Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T07:20:59.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A quantitative null model of additive diversity partitioning: examining the response of beta diversity to extinction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Karen M. Layou*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Paleobiological diversity is often expressed as α (within-sample), β (among-sample), and γ (total) diversities. However, when studying the effects of extinction on diversity patterns, only variations in α and γ diversities are typically addressed. A null model that examines changes in β diversity as a function of percent extinction is presented here.

The model examines diversity in the context of a hierarchical sampling strategy that allows for the additive partitioning of γ diversity into mean α and β diversities at varying scales. Here, the sampling hierarchy has four levels: samples, beds, facies, and region; thus, there are four levels of α diversity (α1, α2, α3, α4) and three levels of β diversity (β1, β2, and β3). Taxa are randomly assigned to samples within the hierarchy according to probability of occurrence, and initial mean α and β values are calculated. A regional extinction is imposed, and the hierarchy is resampled from the remaining extant taxa. Post-extinction mean α and β values are then calculated.

Both non-selective and selective extinctions with respect to taxon abundance yield decreases in α, β, and γ diversities. Non-selective extinction with respect to taxon abundance shows little effect on diversity partitioning except at the highest extinction magnitudes (above 75% extinction), where the contribution of α1 to total γ increases at the expense of β3, with β1 and β2 varying little with increasing extinction magnitude. The pre-extinction contribution of α1 to total diversity increases with increased probabilities of taxon occurrence and the number of shared taxa between facies. Both β1 and β2 contribute equally to total diversity at low occurrence probabilities, but β2 is negligible at high probabilities, because individual samples preserve all the taxonomic variation present within a facies. Selective extinction with respect to rare taxa indicates a constant increase in α1 and constant decrease in β3 with increasing extinction magnitudes, whereas selective extinction with respect to abundant taxa yields the opposite pattern of an initial decrease in α1 and increase in β3. Both β1 and β2 remain constant with increasing extinction for both cases of selectivity. By comparing diversity partitioning before and after an extinction event, it may be possible to determine whether the extinction was selective with respect to taxon abundances, and if so, whether that selectivity was against rare or abundant taxa.

Field data were collected across a Late Ordovician regional extinction in the Nashville Dome of Tennessee, with sampling hierarchy similar to that of the model. These data agree with the abundant-selective model, showing declines in α, β, and γ diversities, and a decrease in α1 and increase in β3, which suggests this extinction may have targeted abundant taxa.

Type
Articles
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

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 112:625642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crist, T. O., Veech, J. A., Gering, J. C., and Summerville, K. S. 2003. Partitioning species diversity across landscapes and regions: a hierarchical analysis of, β, and γ diversity. American Naturalist 162:734743.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gering, J. C., and Crist, T. O. 2002. The alpha-beta-regional relationship: providing new insights into local-regional patterns of species richness and scale dependence of diversity components. Ecology Letters 5:433444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gering, J. C., Crist, T. O., and Veech, J. A. 2003. Additive partitioning of species diversity across multiple scales: implications for regional conservation of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 17:488499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotelli, N. J. 2001. Research frontiers in null model analysis. Global Ecology and Biogeography 10:337343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotelli, N. J., and Graves, G. R. 1996. Null models in ecology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., and Patzkowsky, M. E. 1997. Distal orogenic effects on peripheral bulge sedimentation: Middle and Upper Ordovician of the Nashville Dome. Journal of Sedimentary Research 67:250263.Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. 1997. A unified theory of biogeography and relative species abundance and its application to tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Coral Reefs 16(Suppl.):S9S21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koleff, P., Gaston, K. J., and Lennon, J. L. 2003. Measuring beta diversity for presence-absence data. Journal of Animal Ecology 72:367382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lande, R. 1996. Statistics and partitioning of species diversity, and similarity among multiple communities. Oikos 76:513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okuda, T., Noda, T., Yamamoto, T., Ito, N., and Nakaoka, M. 2004. Latitudinal gradient of species diversity: multi-scale variability in rocky intertidal sessile assemblages along the North-western Pacific coast. Population Ecology 46:159170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. E., and Holland, S. M. 1993. Biotic response to a Middle Ordovician paleoceanographic event in eastern North America. Geology 21:619622.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. E., and Holland, S. M. 1996. Extinction, invasion, and sequence stratigraphy; patterns of faunal change in the Middle and Upper Ordovician of the Eastern United States. In Witzke, B. J., ed. Paleozoic sequence stratigraphy; views from the North American Craton. Geological Society of America Special Publication 306:131142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. E., and Holland, S. M. 1997. Patterns of turnover in Middle and Upper Ordovician brachiopods of the eastern United States: a test of coordinated stasis. Paleobiology 23:420443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plotnick, R. E., and Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 2001. A multiplicative multifractal model for originations and extinctions. Paleobiology 27:126139.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, M. G., and Kowalewski, M. 2002. Increase in evenness and sampled alpha diversity through the Phanerozoic: comparison of early Paleozoic and Cenozoic marine fossil assemblages. Geology 30:331334.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, K. 2001. Analyzing temporal trends in regional diversity: a biogeographic perspective. Paleobiology 27:631645.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1988. Alpha, beta, or gamma: where does all the diversity go? Paleobiology 14:221234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solé, R. V., Montoya, J. M., and Erwin, D. H. 2002. Recovery after mass extinction: evolutionary assembly in large-scale biosphere dynamics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 357:697707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valentine, J. W., and Walker, T. D. 1987. Extinctions in a model taxonomic hierarchy. Paleobiology 13:193207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veech, J. A., Summerville, K. S., Crist, T. O., and Gering, J. C. 2002. The additive partitioning of species diversity: recent revival of an old idea. Oikos 99:39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, H. H., Wildi, O., and Ewald, K. C. 2000. Additive partitioning of plant species diversity in an agricultural mosaic landscape. Landscape Ecology 15:219227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, R. H. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecological Monographs 30:279338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, R. H. 1972. Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21:213251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, R. J., Willis, K. J., and Field, R. 2001. Scale and species richness: towards a general hierarchical theory of species diversity. Journal of Biogeography 28:453470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar