Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T09:54:41.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A geographic test of species selection using planktonic foraminifera during the Cretaceous/Paleogene mass extinction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Matthew G. Powell  and
Johnryan MacGregor
Matthew G. Powell
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Juniata College, 1700 Moore Street, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania 16652. E-mail: powell@juniata.edu
Johnryan MacGregor
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Juniata College, 1700 Moore Street, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania 16652
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Species selection has received a great deal of theoretical attention but it has rarely been empirically tested. It is important to determine the level of selection that operated during a particular extinction event because it can help distinguish between traits that were actually responsible for extinction and those that were merely correlated with it. Here, we present a test that can help distinguish between organismal and species-level selection, which we demonstrate using the high-resolution fossil record of planktonic foraminifera species recorded in deep-sea sediment cores. Our test examines the fate of survivors and victims during the Cretaceous/Paleogene (K/Pg) mass extinction within single geographic regions, where all individuals experience the same selection pressures. Selection at the organismal level implies that individual members of surviving species are more fit than those of victimized species, and therefore should be more likely to survive in affected areas; conversely, selection at the species level implies individuals will suffer equally within an affected area. We find that survivors of the mass extinction suffered very high extirpation rates in cores where the overall extinction rate was high, indicating that individual members of the surviving species were generally no more fit than individual members of extinct species. Rather, these species were able to survive because they possessed advantageous species-level traits, such as larger geographic ranges and greater abundances than victimized species. This geographic pattern of extirpation suggests that selection operated at the species, rather than organismal, level during the K/Pg mass extinction of planktonic foraminifera.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , Summer 2011 , pp. 426 - 437
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

Bambach, R. K. 2006. Phanerozoic biodiversity mass extinctions. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 34:127–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, A., and Boyajian, G. 1996. Changing biologic selectivity of extinction in the Foraminifera over the past 150 m.y. Geology 24:607–610.Google Scholar
Berggren, W. A. 1969. Rates of evolution in some Cenozoic planktonic foraminifera. Micropaleontology 15:351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzas, M. A., and Culver, S. J. 1989. Biogeographic and evolutionary patterns of continental margin benthic foraminifera. Paleobiology 15:11–19.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B. D. E., and Speyer, S. E. 1989. Larval ecology, life history strategies, and patterns of extinction and survivorship among Ordovician trilobites. Paleobiology 15:118–132.Google Scholar
Cifelli, R. 1969. Radiation of Cenozoic planktonic foraminifera. Systematic Zoology 18:154–168.Google Scholar
Clapham, M. E., Shen, S., and Bottjer, D. J. 2009. The double mass extinction revisited: reassessing the severity, selectivity, and causes of the end-Guadalupian biotic crisis (Late Permian). Paleobiology 35:32–50.Google Scholar
Coccioni, R., and Luciani, V. 2006. Guembelitria irregularis bloom at the K-T boundary: Morphological abnormalities induced by impact-related extreme environmental stress? Pp. 179–196 in Cockell, C., Koeberl, C., and Gilmour, I., eds. Biological Processes Associated with Impact Events. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finarelli, J. A. 2008. Hierarchy and the reconstruction of evolutionary trends: evidence for constraints on the evolution of body size in terrestrial caniform carnivorans (Mammalia). Paleobiology 34:553–562.Google Scholar
Finnegan, S., Payne, J. L., and Wang, S. C. 2008. The Red Queen revisited: reevaluating the age selectivity of Phanerozoic marine genus extinctions. Paleobiology 34:318–341.Google Scholar
Foote, M., and Miller, A. 2007. Principles of paleontology, 3d ed. W. H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 2002. The structure of evolutionary theory. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hansen, T. A. 1980. Influence of larval dispersal and geographic distribution on species longevity. Paleobiology 6:193–207.Google Scholar
Huber, B. T. 1996. Evidence for planktonic foraminifer reworking versus survivorship across the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary at high latitudes. In Ryder, G., Fastovsky, D. E., and Gartner, S., eds. The Cretaceous-Tertiary event and other catastrophes in Earth history. Geological Society of America Special Paper 307:319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, B. T., MacLeod, K. G., and Norris, R. D. 2002. Abrupt extinction and subsequent reworking of Cretaceous planktonic foraminifera across the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary: evidence from the subtropical North Atlantic. In Koeberl, C. and MacLeod, K. G., eds. Catastrophic events and mass extinctions: impacts and beyond. Geological Society of America Special Paper 356:277–289.Google 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.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1986. Causes and consequences of mass extinctions. Pp. 183–229 in Elliott, D. K., ed. Dynamics of extinctions. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1987. Heritability at the species level: analysis of geographic ranges of Cretaceous mollusks. Science 238:360–363.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 2000. Micro- and macroevolution: scale and hierarchy in evolutionary biology and paleobiology. Paleobiology 26:15–52.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 2005. Mass extinctions and macroevolution. Paleobiology 31:192–210.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 2008. Species selection: theory and data. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39:501–524.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. G., Budd, A. F., and Stemann, T. A. 1995. Extinction selectivity and ecology of Neogene Caribbean reef corals. Paleobiology 21:52–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiho, K., and Lamolda, M. A. 1999. Catastrophic extinction of planktonic foraminifera at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary evidence by stable isotopes and foraminiferal abundance at Caravaca, Spain. Geology 27:355–358.Google Scholar
