Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-mvtnf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-08-13T15:40:51.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Geographic variation in turnover and recovery from the Late Ordovician mass extinction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Andrew Z. Krug  and
Mark E. Patzkowsky
Andrew Z. Krug
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16801. E-mail: akrug@uchicago.edu
Mark E. Patzkowsky
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16801. E-mail: akrug@uchicago.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding what drives global diversity requires knowledge of the processes that control diversity and turnover at a variety of geographic and temporal scales. This is of particular importance in the study of mass extinctions, which have disproportionate effects on the global ecosystem and have been shown to vary geographically in extinction magnitude and rate of recovery.

Here, we analyze regional diversity and turnover patterns for the paleocontinents of Laurentia, Baltica, and Avalonia spanning the Late Ordovician mass extinction and Early Silurian recovery. Using a database of genus occurrences for inarticulate and articulate brachiopods, bivalves, anthozoans, and trilobites, we show that sampling-standardized diversity trends differ for the three regions. Diversity rebounded to pre-extinction levels within 5 Myr in the paleocontinent of Laurentia, compared with 15 Myr or longer for Baltica and Avalonia. This increased rate of recovery in Laurentia was due to both lower Late Ordovician extinction rates and higher Early Silurian origination rates relative to the other continents. Using brachiopod data, we dissected the Rhuddanian recovery into genus origination and invasion. This analysis revealed that standing diversity in the Rhuddanian consisted of a higher proportion of invading taxa in Laurentia than in either Baltica or Avalonia. Removing invading genera from diversity counts caused Rhuddanian diversity to fall in Laurentia. However, Laurentian diversity still rebounded to pre-extinction levels within 10 Myr of the extinction event, indicating that genus origination rates were also higher in Laurentia than in either Baltica or Avalonia. Though brachiopod diversity in Laurentia was lower than in the higher-latitude continents prior to the extinction, increased immigration and genus origination rates made it the most diverse continent following the extinction. Higher rates of origination in Laurentia may be explained by its large size, paleogeographic location, and vast epicontinental seas. It is possible that the tropical position of Laurentia buffered it somewhat from the intense climatic fluctuations associated with the extinction event, reducing extinction intensities and allowing for a more rapid rebound in this region. Hypotheses explaining the increased levels of invasion into Laurentia remain largely untested and require further scrutiny. Nevertheless, the Late Ordovician mass extinction joins the Late Permian and end-Cretaceous as global extinction events displaying an underlying spatial complexity.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , Summer 2007 , pp. 435 - 454
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

∗

Present address: Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637

References

Literature Cited

Adrain, J. M. and Westrop, S. R. 2000. An empirical assessment of taxic paleobiology. Science 289: 110–112.Google Scholar
Adrain, J. M., Westrop, S. R., Chatterton, B. D E., and Ramsköld, L. 2000. Silurian trilobite alpha diversity and the end-Ordovician mass extinction. Paleobiology 26: 625–646.Google Scholar
Alroy, J. 2000. New methods for quantifying macroevolutionary patterns and processes. Paleobiology 26: 707–733.Google Scholar
Alroy, J., Marshall, B., 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., 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
Anstey, R. L. 1986. Bryozoan provinces and patterns of generic evolution and extinction in the Late Ordovician of North America. Lethaia 19: 33–51.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. and Peters, S. E. 2005. A revised macroevolutionary history for Ordovician-Early Silurian crinoids. Paleobiology 31: 538–551.Google Scholar
Bambach, R. K., Knoll, A. H., and Wang, S. C. 2004. Origination, extinction, and mass depletions of marine diversity. Paleobiology 30: 522–542.Google Scholar
Bassett, M. G., Bluck, B. J., Cave, R., Holland, C. H., and Lawson, J. D. 1992. Silurian. In Cope, J. C. W., Ingham, J. K., and Rawson, P. F., eds. Atlas of palaeogeography and lithofacies. Geological Society of London Memoir 13: 37–56.Google Scholar
Bevins, R. E., Bluck, B. J., Brenchley, P. J., Fortey, R. A., Hughes, C. P., Ingham, J. K., and Rushton, A. W A. 1992. Ordovician. In Cope, J. C. W., Ingham, J. K., and Rawson, P. F., eds. Atlas of paleogeography and lithofacies. Geological Society of London Memoir 13: 19–35.Google Scholar
Brenchley, P. J., Marshall, J. D., Carden, G. A F., Robertson, D. B R., Long, D. G F., Meidla, T., Hints, L., and Anderson, T. F. 1994. Bathymetric and isotopic evidence for a short-lived Late Ordovician glaciation in a greenhouse period. Geology 22: 295–298.Google Scholar
Brenchley, P. J., Carden, A. F., and Marshall, J. D. 1995. Environmental changes associated with the “first strike” of the Late Ordovician mass extinction. Modern Geology 20: 69–82.Google Scholar
Brenchley, P. J., Carden, G. A., Hints, L., Kaljo, D., Marshall, J. D., Martma, T., Meidla, T., and Nolvak, J. 2003. High-resolution stable isotope stratigraphy of Upper Ordovician sequences: constraints on the timing of bioevents and environmental changes associated with mass extinction and glaciation. Geological Society of America Bulletin 115: 89–104.Google Scholar
Cocks, L. R M. 2000. The Early Palaeozoic geography of Europe. Journal of the Geological Society, London 157: 1–10.Google Scholar
Cocks, L. R M. and Fortey, R. A. 1998. The Lower Palaeozoic margins of Baltica. GFF 120: 173–179.Google Scholar
Cocks, L. R M. and Torsvik, T. H. 2002. Earth geography from 500 to 400 million years ago: a faunal and palaeomagnetic review. Journal of the Geological Society, London 159: 631–644.Google Scholar
Cocks, L. R M., Holland, C. H., and Rickards, R. B. 1992. A revised correlation of Silurian rocks in the British Isles. Geological Society of London Special Report 21: 1–32.Google Scholar
Cocks, L. R M., McKerrow, W. S., and Verniers, J. 2003. The Silurian of Avalonia. Silurian lands and seas; paleogeography outside of Laurentia 493: 35–53.Google Scholar
Crame, J. A. 2002. Evolution of taxonomic diversity gradients in the marine realm: a comparison of Late Jurassic and Recent bivalve faunas. Paleobiology 28: 184–207.Google Scholar
Droser, M. L., Bottjer, D. J., Sheehan, P. M., and McGhee, G. R. Jr. 2000. Decoupling of taxonomic and ecologic severity of Phanerozoic marine mass extinctions. Geology 28: 675–678.Google Scholar
Elias, R. J. 1995. Origin and relationship of the Late Ordovician Red River-Stony Mountain and Richmond solitary rugose coral provinces in North America. pp. 439–442in Cooper, J. D., Droser, M. L., and Finney, S. C., eds. Ordovician odyssey: short papers for the seventh international symposium on the Ordovician System. Pacific Section, SEPM, Las Vegas.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 2000. Origination and extinction components of taxonomic diversity: general problems. In Wing, S. L. and Erwin, D. H., eds. Deep time: Paleobiology's perspective. Paleobiology 26: (Suppl. to No. 4). 74–102.Google Scholar
Gentry, A. H. 1988a. Changes in plant community diversity and floristic composition on environmental and geographical gradients. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Gardens 75: 1–34.Google Scholar
Gentry, A. H. 1988b. Tree species richness of upper Amazonian forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 85: 156–159.Google Scholar
Gradstein, F. M., Ogg, A. J., and Smith, A. G. eds. 2004. Geologic time scale 2004. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hallam, A. 1991. Why was there a delayed radiation after the end-Paleozoic extinctions? Historical Biology 5: 257–262.Google Scholar
Harper, D. A T. and Rong, J-Y. 1995. Patterns of change in the brachiopod faunas through the Ordovician-Silurian interface. Modern Geology 20: 83–100.Google Scholar
Harper, D. A T. and Williams, S. H. 2002. A relict Ordovician brachiopod fauna from the Parakidograptus acuminatus biozone (lower Silurian) of the English Lake District. Lethaia 35: 71–78.Google Scholar
