Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T03:14:18.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Confidence limits on fossil ranges that account for facies changes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Steven M. Holland
Steven M. Holland*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602–2501. E-mail: stratum@gly.uga.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A drawback to most existing methods of calculating confidence limits on fossil ranges is their assumption that the probability of collecting a taxon through a stratigraphic section is constant. Marshall (1997) described an approach that would circumvent this problem, but it requires knowing the probability of collection as a function of stratigraphic position. Multivariate paleoecological methods, such as detrended correspondence analysis (DCA), offer a means of estimating these probabilities. DCA axis 1 sample scores can be used to quantify facies change through a stratigraphic section, and to calculate the probability of collection of a taxon relative to DCA axis 1. From these two, the probability of collection of each taxon can be estimated for each horizon in the measured section. This approach is applied here to the Upper Ordovician Kope Formation of the Cincinnati, Ohio, area to distinguish between disappearances of taxa that are driven by facies change and taxon rarity and those that represent true regional extinction. This new approach to confidence limits could also be applied to test the synchroneity of extinction or origination at large-scale turnover events, such as mass extinctions and the turnover pulses that bound episodes of faunal stasis.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , Fall 2003 , pp. 468 - 479
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

Anstey, R. L., Rabbio, S. F., and Tuckey, M. E. 1987. Bryozoan bathymetric gradients within a Late Ordovician epeiric sea. Paleoceanography 2:165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, U., and McGhee, G. R. 1985. Evolution in marginal epicontinental basins: the role of phylogenetic and ecologic factors (ammonite replacements in the German Lower and Middle Jurassic). Pp. 164–220in Bayer, U. and Seilacher, A., eds. Sedimentary and evolutionary cycles. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J. 1981. Principles of benthic marine paleoecology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E. 1995. Sequence stratigraphy, biostratigraphy, and taphonomy in shallow marine environments. Palaios 10:597–616.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., and Algeo, T. J. 1999. Event beds and small-scale cycles in Edenian to lower Maysvillian strata (Upper Ordovician) of northern Kentucky: identification, origin, and temporal constraints. Pp. 65–92in Algeo, T. J. and Brett, C. E., eds. Sequence, cycle and event stratigraphy of Upper Ordovician and Silurian strata of the Cincinnati Arch region. 1999 Field Conference of the Great Lakes Section of SEPM, Cincinnati, Ohio.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., Ivany, L. C., and Schopf, K. M. 1996. Coordinated stasis: an overview. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 127:1–20.Google Scholar
Cisne, J. L., and Rabe, B. D. 1978. Coenocorrelation: gradient analysis of fossil communities and its applications to stratigraphy. Lethaia 11:341–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, H. B., Pope, J. K., and Frey, R. C. 1981. Lithostratigraphy, cyclic sedimentation, and paleoecology of the Cincinnatian Series in southwestern Ohio and southeastern Indiana. Pp. 73–86in Roberts, T. G., ed. GSA Cincinnati 1981 field trip guidebooks, Vol. 1. Stratigraphy, sedimentology. American Geological Institute, Falls Church, Va.Google Scholar
Hill, M. O., and Gauch, H. G. Jr. 1980. Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42:47–58.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M. 1993. Sequence stratigraphy of a carbonate-clastic ramp: the Cincinnatian Series (Upper Ordovician) in its type area. Geological Society of America Bulletin 105:306–322.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M. 1995a. Depositional sequences, facies control, and the distribution of fossils. Pp. 1–23in Haq, B. U., ed. Sequence stratigraphy and depositional response to eustatic, tectonic and climatic forcing. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M. 1995b. The stratigraphic distribution of fossils. Paleobiology 21:92–109.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M. 1997. Using time/environment analysis to recognize faunal events in the Upper Ordovician of the Cincinnati Arch. Pp. 309–334in Brett, C. E. and Baird, G. C., eds. Paleontological events: stratigraphic, ecological and evolutionary implications. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M. 2000. The quality of the fossil record: a sequence stratigraphic perspective. In Erwin, D. H. and Wing, S. L., eds. Deep time: Paleobiology's perspective. Paleobiology 26(Suppl. to No. 4):148–168.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., and Patzkowsky, M. E. 2002. Stratigraphic variation in the timing of first and last occurrences. Palaios 17:134–146.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, S. M., Miller, A. I., Dattilo, B. F., Meyer, D. L., and Diekmeyer, S. L. 1997. Cycle anatomy and variability in the storm-dominated type Cincinnatian (Upper Ordovician): coming to grips with cycle delineation and genesis. Journal of Geology 105:135–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holland, S. M., Meyer, D. L., and Miller, A. I. 2000. High-resolution correlation in apparently monotonous rocks: Upper Ordovician Kope Formation, Cincinnati Arch. Palaios 15:73–80.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., Miller, A. I., Meyer, D. L., and Dattilo, B. F. 2001. The detection and importance of subtle biofacies within a single lithofacies: the Upper Ordovician Kope Formation of the Cincinnati, Ohio region. Palaios 16:205–217.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, B. P., Edwards, R. J., and Lloyd, J. M. 1999. A foraminiferal-based transfer function: implications for sea-level studies. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 29:117–129.Google Scholar
