Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:34:59.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A sampling-adjusted macroevolutionary history for Ordovician-Early Silurian crinoids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Shanan E. Peters  and
William I. Ausich
Shanan E. Peters
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706. E-mail: peters@geology.wisc.edu
William I. Ausich
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, 125 South Oval, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210. E-mail: ausich.1@osu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Temporal variation in sampling intensity and geologically controlled rates of fossil preservation distort macroevolutionary patterns in the fossil record. Here, we use a comprehensive, list-based compilation of taxonomically and stratigraphically vetted global crinoid genus occurrences to evaluate and correct for the effects of variable and incomplete sampling from the Ordovician through Early Silurian. After standardizing the number of occurrences or the number of biofacies used to estimate the stratigraphic ranges of genera and after adjusting rates of turnover to account for the incomplete preservation of true extinction and origination pulses, we find support for several important revisions to the macroevolutionary history of crinoids. First, in contrast to the uncorrected data, sample-standardized genus richness does not appear to increase by more than 20% after an abrupt Middle Ordovician (Harnagian) diversification. Second, the only significant short-term change in genus richness following the Harnagian increase is a ≥24% decline from the Rawtheyan to the Hirnantian. Third, volatility in rates of genus extinction is increased after adjusting for preservation and there remain significant peaks of extinction in the Rawtheyan, which marks the end-Ordovician extinction, and in the middle of the Early Silurian. Finally, significant increases in origination rates occur in the Early Silurian. These results reaffirm the importance of the end-Ordovician extinction for crinoids, but they also highlight the comparatively poorly sampled Early Silurian as a time of turnover among crinoids.

Crinoid genus extinction rates are positively correlated with area-weighted rates of sedimentary package truncation, suggesting that extinction may have been controlled by physical environmental changes, such as the contraction of unique epicontinental sea habitats. The lack of a correlation between genus origination and sedimentary package initiation reinforces this hypothesis and suggests that other factors, such as evolutionary innovations and biotic interactions during the Ordovician radiation, may have been more important in controlling the diversification of crinoids.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , Winter 2008 , pp. 104 - 116
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

Adrain, J. M., and Westrop, S. R. 2000. An empirical assessment of taxic paleobiology. Science 289:110–112.Google Scholar
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. 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., Sepkoski, J. J. Jr., Sommers, M. G., Wagner, P. J., and Webber, A. 2001. Effects of sampling standardization on estimates of Phanerozoic marine diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98:6261–6266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 2001. Echinoderm taphonomy. Pp. 171–227in Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J. M., eds. Echinoderm studies, Vol. 6. Balkema, Rotterdam.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
Ausich, W. I., Kammer, T. W., and Baumiller, T. K. 1994. Demise of the Middle Paleozoic crinoid fauna. Paleobiology 20:345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1993. Survivorship analysis of Paleozoic Crinoidea: effect of filter morphology on evolutionary rates. Paleobiology 19:304–321.Google Scholar
Bergström, S. M., Finney, S. C., Xu, C., Goldman, D., and Leslie, S. A. 2006. Three new Ordovician global stage names. Lethaia 39:287–288.Google Scholar
Blyth Cain, J. D. 1968. Aspects of the depositional environments and palaeoecology of crinoidal limestones. Scottish Journal of Geology 4:191–208.Google Scholar
Bush, A. M., Markey, M. J., and Marshall, C. R. 2004. Removing bias from diversity curves: the effects of spatially organized biodiversity on sampling-standardization. Paleobiology 30:666–686.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherns, L., and Wright, V. P. 2000. Missing mollusks as evidence of large-scale, early skeletal aragonite dissolution in a Silurian sea. Geology 28:791–794.Google Scholar
Crampton, J. S., Beu, A. G., Cooper, R. A., Jones, C. M., Marshall, B., and Maxwell, P. A. 2003. Estimating the rock volume bias in paleobiodiversity studies. Science 301:358–360.Google Scholar
Crampton, J. S., Foote, M., Beu, A. G., Cooper, R. A., Matcham, I., Jones, C. M., Maxwell, P. A., and Marshall, B. A. 2006. Second-order sequence stratigraphic control on the quality of the fossil record at an active margin: New Zealand Eocene to Recent shelf molluscs. Palaios 21:86–105.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1988. The British Ordovician crinoid fauna. Lethaia 21:424.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1989. The significance of the British Ordovician crinoid fauna. Modern Geology 13:243–255.Google Scholar
Droser, M. L., and Finnegan, S. 2003. The Ordovician radiation: a follow-up to the Cambrian explosion? Integrative and Comparative Biology 43:178–184.Google Scholar
Eckert, J. D. 1988. Late Ordovician extinction of North America and British crinoids. Lethaia 21:147–167.Google Scholar
Eckert, J. D., and Brett, C. E. 2001. Early Silurian (Llandovery) crinoids from the Lower Clinton Group, western New York State. Bulletins of American Paleontology 360:1–88.Google Scholar
Finney, S. 2005. Global series and stages for the Ordovician System: a progress report. Geologica Acta 3:309–316.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 2003. Origination and extinction through the Phanerozoic: a new approach. Journal of Geology 111:125–148.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 2005. Pulsed origination and extinction in the marine realm. Paleobiology 31:6–20.Google Scholar