Herrmann, A. D., Haupt, B. J., Patzkowsky, M. E., Seidov, D., and Slingerland, R. L. 2004. Response of Late Ordovician paleoceanography to changes in sea level, continental drift, and atmospheric pCO2: potential causes for long-term cooling and glaciation. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 210: 385–401.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1989. The biology of mass extinction: a palaeontological view. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 325: 357–368.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1998. Geographic variation in the molluscan recovery from the end-Cretaceous extinction. Science 279: 1327–1330.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 2004. The evolutionary role of mass extinctions: disaster, recovery and something in-between. pp. 151–177in Taylor, P. D., ed. Extinctions in the history of life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 2005. Mass extinctions and macroevolution. pp. 192–210in Vrba, E. S. and Eldredge, N., eds. Macroevolution: diversity, disparity, contingency. Paleobiology 31: (Suppl. to No. 2). 192–210.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D., Roy, K., and Valentine, J. W. 2006. Out of the tropics: evolutionary dynamics of the latitudinal diversity gradient. Science 314: 102–106.Google Scholar
Krug, A. Z. 2006. Taxic and phylogenetic approaches to understanding the Late Ordovician mass extinction and Early Silurian recovery. Ph.D. dissertation. Pennsylvania State University, University Park.Google Scholar
Krug, A. Z. and Patzkowsky, M. E. 2004. Rapid recovery from the Late Ordovician mass extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101: 17605–17610.Google Scholar
Labandeira, C. C., Johnson, K. R., and Wilf, P. 2002. Impact of the terminal Cretaceous event on plant-insect associations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 2061–2066.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I. 1997a. Comparative diversification dynamics among paleocontinents during the Ordovician Radiation. Geobios 20: 397–406.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I. 1997b. Dissecting global diversity patterns: examples from the Ordovician Radiation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 85–104.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I. and Mao, S. 1998. Scales of diversification and the Ordovician Radiation. pp. 288–310in McKinney, M. L. and Drake, J. A., eds. Biodiversity dynamics: turnover of populations, taxa, and communities. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I. and Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1988. Modeling bivalve diversification; the effect of interaction on a macroevolutionary system. Paleobiology 14: 364–369.Google Scholar
Musteikis, P. and Cocks, L. R M. 2004. Strophomenide and orthotetide Silurian brachiopods from the Baltic region, with particular reference to Lithuanian boreholes. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 49: 455–482.Google Scholar
Novack-Gottshall, P. M. and Miller, A. I. 2003. Comparative geographic and environmental diversity dynamics of gastropods and bivalves during the Ordovician Radiation. Paleobiology 29: 576–604.Google Scholar
Olszewski, T. D. 2004. A unified mathematical framework for the measurement of richness and evenness within and among multiple communities. Oikos 104: 377–387.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E. and Foote, M. 2001. Biodiversity in the Phanerozoic: a reinterpretation. Paleobiology 27: 583–601.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1975. Taxonomic diversity estimation using rarefaction. Paleobiology 1: 333–342.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. and Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1982. Mass extinctions in the marine fossil record. Science 215: 1501–1503.Google Scholar
Rees, P. A. 2002. Land-plant diversity and the end-Permian mass extinction. Geology 30: 827–830.Google Scholar
Rong, J-Y. and Harper, D. A T. 1988. A global synthesis of the latest Ordovician Hirnantian brachiopod faunas. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (Earth Sciences) 79: 383–402.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. L. 1992. Species diversity gradients: we know more and less than we thought. Journal of Mammalogy 73: 715–730.Google Scholar
Roy, K., Jablonski, D., and Valentine, J. W. 1994. Eastern Pacific molluscan provinces and latitudinal diversity gradient: no evidence for “Rapoport's rule.”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 91: 8871–8874.Google Scholar