Keller, G. 1989. Extended periods of extinctions across the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary in planktonic foraminifera of continental-shelf sections: implications for impact and volcanism theories. Geological Society of America Bulletin 101:1408–1419 Google Scholar
Keller, G., Adatte, T., Stinnesbeck, W., Luciani, V., Karoui-Yaakoub, N., and Zaghbib-Turki, D. 2002. Paleoecology of the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction in planktonic foraminifera. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 178:257–297.Google Scholar
Kiessling, W., and Aberhan, M. 2007. Geographical distribution and extinction risk: lessons from Triassic–Jurassic marine benthic organisms. Journal of Biogeography 34:1473–1489.Google Scholar
Knoll, A. H., Bambach, R. K., Canfield, D. E., and Grotzinger, J. P. 1996. Comparative earth history and Late Permian mass extinction. Science 273:452–457.Google Scholar
Knoll, A. H., Bambach, R. K., Payne, J. L., Pruss, S., and Fischer, W. 2007. Paleophysiology and end-Permian mass extinction. Earth and Planetary Science letters 256:295–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinton, J. S. 1996. Trophic group and the end-Cretaceous extinction: did deposit feeders have it made in the shade? Paleobiology 22:104–112.Google Scholar
Lipps, J. H. 1970. Plankton evolution. Evolution 24:1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lockwood, R. W. 2004. The K/T event and infaunality: morphological and ecological patterns of extinction and recovery in veneroid bivalves. Paleobiology 30:507–521.Google Scholar
MacLeod, K. G., Whitney, D. L., Huber, B. T., and Koeberl, C. 2007. Impact and extinction in remarkably complete K/T boundary sections from Demerara Rise, tropical western North America. Geological Society of America Bulletin 119:101–115.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. R. 1994. Confidence intervals on stratigraphic ranges: partial relaxation of the assumption of randomly distribution fossil horizons. Paleobiology 20:459–469.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1997. Extinction vulnerability and selectivity: combining ecological and paleontological views. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:495–516.Google Scholar
Mesozoic Planktonic Foraminiferal Working Group (Huber, B. T., Coordinator). 2006. Mesozoic Planktonic Foraminiferal Taxonomic Dictionary, www.chronos.org.Google Scholar
Molina, E., Alegret, L., Arenillas, I., and Arz, J. A. 2004. The Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary at the Agost section revisited: paleoenvironmental reconstruction and mass extinction pattern. Journal of Iberian Geology 31:135–148.Google Scholar
Norris, R. D. 1992. Extinction selectivity and ecology in planktonic foraminifera. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 95:1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, R. K., and Liu, C. 1993. Controversies on the placement of Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary and the K/P mass extinction of planktonic foraminifera. Palaios 8:127–139.Google Scholar
Payne, J. L., and Finnegan, S. 2007. The effect of geographic range on extinction risk during background and mass extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104:10506–10511.Google Scholar
Pigliucci, M. 2009. An extended synthesis for evolutionary biology. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1168:218–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powell, M. 2007. Geographic range and genus longevity of late Paleozoic brachiopods. Paleobiology 33:530–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivadeneira, M. M., and Marquet, P. A. 2007. Selective extinction of late Neogene bivalves on the temperate Pacific coast of South America. Paleobiology 33:455–468.Google Scholar
Roy, K., Hunt, G., Jablonski, D., Krug, A. Z., and Valentine, J. W. 2009. A macroevolutionary perspective on species range limits. Proceedings of the Royal Society on London B 276:1485–1493.Google Scholar
Russell, G. J., Brooks, T. M., McKinney, M. M., and Anderson, C. G. 1997. Present and future taxonomic selectivity in bird and mammal extinctions. Conservation Biology 12:1365–1376.Google Scholar
Signor, P. W., and Lipps, J. H. 1982. Sampling bias, gradual extinction patterns and catastrophes in the fossil record. In Silver, L. T. and Schultz, P. H., eds. Geological implications of impacts of large asteroids and comets on the earth. Geological Society of America Special Paper 190:291–296.Google Scholar
Simpson, C., and Harnik, P. G. 2009. Assessing the role of abundance in marine bivalve extinction over the post-Paleozoic. Paleobiology 35:631–647.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, J. T., and Roy, K. 2006. Selectivity during background extinction: Plio-Pleistocene scallops in California. Paleobiology 32:408–416.Google Scholar
Spencer-Cervato, C. 1999. The Cenozoic deep sea micro-fossil record: explorations of the DSDP/ODP sample set using the Neptune database. Palaeontologia Electronica 2.2. 13A.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1975. A theory of evolution above the species level. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 72:646–650.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1986. Population size, extinction, and speciation: the fission effect in Neogene Bivalvia. Paleobiology 12:89–110.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M., Wetmore, K. L., and Kennett, J. P. 1988. Macroevolutionary differences between two major clades of Neogene planktonic foraminifera. Paleobiology 14:235–249.Google Scholar
Thuiller, W., Lavorel, S., and Araújo, M. B. 2005. Niche properties and geographical extent as predictors of species sensitivity to climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography 14:347–357.Google Scholar
Wang, S. C., and Bush, A. M. 2008. Adjusting global extinction rates to account for taxonomic susceptibility. Paleobiology 34:434–455.Google Scholar