Foote, M., and Raup, D. M. 1996. Fossil preservation and the stratigraphic ranges of taxa. Paleobiology 22:121–140.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A., Harper, D. A. T., Ingham, J. K., Owen, A. W., Parks, M. A., Rushton, A. W. A., and Woodcock, N. H. 2000. A revised correlation of Ordovician rocks in the British Isles. Geological Society of London Special Report 24:1–83.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E. 1984. Echinoderms of the Middle Ordovician Lebanon Limestone, Central Tennessee. Bulletins of American Paleontology 86.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E., and Sprinkle, J. 1992. Rise of echinoderms in the Paleozoic evolutionary fauna: significance of paleoenvironmental controls. Geology 20:407–410.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M. 1995. The stratigraphic distribution of fossils. Paleobiology 21:92–109.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M. 1996. Recognizing artifactually generated coordinated stasis: implications of numerical models and strategies for field tests. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 127:147–156.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. 1998. Sequence stratigraphy and relative sea-level history of the Middle and Upper Ordovician of the Nashville Dome, Tennessee. Journal of Sedimentary Research 68:684–699.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., and Patzkowsky, M. E. 2002. Stratigraphic variation in the timing of first and last occurrences. Palaios 17:134–146.Google Scholar
Jeffery, C. H. 2001. Heart urchins at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary: a tale of two clades. Paleobiology 27:140–158.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. G. 1974. Extinction of perched faunas. Geology 2:479–482.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M., and Holland, S. M. 2002. The quality of the fossil record: implications for evolutionary analyses. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:561–588.Google Scholar
Kiessling, W. 2005. Habitat effects and sampling bias on Phanerozoic reef distribution. Facies 51:27–35.Google Scholar
Kiessling, W. 2006. Towards an unbiased estimate of fluctuations in reef abundance and volume during the Phanerozoic. Biogeosciences 3:15–27.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1971. Post-mortem disintegration of Recent crinoids and ophiuroids under natural conditions. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 3:645–646.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
Newell, N. D. 1949. Periodicity in invertebrate evolution. Geological Society of America Bulletin 60:1911–1912.Google Scholar
Newell, N. D. 1952. Periodicity in invertebrate paleontology. Journal of Paleontology 26:371–385.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
Paul, C. R. C. 1982. The adequacy of the fossil record. In Joysey, K. A. and Friday, A. E., eds. Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction. Systematics Association Special Volume 21:75–117. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E. 2005. Geologic constraints on the macroevolutionary history of marine animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 102:12326–12331.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E. 2006a. Genus extinction, origination, and the durations of sedimentary hiatuses. Paleobiology 32:387–407.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E. 2006b. Macrostratigraphy of North America. Journal of Geology 114:391–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, S. E., and Foote, M. 2001. Biodiversity in the Phanerozoic: a reinterpretation. Paleobiology 27:583–601.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E., and Foote, M. 2002. Determinants of extinction in the fossil record. Nature 416:420–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Development Core Team. 2006. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna (http://www.R-project.org).Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1976. Species diversity in the Phanerozoic: an interpretation. Paleobiology 2:289–297.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1979. Biases in the fossil record of species and genera. Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History 13:85–91.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M., and Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1982. Mass extinctions in the marine fossil record. Science 215:1501–1503.Google Scholar
Schopf, T. J. M. 1974. Permo-Triassic extinctions: relation to seafloor spreading. Journal of Geology 82:129–143.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. 2002. A compendium of fossil marine animal genera. Bulletins of American Paleontology 363.Google Scholar
Sheehan, P. M. 1977. Species diversity in the Phanerozoic: a reflection of labor by systematists? Paleobiology 3:325–328.Google Scholar
Sheehan, P. M. 2001. The Late Ordovician mass extinction. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 29:331–364.Google Scholar
Signor, P. W., and Lipps, J. H. 1982. Sampling bias, gradual extinction patterns and catastrophes in the fossil record. Geological Society of America Special Paper 190:291–296.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. S. 1974. Permo-Triassic extinctions: effects of area on biotic equilibrium. Journal of Geology 82:267–274.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., and Jeffery, C. H. 1998. Selectivity of extinction among sea urchins at the end of the Cretaceous Period. Nature 392:69–71.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
Sprinkle, J., and Guensburg, T. E. 1995. Origin of echinoderms in the Paleozoic Evolutionary Fauna: the role of substrates. Palaios 10:437–453.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W., and Moores, E. M. 1970. Plate-tectonic regulation of faunal diversity and sea level: a model. Nature 228:657–659.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. 2003. Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids, coronates, and hemistreptocrinoids, 1758–1999. Geological Society of America Special Paper 363.Google Scholar
Wright, P., Cherns, L., and Hodges, P. 2003. Missing mollusks: field testing taphonomic loss in the Mesozoic through early large-scale aragonite dissolution. Geology 31:211–214.Google Scholar