Jennette, D. C., and Pryor, W. A. 1993. Cyclic alternation of proximal and distal storm facies: Kope and Fairview Formations (Upper Ordovician), Ohio and Kentucky. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 63:183–203.Google Scholar
Jongman, R. H. G., ter Braak, C. J. F., and Van Tongeren, O. F. R., eds. 1995. Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, C. R. 1990. Confidence intervals on stratigraphic ranges. Paleobiology 16:1–10.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. R. 1997. Confidence intervals on stratigraphic ranges with nonrandom distributions of fossil horizons. Paleobiology 23:165–173.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. R. 1998. Determining stratigraphic ranges. Pp. 23–53in Donovan, S. K. and Paul, C. R. C., eds. The adequacy of the fossil record. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. R., and Ward, P. D. 1996. Sudden and gradual molluscan extinctions in the latest Cretaceous of western European Tethys. Science 274:1360–1363.Google Scholar
McCune, B., and Mefford, M. J. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data, Version 4.0. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, Ore.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1986a. Biostratigraphic gap analysis. Geology 14:36–38.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1986b. How biostratigraphic gaps form. Journal of Geology 94:875–884.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L., Miller, A. I., Holland, S. M., and Dattilo, B. F. 2002. Crinoid distributions 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
Miller, A. I. 1988. Spatial resolution in subfossil molluscan remains: Implications for paleobiological analyses. Paleobiology 14:91–103.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I., and Holland, S. M. 2001. The use of faunal gradient analysis for high resolution correlation in the type Cincinnatian. Journal of Geology 9:603–613.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I., Holland, S. M., Dattilo, B. F., and Meyer, D. L. 1997. Stratigraphic resolution and perceptions of cycle architecture: variations in meter-scale cyclicity in the type Cincinnatian Series. Journal of Geology 105:737–743.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I., Holland, S. M., Meyer, D. L., and Dattilo, B. F. 2001. The use of faunal gradient analysis for intraregional correlation and assessment of changes in sea-floor topography in the type Cincinnatian. Journal of Geology 109:603–613.Google Scholar
Minchin, P. R. 1987. An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecological ordination. Vegetatio 69:89–107.Google Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. E. 1995. Gradient analysis of Middle Ordovician brachiopod biofacies: Biostratigraphic, biogeographic, and macroevolutionary implications. Palaios 10:154–179.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1982. The adequacy of the fossil record. Pp. 75–117in Joysey, K. A. and Friday, A. E., eds. Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Scott, G. 1940. Paleoecological factors controlling the distribution and mode of life of Cretaceous ammonoids in the Texas area. Journal of Paleontology 14:299–323.Google Scholar
Shaw, F. C., and Lespérance, P. J. 1994. North American biogeography and taxonomy of Cryptolithus (Trilobita, Ordovician). Journal of Paleontology 68:808–823.Google Scholar
Solow, A. R. 1996. Tests and confidence intervals for a common upper endpoint in fossil taxa. Paleobiology 22:406–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springer, D. A., and Bambach, R. K. 1985. Gradient versus cluster analysis of fossil assemblages: a comparison from the Ordovician of southwestern Virginia. Lethaia 18:181–198.Google Scholar
Springer, M. S. 1990. The effect of random range truncations on patterns of evolution in the fossil record. Paleobiology 16:512–520.Google Scholar
Strauss, D., and Sadler, P. M. 1989. Classical confidence intervals and Bayesian probability estimates for ends of local taxon ranges. Mathematical Geology 21:411–427.Google Scholar
ter Braak, C. J. F., and Looman, C. W. M. 1986. Weighted averaging, logistic regression and the Gaussian response model. Vegetatio 65:3–11.Google Scholar
Tobin, R. C., and Pryor, W. A. 1981. Sedimentological interpretation of an Upper Ordovician carbonate-shale vertical sequence in northern Kentucky. Pp. 49–57in Roberts, T. G., ed. GSA Cincinnati 1981 field trip guidebooks, Vol. I. Stratigraphy, sedimentology. American Geological Institute, Falls Church, Va.Google Scholar
Walker, K. R., and Laporte, L. F. 1970. Congruent fossil communities from Ordovician and Devonian carbonates of New York. Journal of Paleontology 44:928–944.Google Scholar