Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:07:30.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The roles of mass extinction and biotic interaction in large-scale replacements: a reexamination using the fossil record of stromboidean gastropods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Kaustuv Roy
Kaustuv Roy*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, 0116, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, California 92093-0116
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The macroevolutionary processes underlying large-scale biotic replacements are still poorly understood. Opinion remains divided regarding the roles of mass extinction, biotic interaction, and environmental perturbations in these replacement events. Previous attempts to test replacement hypotheses have largely focused on taxonomic diversity patterns. Taxonomic data alone, however, provide little insight about ecological interactions and hence other approaches are needed to understand mechanics of biotic replacements. Here I propose a conceptual model of replacement based on predation-mediated biotic interactions, and attempt a test using analysis of the Cenozoic replacement of the gastropod family Aporrhaidae by a closely related group, the Strombidae.

Taxonomic, morphologic, and geographic data analyzed in this study all suggest a replacement of aporrhaids by strombids following the end-Cretaceous mass extinction. While most of the taxonomic replacement was associated with a mass extinction, some replacement also occurred during background times and was mediated by higher origination rates in strombids rather than by higher extinction rates in aporrhaids. Morphologically, the replacement was largely confined to the portion of the morphospace unaffected by the end-Cretaceous extinction. At a global scale, the geographic overlap between the two groups declined through the Cenozoic, reflecting increasing restriction of aporrhaids to colder, temperate waters while strombids flourished in the tropics. However, at a finer geographic scale a more mosaic pattern of replacement is evident and coincides with Eocene and Oligocene climatic fluctuations.

The results of this study suggest that mass extinction, long-term biotic interaction, and environmental change can all play significant roles in biotic replacements. Since the relative importance of each factor would vary from one event to another, an understanding of the general nature of large-scale biotic replacements requires a knowledge of the relative intensities of each of these processes.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , Summer 1996 , pp. 436 - 452
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

