a new framework for more rigorously testing alternative hypotheses for these and many other results by documenting the large-scale spatiotemporal intersection of the North American sedimentary rock and fossil records. To do this, we combined 30,387 fossil collections in the spatially explicit Paleobiology Database with a comprehensive macrostratigraphic database consisting of 18,815 sedimentary lithostratigraphic units compiled from 814 geographic regions distributed across the United States and Canada. The geological completeness of paleontological sampling, here defined as the proportion of the available sedimentary rock record that has been documented to have at least one fossil occurrence, irrespective of taxonomy or environment, is measured at four different levels of stratigraphic resolution: (1) lithostratigraphic rock units, (2) hiatus-bound rock packages, (3) regional stratigraphic columns, and (4) sediment coverage area (km2). Mean completeness estimates for 86 Phanerozoic time intervals (approximately stages; median duration 5.3 Myr) range from 0.18 per interval in the case of lithostratigraphic rock units to 0.23 per interval for stratigraphic columns and sediment coverage area. Completeness estimates at all four levels of stratigraphic resolution exhibit similar temporal variation, including a significant long-term increase during the Phanerozoic that is accentuated by an abrupt Campanian–Maastrichtian peak. This Late Cretaceous peak in completeness is approximately five times greater than the least complete Phanerozoic time intervals (Early Cambrian, Early Devonian, late Permian, and Early Cretaceous). Geological completeness in the Cenozoic is, on average, approximately 40% greater than in the Paleozoic. Temporal patterns of geological completeness do not appear to be controlled exclusively by variation in the frequency of subsurface rock units or an increase over time in the proportion of terrestrial rock, but instead may be general features of both the marine and terrestrial fossil records.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , Winter 2010 , pp. 61 - 79
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. 2000. New methods for quantifying macroevolutionary patterns and processes. Paleobiology 26:707–733.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alroy, J., Marshall, C. R., Bambach, R. K., Bezusko, K., Foote, M., Fürsich, F. T., Hansen, T. A., Holland, S. M., Ivany, L. C., Jablonski, D., Jacobs, D. K., Jones, D. C., Kosnik, M. A., Lidgard, S., Low, S., Miller, A. I., Novack-Gottshall, P. M., Olszewski, T. D., Patzkowsky, M. E., Raup, D. M., Sepkoski, J. J. Jr., Sommers, M. G., Wagner, P. J., and Webber, A. 2001. Effects of sampling standardization on estimates of Phanerozoic marine diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98:6261–6266.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, S. 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., Wager, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bambach, R. K. 1977. Species richness in marine habitats through the Phanerozoic. Paleobiology 3:152–167.Google Scholar
Bush, A. M., and Bambach, R. K. 2004. Did alpha diversity increase during the Phanerozoic? Lifting the veils of taphonomic, latitudinal, and environmental biases. Journal of Geology 112:625–642.Google Scholar
Childs, O. E. 1985. Correlation of stratigraphic units of North America; COSUNA. AAPG Bulletin 69:173–180.Google Scholar
Dockery, D. T. 2008. Stratigraphic units of Mississippi. Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Jackson. http://deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/page/Geology_surface.Google Scholar
Douglas, R. J. W. 1970. Geology and economic minerals of Canada. Economic Geology Report No. 1. Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Grohskopf, J. G. 1955. Subsurface geology of the Mississippi embayment of southeast Missouri. Missouri Geological Survey, 2d series, No. 37. Missouri Geological Survey, Rola.Google Scholar
Hendy, A. J. W. 2009. The influence of lithification on Cenozoic marine biodiversity. Paleobiology 35:51–62.Google Scholar
Kiessling, W. 2005. Habitat effects and sampling bias on Phanerozoic reef distribution. Facies 51:27–35.Google Scholar
Kiessling, W. 2008. Sampling-standardized expansion and collapse of reef building in the Phanerozoic. Fossil Record 11:3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalewski, M., Kiessling, W., Aberhan, M., Fürsich, F. T., Scarponi, D., Wood, S. L. B., and Hoffmeister, A. P. 2006. Ecological, taxonomic, and taphonomic components of the post-Paleozoic increase in sample-level species diversity of marine benthos. Paleobiology 32:533–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, A. Z., and Patzkowsky, M. E. 2007. Geographic variation in turnover and recovery from the Late Ordovician mass extinction. Paleobiology 33:435–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGowan, A. J., and Smith, A. B. 2008. Are global Phanerozoic marine diversity curves truly global? A study of the relationship between regional rock records and global Phanerozoic marine diversity. Paleobiology 34:80–103.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I. 2000. Conversations about Phanerozoic global diversity. In Erwin, D. H. and Wing, S. L., eds. Deep time: Paleobiology's perspective. Paleobiology 26(Suppl. to No. 4):53–73.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I., and Foote, M. 1996. Calibrating the Ordovician Radiation of marine life: implications for Phanerozoic diversity trends. Paleobiology 22:304–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newell, N. D. 1952. Periodicity in invertebrate paleontology. Journal of Paleontology 26:371–385.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E. 2005. Geologic constraints on the macroevolutionary history of marine animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 102:12326–12331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, S. E. 2006a. Genus extinction, origination, and the durations of sedimentary hiatuses. Paleobiology 32:387–407.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E. 2006b. Macrostratigraphy of North America. Journal of Geology 114:391–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, S. E. 2007. The problem with the Paleozoic. Paleobiology 33:165–181.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E. 2008a. Environmental determinants of extinction selectivity in the fossil record. Nature 454:626–629.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E. 2008b. Macrostratigraphy and its promise for paleobiology. In Kelley, P. H. and Bambach, R. K., eds. From evolution to geobiology: research questions driving paleontology at the start of a new century. Paleontological Society Papers 14:205–232.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E., and Ausich, W. I. 2008. A sampling-adjusted macroevolutionary history for Ordovician–Early Silurian crinoids. Paleobiology 34:104–116.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E., and Foote, M. 2001. Biodiversity in the Phanerozoic: a reinterpretation. Paleobiology 27:583–601.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, S. E., and Foote, M. 2002. Determinants of extinction in the fossil record. Nature 416:420–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pojeta, J. 1976. Silurian-Devonian pelecypods and Paleozoic stratigraphy of subsurface rocks in Florida and Georgia and related Silurian pelecypods from Bolivia and Turkey. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 879.Google Scholar
Powell, M. G. 2008. Timing and selectivity of the Late Mississippian mass extinction of brachiopod genera from the Central Appalachian Basin. Palaios 23:525–534.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2008. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna (http://www.R-project.org).Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1975. Taxonomic diversity estimation using rarefaction. Paleobiology 1:333–342.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1976. Species diversity in the Phanerozoic: an interpretation. Paleobiology 2:289–297.Google Scholar
Salvador, A. 1985. Chronostratigraphic and geochronometric scales in COSUNA stratigraphic correlation charts of the United States. AAPG Bulletin 69:181–189.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. 2002. A compendium of fossil marine animal genera. Bulletins of American Paleontology 363:1–560.Google Scholar
Sessa, J. A., Patzkowsky, M. E., and Bralower, T. A. 2009. The impact of lithification on the diversity, size distribution, and recovery dynamics of marine invertebrate assemblages. Geology 37:115–118.Google Scholar
Sheehan, P. M. 1977. Species diversity in the Phanerozoic: a reflection of labor by systematists? Paleobiology 3:325–329.Google Scholar
Sloss, L. L. 1963. Sequences in the cratonic interior of North America. Geological Society of America Bulletin 74:93–114.Google Scholar
Sloss, L. L. 1976. Areas and volumes of cratonic sediments, western North America and eastern Europe. Geology 4:272–276.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. B. 2001. Large-scale heterogeneity of the fossil record: implications for Phanerozoic biodiversity studies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 356:351–367.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B. 2007. Marine diversity through the Phanerozoic: problems and prospects. Journal of the Geological Society, London 164:731–745.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B., Gale, A. S., and Monks, N. E. A. 2001. Sea-level change and rock-record bias in the Cretaceous: a problem for extinction and biodiversity studies. Paleobiology 27:241–253.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. B., and McGowan, A. J. 2007. The shape of the Phanerozoic marine palaeodiversity curve: how much can be predicted from the sedimentary rock record of western Europe? Palaeontology 50:765–774.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B., and McGowan, A. J. 2008. Temporal patterns of barren intervals in the Phanerozoic. Paleobiology 34:155–161.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
Wall, P. D., Ivany, L. C., and Wilkinson, B. H. 2009. Revisiting Raup: exploring the influence of outcrop area on diversity in light of modern sample-standardization techniques. Paleobiology 35:146–167.Google Scholar
Wright, P., Cherns, L., and Hodges, P. 2003. Missing mollusks: field testing taphonomic loss in the Mesozoic through early large-scale aragonite dissolution. Geology 31:211–214.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Peters and Heim supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Download Peters and Heim supplementary material(File)
File 9 KB