Roy, K., Jablonski, D., Valentine, J. W., and Rosenberg, G. 1998. Marine latitudinal diversity gradients: Tests of causal hypotheses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95: 3699–3702.Google Scholar
Roy, K., Jablonski, D., and Valentine, J. W. 2003. Paleontological insights into the origin and maintenance of the present-day latitudinal diversity gradient. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 35: 84–85.Google Scholar
Scotese, C. R. and McKerrow, W. S. 1990. Revised world maps and introduction. In McKerrow, W. S. and Scotese, C. R., eds. Palaeozoic palaeogeography and biogeography. Geological Society of London Memoir 12: 1–24.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. 1984. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity. III. Post-Paleozoic families and mass extinctions. Paleobiology 10: 246–267.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1993. Ten years in the library: new data confirm paleontological patterns. Paleobiology 19: 43–51.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1995. The Ordovician radiations: Diversification and extinction shown by global genus-level taxonomic data. pp. 393–396in Cooper, J. D., Droser, M. L., and Finney, S. C., eds. Ordovician odyssey: short papers for the seventh international symposium on the Ordovician system. Pacific section, SEPM, Las Vegas.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1998. Rates of speciation in the fossil record. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 353: 315–326.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 2002. A compendium of fossil marine animal genera. Bulletins of American Paleontology 363.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. and Miller, A. I. 1985. Evolutionary faunas and the distribution of Paleozoic benthic communities. pp. 153–190in Valentine, J. W., ed. Phanerozoic diversity patterns: profiles in macroevolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Sheehan, P. M. 1975. Brachiopod synecology in a time of crisis (Late Ordovician-Early Silurian). Paleobiology 1: 205–212.Google Scholar
Sheehan, P. M. and Coorough, P. J. 1990. Brachiopod zoogeography across the Ordovician-Silurian extinction event. In McKerrow, W. S. and Scotese, C. R., eds. Palaeozoic palaeogeography and biogeography. Geological Society of London Memoir 12: 181–187.Google Scholar
Sheehan, P. M., Coorough, P. J., and Fastovsky, D. E. 1996. Biotic selectivity during the K/T and Late Ordovician extinction events. Geological Society of America Special Paper 307: 477–489.Google Scholar
Shen, S-Z. and Shi, G. R. 2002. Paleobiogeographical extinction patterns of Permian brachiopods in the Asian-western Pacific region. Paleobiology 28: 449–463.Google Scholar
Stehli, F. G., Douglas, R. G., and Newell, N. D. 1969. Generation and maintenance of gradients in taxonomic diversity. Science 164: 947–949.Google Scholar
Sweet, W. C. and Bergstrom, D. 1984. Conodont provinces and biofacies of the Late Ordovician. Geological Society of America Special Paper 196: 69–87.Google Scholar
Tipper, J. C. 1979. Rarefaction or rarefiction—the use and abuse of a method in paleoecology. Paleobiology 5: 423–434.Google Scholar
Tucker, R. D. and McKerrow, W. A. 1995. Early Paleozoic chronology: a review in light of new U-Pb zircon ages from Newfoundland and Britain. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 32: 368–379.Google Scholar
Tychsen, A. and Harper, D. A T. 2004. Ordovician-Silurian distribution of Orthida (Palaeozoic Brachiopoda) in the Greater Iapetus Ocean region. Palaeontologia Electronica 7/ 1: 1–15.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J., Aberhan, M., Hendy, A., and Kiessling, W. 2007. The effects of taxonomic standardization on sampling-standardized estimates of historical diversity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 274: 439–444.Google Scholar
Wallace, A. R. 1878. Tropical nature and other essays. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Watkins, R. 1994. Evolution of Silurian pentamerid communities in Wisconsin. Palaios 9: 488–499.Google Scholar
Webby, B. D. 1998. Steps toward a global standard for Ordovician stratigraphy. Newsletters on Stratigraphy 36/ 1: 1–33.Google Scholar
Wilf, P. and Johnson, K. R. 2004. Land plant extinction at the end of the Cretaceous: a quantitative analysis of the North Dakota megafloral record. Paleobiology 30: 347–368.Google Scholar