Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:52:58.334Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Habitat breadth and geographic range predict diversity dynamics in marine Mesozoic bivalves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 April 2013

Sabine Nürnberg  and
Martin Aberhan
Sabine Nürnberg
Affiliation:
Museum für Naturkunde, Leibniz Institute for Research on Evolution and Biodiversity at the Humboldt University Berlin, Invalidenstraße 43, D-10115 Berlin, Germany. E-mail: sabine.nuernberg@mfn-berlin.de
Martin Aberhan
Affiliation:
Museum für Naturkunde, Leibniz Institute for Research on Evolution and Biodiversity at the Humboldt University Berlin, Invalidenstraße 43, D-10115 Berlin, Germany. E-mail: sabine.nuernberg@mfn-berlin.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Numerous environmental and intrinsic biotic factors have been sought to explain patterns in diversity and turnover. Using taxonomically vetted and sampling-standardized data sets of more than 50,000 taxonomic occurrences in the Paleobiology Database (PaleoDB) we tested whether habitat breadth predicts genus durations and diversity dynamics of marine Mesozoic bivalves, and whether this effect is independent of the well-known positive relationship between geographic range and longevity. We defined the habitat breadth of a genus as a function of its realized ranges in water depth, substrate type, and grain size of the substrate. Our analysis showed that mean values of extinction and origination rates are significantly higher for narrowly adapted genera compared to broadly adapted genera, with differences being evident in all analyzed stratigraphic intervals. Linear models showed that both geographic range and habitat breadth have an independent effect on genus durations and on diversity dynamics. These results reaffirm the role of geographic range and furthermore suggest that habitat breadth is an equally important key predictor of extinction risk and origination probability in Mesozoic marine bivalves. Habitat generalists, regardless of their geographic range, are generally less prone to extinction. Conversely, widely distributed genera that are more specialized may be more endangered than one would expect from their geographic range alone. Extinction rates tend to be higher for specialized genera in both background and mass extinctions, suggesting that wide habitat breadth universally buffers against extinction. The trajectories of origination rates through time differ from those of extinction rates. Whereas there is no pronounced ecological selectivity in origination in the Triassic and most of the Jurassic, Cretaceous origination rates are higher for specialized genera. This may best be explained by diversity-dependence. When diversity levels reach a critical point a further increase in diversity is achieved by elevated origination rates of more specialized forms.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , Summer 2013 , pp. 360 - 372
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

Aberhan, M., and Kiessling, W. 2012. Phanerozoic marine biodiversity: a fresh look at data, methods, patterns and processes. Pp. 3–22inTalent, J. A., ed. Earth and life: global biodiversity, extinction intervals and biogeographic perturbations through time. Springer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alroy, J. 1998. Equilibrial diversity dynamics in North American mammals. Pp. 232–287inMcKinney, M. L. and Drake, J. A., eds. Biodiversity dynamics: turnover of population, species, higher 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. 2008. Dynamics of origination and extinction in the marine fossil record. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105:11536–11542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alroy, J. 2010a. Fair sampling of taxonomic richness and unbiased estimation of origination and extinction rates. InAlroy, J. and Hunt, G., eds. Quantitative methods in paleobiology. Paleontological Society Papers 16:55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alroy, J. 2010b. Geographical, environmental and intrinsic biotic controls on Phanerozoic marine diversification. Palaeontology 53:1211–1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, B. M., Pisani, D., Miller, A. I., and Peterson, K. J. 2011. The environmental affinities of marine higher taxa and possible biases in their first appearances in the fossil record. Geology 39:971–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bretsky, P. W. 1973. Evolutionary patterns in the Paleozoic Bivalvia: documentation and some theoretical considerations. Geological Society of America Bulletin 84:2079–2096.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bring, J. 1994. How to standardize regression coefficients. American Statistician 48:209–213.Google Scholar
Brown, J. H. 1995. Macroecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Connolly, S. R., and Miller, A. I. 2002. Global Ordovician faunal transitions in the marine benthos: ultimate causes. Paleobiology 28:26–40.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldredge, N. 1979. Alternative approaches to evolutionary theory. Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History 13:7–19.Google Scholar
Erwin, D. H. 1998. The end and the beginning: recoveries from mass extinctions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:344–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erwin, D. H. 2001. Lessons from the past: biotic recoveries from mass extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98:5399–5403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernandez, M. H., and Vrba, E. S. 2005. Macroevolutionary processes and biomic specialization: testing the resource-use hypothesis. Evolutionary Ecology 19:199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 2000a. Origination and extinction components of taxonomic diversity: Paleozoic and post-Paleozoic dynamics. Paleobiology 26:578–605.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 2000b. Origination and extinction components of taxonomic diversity: general problems. Paleobiology 26:74–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 2003. Origination and extinction through the Phanerozoic: a new approach. Journal of Geology 111:125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 2006. Substrate affinity and diversity dynamics of Paleozoic marine animals. Paleobiology 32:345–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M., Crampton, J. S., Beu, A. G., and Cooper, R. A. 2008. On the bidirectional relationship between geographic range and taxonomic duration. Paleobiology 34:421–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futuyma, D. J., and Moreno, G. 1988. The evolution of ecological specialization. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19:207–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaston, K. J. 2003. The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gradstein, F. M., and Ogg, J. G. 2004. Geologic time scale 2004—why, how, and where next! Lethaia 37:175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harnik, P. G. 2011. Direct and indirect effects of biological factors on extinction risk in fossil bivalves. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108:13594–13599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harnik, P. G., Simpson, C., and Payne, J. L. 2012. Long-term differences in extinction risk among the seven forms of rarity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 279:4969–4976.Google ScholarPubMed
Heim, N. A., and Peters, S. E. 2011. Regional environmental breadth predicts geographic range and longevity in fossil marine genera. PLoS ONE 6 (5):e18946.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holland, S. M., and Zaffos, A. 2011. Niche conservatism along an onshore-offshore gradient. Paleobiology 37:270–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, R. D., and Keitt, T. H. 2005. Species' borders: a unifying theme in ecology. Oikos 108:3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, G., Roy, K., and Jablonski, D. 2005. Species-level heritability reaffirmed: a comment on “On the heritability of geographic range sizes.” American Naturalist 166:129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1980. Apparent versus real biotic effects of transgressions and regressions. Paleobiology 6:397–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1986a. Background and mass extinctions: the alternation of macroevolutionary regimes. Science 231:129–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jablonski, D. 1986b. Larval ecology and macroevolution in marine invertebrates. Bulletin of Marine Science 39:565–587.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 2005. Mass extinctions and macroevolution. Paleobiology 31:192–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jablonski, D. 2008. Extinction and the spatial dynamics of biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105:11528–11535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jablonski, D., and Hunt, G. 2006. Larval ecology, geographic range, and species survivorship in Cretaceous mollusks: organismic versus species-level explanations. American Naturalist 168:556–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jablonski, D., and Roy, K. 2003. Geographical range and speciation in fossil and living molluscs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 270:401–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kammer, T. W., Baumiller, T. K., and Ausich, W. I. 1997. Species longevity as a function of niche breadth: evidence from fossil crinoids. Geology 25:219–222.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 2005. Shell composition has no net impact on large-scale evolutionary patterns in mollusks. Science 307:914–917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiessling, W., and Aberhan, M. 2007a. Geographical distribution and extinction risk: lessons from Triassic–Jurassic marine benthic organisms. Journal of Biogeography 34:1473–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiessling, W., and Aberhan, M. 2007b. Environmental determinants of marine benthic biodiversity dynamics through Triassic–Jurassic time. Paleobiology 33:414–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiessling, W., Aberhan, M., Brenneis, B., and Wagner, P. J. 2007. Extinction trajectories of benthic organisms across the Triassic–Jurassic boundary. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 244:201–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, A. Z., and Jablonski, D. 2012. Long-term origination rates are reset only at mass extinctions. Geology 40:731–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, A. Z., Jablonski, D., Valentine, J. W., and Roy, K. 2009. Generation of Earth's first-order biodiversity pattern. Astrobiology 9:113–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Losos, J. B. 2008. Phylogenetic niche conservatism, phylogenetic signal and the relationship between phylogenetic relatedness and ecological similarity among species. Ecology Letters 11:995–1007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, M., and Gabriel, W. 1987. Environmental tolerance. American Naturalist 129:283–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, R., and Levins, R. 1964. Competition, habitat selection, and character displacement in a patchy environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 51:1207–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurer, B. A., and Nott, M. P. 1998. Geographic range fragmentation and the evolution of biological diversity. Pp. 31–50inMcKinney, M. L. and Drake, J. A., eds. Biodiversity dynamics: turnover of population, species, higher taxa, and communities. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I. 1997. A new look at age and area: the geographic and environmental expansion of genera during the Ordovician radiation. Paleobiology 23:410–419.CrossRefGoogle 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
Miller, A. I., and Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1988. Modeling bivalve diversification: the effect of interaction on a macroevolutionary system. Paleobiology 14:364–369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Development Core Team 2011. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-07-0; http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1978. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity I. Analysis of marine orders. Paleobiology 4:223–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1979. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity II. Early Phanerozoic families and multiple equilibria. Paleobiology 5:222–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 2002. A compendium of fossil marine animal genera. Bulletins of American Paleontology 363:1–560.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1953. The major features of evolution. Columbia University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentine, J. W., Jablonski, D., Kidwell, S., and Roy, K. 2006. Assessing the fidelity of the fossil record by using marine bivalves. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103:6599–6604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valentine, J. W., Jablonski, D., Krug, A. Z., and Roy, K. 2008. Incumbency, diversity, and latitudinal gradients. Paleobiology 34:169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and escalation: an ecological history of life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrba, E. S. 1987. Ecology in relation to speciation rates: some case histories of Miocene–Recent mammal clades. Evolutionary Ecology 1:283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrba, E. S. 1992. Mammals as a key to evolutionary theory. Journal of Mammalogy 73:1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, P. J., Aberhan, M., Hendy, A., and Kiessling, W. 2007. The effects of taxonomic standardization on occurrence-based estimates of diversity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 274:439–444.Google ScholarPubMed
Walker, T. D., and Valentine, J. W. 1984. Equilibrium models of evolutionary species diversity and the number of empty niches. American Naturalist 124:887–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar