No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Removing bias from diversity curves: the effects of spatially organized biodiversity on sampling-standardization
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 April 2016
Abstract
The study of ancient biodiversity trends is confounded by biases of the paleontologic record, but standardizing sampling intensity among time intervals can ameliorate sample-size biases. We show that several existing standardization methods are intimately linked to the spatial components of diversity (alpha, the within-assemblage diversity; and beta, the between-assemblage diversity). The subsampling curves generated by these methods can also be generated by various manipulations of alpha and beta, so that one can predict the responses of the methods to specific changes in alpha or beta diversity. The responses of the subsampling methods to changes in total diversity depend on whether measured alpha or measured beta diversity changed. Like biodiversity, sampling consists of a within-sample component (the number of specimens collected per locality) and a between-sample component (the number of localities). Several subsampling methods (rarefaction, OW, O2W) attempt to standardize sampling effort at both levels, although they use no direct information on the former. Instead, they alter sampling intensity at the beta level to compensate for perceived biases at the alpha level. We show that alpha and beta diversity are not so easily interchangeable and that the accuracy of the subsampling methods depends critically on the spatial characteristics of diversity in a data set. Current methods are calibrated only to the abundance-richness characteristics of individual collections, but the amount of beta diversity and the degree to which the rareness/commonness of taxa correlates among samples also strongly affect the accuracy of the subsampling methods. We offer new calibrations based on empirical data sets that account for these factors. Our findings do not support Alroy et al.'s (2001) tentative claim that the taxonomic radiation in the Cenozoic marine realm is an artifact of biased sampling intensity. Their diversity curves that most strongly contradict Sepkoski's traditional Phanerozoic curve are based on a method that overcorrects for local sample-size biases, whereas the remaining curves are either consistent with the traditional curve or ambiguous because of the limited temporal and taxonomic coverage of the analysis. Other factors may bias Sepkoski's curve, but there is insufficient evidence to claim that variations in sampling intensity are the major determinant of its long-term trajectory.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Paleontological Society
References
Literature Cited
Allison, P. A., and Briggs, D. E. G. 1993. Paleolatitudinal sampling bias, Phanerozoic species diversity, and the end-Permian extinction. Geology 21:65–68.Google Scholar
Alroy, J. 1996. Constant extinction, constrained diversification, and uncoordinated stasis in North American mammals. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 127:285–311.Google Scholar
Alroy, J. 1998. Equilibrial diversity dynamic in North American mammals. Pp. 232–287in McKinney, M. L. and Drake, J. A., eds. Biodiversity dynamics: turnover of populations, taxa, and communities. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
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., Roy, K., Sepkoski, J. J. Jr., Sommers, M. G., Wagner, P. J., and Webber, A. 2001. Effects of sampling standardization on estimates of Phanerozoic marine diversification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98:6261–6266.Google Scholar
Bambach, R. K. 1977. Species richness in marine benthic habitats through the Phanerozoic. Paleobiology 3:152–167.Google Scholar
Bambach, R. K. 1983. Ecospace utilization and guilds in marine communities through the Phanerozoic. Pp. 719–746in Tevesz, M. J. S. and McCall, P. M., eds. Biotic interactions in recent and fossil benthic communities. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Bambach, R. K. 1985. Classes and adaptive variety: the ecology of diversification in marine faunas through the Phanerozoic. Pp. 191–253in Valentine, J. W., ed. Phanerozoic diversity patterns: profiles in macroevolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Bambach, R. K., and Gilinsky, N. L. 1988. Artifacts in the apparent timing of macroevolutionary “events.” Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 20:A104.Google Scholar
Bennington, J. B., and Rutherford, S. D. 1999. Precision and reliability in paleocommunity comparisons based on cluster-confidence intervals: how to get more statistical bang for your sampling buck. Palaios 14:506–515.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J. 1995. Diversification and extinction in the history of life. Science 268:52–58.Google Scholar
Bush, A. M., and Bambach, R. K.In press. Did alpha diversity increase during the Phanerozoic? Lifting the veils of taphonomic, latitudinal, and environmental biases in the study of paleocommunities. Journal of Geology.Google Scholar
Bush, A. M., Powell, M. G., Arnold, W. S., Bert, T. M., and Daley, G. M. 2002. Time-averaging, evolution, and morphologic variation. Paleobiology 28:9–25.Google Scholar
Cherns, L., and Wright, V. P. 2000. Missing molluscs as evidence of large-scale, early skeletal aragonite dissolution in a Silurian sea. Geology 28:791–794.Google Scholar
Daley, G. M. 2002. Creating a paleoecological framework for evolutionary and paleoecological studies: an example from the Fort Thompson Formation (Pleistocene) of Florida. Palaios 17:419–434.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 2000. Origination and extinction components of taxonomic diversity: general problems. In Erwin, D. H. and Wing, S. L., eds. Deep time: Paleobiology's perspective. Paleobiology 26(Suppl. to No. 4):74–102.Google Scholar
Fürsich, F. T. 1977. Corallian (Upper Jurassic) marine benthic associations from England and Normandy. Palaeontology 20:337–385. 58 pages of tables deposited with the British National Library.Google Scholar
Fürsich, F. T. 1984. Benthic associations from the Boreal Upper Jurassic (Milne Land; East Greenland). Gr⊘nlands Geologiske Unders⊘gelse Bulletin 149.Google Scholar
Fürsich, F. T., and Werner, W. 1986. Benthic associations and their environmental significance in the Lusitanian Basin (Upper Jurassic, Portugal). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 172:271–329.Google Scholar
Gotelli, N. J., and Colwell, R. K. 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 4:379–391.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M. 1995. The stratigraphic distribution of fossils. Paleobiology 21:92–109.Google Scholar
Hurlbert, S. H. 1971. The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 56:577–586.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D., Roy, K., Valentine, J. W., Price, R. M., and Anderson, P. S. 2003. The impact of the Pull of the Recent on the history of marine diversity. Science 300:1133–1135.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C., and Johnson, K. G. 2001. Measuring past biodiversity. Science 293:2401–2404.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 2001. Preservation of species abundance in marine death assemblages. Science 294:1091–1094.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M., and Flessa, K. W. 1996. Improving with age: the fossil record of lingulide brachiopods and the nature of taphonomic megabiases. Geology 24:977–980.Google Scholar
Lande, R. 1996. Statistics and the partitioning of species diversity, and similarity among multiple communities. Oikos 76:5–13.Google Scholar
Markwick, P. J. 1998. Crocodilian diversity in space and time: the role of climate in paleoecology and its implication for understanding K/T extinctions. Paleobiology 24:470–497.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1996. The biology of fossil abundance. Revista Española de Paleontología 11:125–133.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.Google Scholar
Müller, A. H. 1961. Grossabläufe der Stammesgeschichte. Gustav Fischer, Jena, Germany.Google Scholar
Newell, N. D. 1967. Revolutions in the history of life. In Albritton, C. C. Jr., ed. Uniformity and simplicity: a symposium on the principle of the uniformity of nature. Geological Society of America Special Paper 89:63–91.Google Scholar
Olszewski, T. D., and Patzkowsky, M. E. 2001. Evaluating taxonomic turnover: Pennsylvanian-Permian brachiopods and bivalves of the North American Midcontinent. Paleobiology 27:646–668.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E. 2004. Evenness of Cambrian-Ordovician benthic marine communities in North America. Paleobiology 30:325–346.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E., and Foote, M. 2001. Biodiversity in the Phanerozoic: a reinterpretation. Paleobiology 27:583–601.Google Scholar
Porter, S. M. 2004. Closing the phosphatization window: testing for the influence of taphonomic megabias on the pattern of small shelly fossil decline. Palaios 19:178–183.Google 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 30:331–334.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1976a. Species diversity in the Phanerozoic: a tabulation. Paleobiology 2:279–288.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1976b. Species diversity in the Phanerozoic: an interpretation. Paleobiology 2:289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schubert, J. K., Kidder, D. L., and Erwin, D. H. 1997. Silica-re-placed fossils through the Phanerozoic. Geology 25:1031–1034.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. 1988. Alpha, beta, or gamma: where does all the diversity go? Paleobiology 14:221–234.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1997. Biodiversity: past, present, and future. [Presidential address.]Journal of Paleontology 71:533–539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr., Bambach, R. K., Raup, D. M., and Valentine, J. W. 1981. Phanerozoic marine diversity and the fossil record. Nature 293:435–437.Google Scholar
Sheehan, P. M. 1977. Species diversity in the Phanerozoic: a reflection of labor by systematists? Paleobiology 3:325–329.Google Scholar
Shinozaki, K. 1963. Notes on the species-area curve. Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Ecological Society of Japan, p. 5.Google 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., 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.Google Scholar
Smith, E. P., Stewert, P. M., Cairns, J. Jr. 1985. Similarities between rarefaction methods. Hydrobiologia 120:167–170.Google Scholar
Tipper, J. C. 1979. Rarefaction and rarefiction: the use and abuse of a method in paleoecology. Paleobiology 5:423–434.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W. 1969. Patterns of taxonomic and ecological structure of the shelf benthos during Phanerozoic time. Palaeontology 12:684–709.Google Scholar
Westrop, S. R., and Adrain, J. M. 2001. Sampling at the species level: impact of spatial biases on diversity gradients. Geology 29:903–906.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R. H. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecological Monographs 30:279–338.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. V., and Shmida, A. 1984. Measuring beta diversity with presence-absence data. Journal of Ecology 72:1055–1064.Google Scholar
Wright, P., Cherns, L., and Hodges, P. 2003. Missing molluscs: field testing taphonomic loss in the Mesozoic through early large-scale aragonite dissolution. Geology 31:211–214.Google Scholar