Abbott, R. T. 1960. The genus Strombus in the Indo-Pacific: Indo-Pacific Mollusca 1:33–146.Google Scholar
Allmon, W. D. 1994. Taxic evolutionary paleoecology and the ecological context of macroevolutionary change. Evolutionary Ecology 8:95–112.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J. 1987. Progress and competition in macroevolution. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 62:305–338.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J. 1991. Extinction, biotic replacements, and clade interactions. pp. 89–102in Dudley, E. C., ed. The unity of evolutionary biology. Dioscorides, Portland, Ore.Google Scholar
Berg, C. J. Jr. 1974. A comparative ethological study of strombid gastropods. Behaviour 51:274–322.Google Scholar
Berg, C. J. Jr. 1975. Behavior and ecology of conch (Superfamily Strombacea) in a deep subtidal algal plain. Bulletin of Marine Science 25:307–317.Google Scholar
Clench, W. J., and Abbott, R. T. 1941. The genus Strombus in the western Atlantic. Johnsonia 1:1–15.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. 1985. Unfinished synthesis: biological hierarchies and modern evolutionary thought. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. 1986. Information, economics and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 17:351–369.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. 1989. Macroevolutionary dynamics. Species, niches and adaptive peaks. McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. 1992. Where the twain meet: causal intersections between the genealogical and ecological realms. pp. 1–14, in Eldredge, N., ed. Systematics, ecology, and the biodiversity crisis. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Erwin, D. H. 1990. Carboniferous-Triassic gastropod diversity patterns and the Permo-Triassic mass extinction. Paleobiology 16:187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1990. Nearest-neighbor analysis of trilobite morphospace. Systematic Zoology 39:371–382.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1991a. Morphological and taxonomic diversity in a clade's history: the blastoid record and stochastic simulations. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan 28:101–140.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1991b. Analysis of morphological data. pp. 59–86In Gilinsky, N. L. and Signor, P. W., eds. Analytical paleobiology. Short Courses in Paleontology, Number 4. Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tenn.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1992. Rarefaction analysis of morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 18:1–16.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1993. Discordance and concordance between morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 19:185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geary, D. H., and Allmon, W. D. 1990. Biological and physical contributions to the accumulation of strombid gastropods in a Pliocene shell bed. Palaios 5:259–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1989. Wonderful life: the Burgess Shale and the nature of history. W. W. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1991. The disparity of the Burgess Shale arthropod fauna and the limits of cladistic analysis: why we must strive to quantify morphospace. Paleobiology 17:411–423.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., and Calloway, C. B. 1980. Clams and brachiopods—ships that pass in the night. Paleobiology 6:383–396.Google Scholar
Haefelfinger, R. 1968. Lokomotion von Aporrhais pespelecani. Revue Suisse de Zoologie 75:569–574.Google Scholar
Hallam, A. 1990. Biotic and abiotic factors in the evolution of early Mesozoic marine molluscs. pp. 249–269in Ross and Allmon 1990.Google Scholar
Hay, M. E. 1994. Species as “noise” in community ecology: do seaweeds block our view of the kelp forest? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:414–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holt, R. D. 1977. Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities. Theoretical Population Biology 12:197–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holt, R. D., and Lawton, J. H. 1994. The ecological consequences of shared natural enemies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 25:495–520.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., and Bottjer, D. J. 1990. Onshore-offshore trends in marine invertebrate evolution. pp. 21–75in Ross and Allmon 1990.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C. 1988. Does ecology matter? Paleobiology 14:307–312.Google Scholar
Jeffries, M. J., and Lawton, J. H. 1984. Enemy free space and the structure of ecological communities. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 23:269–86.Google Scholar
Jung, P. 1974. A revision of the family Seraphsidae (Gastropoda: Strombacea). Palaeontographica Americana 8:5–69.Google Scholar
Koch, C. F. 1987. Prediction of sample size effects on the measured temporal and geographic distribution pattern of species. Paleobiology 13:100–107.Google Scholar
Koch, C. F., and Sohl, N. F. 1983. Preservational effects in paleoecological studies: Cretaceous mollusc examples. Paleobiology 9:26–34.Google Scholar
Krause, D. W. 1986. Competitive exclusion and taxonomic displacement in the fossil record: the case of rodents and multituberculates in North America. pp. 95–117In Flanagan, K. M. and Lillegraven, J. A., eds. Vertebrates, phylogeny and philosophy. Contributions to Geology, Special Paper 3. The University of Wyoming, Laramie.Google Scholar
Kronenberg, G. C. 1991. The Recent species of the family Aporrhaidae. Vita Marina 41:73–84.Google Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. 1964. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: a numerical method. Psychometrika 29:115–129.Google Scholar
Lidgard, S., McKinney, F. K., and Taylor, P. D. 1993. Competition, clade replacement, and a history of cyclostome and cheilostome bryozoan diversity. Paleobiology 19:352–371.Google Scholar
Maas, M. C., Krause, D. W., and Strait, S. G. 1988. The decline and extinction of Plesiadapiformes (Mammalia: ?Primates) in North America: displacement or replacement? Paleobiology 14:410–431.Google Scholar
Massot, M., Clobert, J., Lecomte, J., and Barbault, R. 1994. Incumbent advantage in common lizards and their colonizing ability. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:431–440.Google Scholar
Masters, J. C., and Rayner, R. J. 1993. Competition and macroevolution: the ghost of competition yet to come? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 49:87–98.Google Scholar
Merz, R. A. 1979. A study of the behavioral and biomechanical defenses of Strombus alatus, the Florida fighting conch. Master's thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville.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
Percharde, P. L. 1968. Notes on distribution and underwater observations of the molluscan genus Strombus as found in the waters of Trinidad and Tobago. Caribbean Journal of Science 8:47–53.Google Scholar
Percharde, P. L. 1970. Further underwater observations on the molluscan genus Strombus as found in the waters of Trinidad and Tobago. Caribbean Journal of Science 10:73–81.Google Scholar
Perron, F. E. 1978a. Seasonal burrowing behavior and ecology of Aporrhais occidentalis (Gastropoda: Strombacea). Biological Bulletin 154:463–471.Google Scholar
Perron, F. E. 1978b. Locomotion and shell-righting behaviour in adult and juvenile Aporrhais occidentalis (Gastropoda: Strombacea). Animal Behaviour 26:1023–1028.Google Scholar
Pimm, S. L. 1991. The balance of nature? University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1979. Biases in the fossil record of species and genera. Carnegie Museum of Natural History Bulletin 13:85–91.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1991. The future of analytical paleobiology. pp. 207–216In Gilinsky, N. L. and Signor, P. W., eds. Analytical paleobiology. Short Courses in Paleontology, Number 4. Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tenn.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M., Gould, S. J., Schopf, T. J. M., and Simberloff, D. S. 1973. Stochastic models of phylogeny and the evolution of diversity. Journal of Geology 81:525–542.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. L., and McCord, R. D. 1991. Incumbent replacement: evidence for long term evolutionary progress. Paleobiology 17:202–213.Google Scholar
Ross, R. M., and Allmon, W. D. 1990. Causes of evolution: a paleontological perspective. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Roughgarden, J. 1984. Competition and theory in community ecology. pp. 3–21in Salt, G. W., ed. Ecology and evolutionary biology: a roundtable of research. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Roy, K. 1994. Effects of the Mesozoic Marine Revolution on the taxonomic, morphologic and biogeographic evolution of a group: aporrhaid gastropods during the Mesozoic. Paleobiology 20:274–296.Google Scholar
Runnegar, B. 1987. Rates and modes of evolution in the Mollusca. pp. 39–60In Campbell, K. S. W. and Day, M. F., eds. Rates of evolution. Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Savazzi, E. 1991. Constructional morphology of strombid gastropods. Lethaia 24:311–331.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1984. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity. III. Post-Paleozoic families and mass extinction. Paleobiology 10:246–267.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1987. Reply to Patterson and Smith. Nature 330:252.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1994. The double wedge revisited: how should competitive displacement look? Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 26:A175.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr., and Kendrick, D. C. 1993. Numerical experiments with model monophyletic and paraphyletic taxa. Paleobiology 19:168–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, A. B. 1994. Systematics and the fossil record. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B., and Patterson, C. 1988. The influence of taxonomic method on the perception of patterns of evolution. Evolutionary Biology 23:127–216.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1979. Macroevolution: pattern and process. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M., and Newman, W. A. 1980. Competitive exclusion in evolutionary time: the case of the acorn barnacles. Paleobiology 6:173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentine, J. W. 1990. The macroevolution of clade shape. pp. 128–150in Ross and Allmon 1990.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1985. A theory of origination and extinction. Evolutionary Theory 7:133–142.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1994. Concepts and the nature of selection by extinction: is generalization possible? Pp. 200–216in Glen, W., ed. Mass-extinction debates: how science works in a crisis. Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and escalation, an ecological history of life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1994. The evolutionary interaction among species: selection, escalation and coevolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 25:219–36.Google Scholar
Wiens, J. A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3:385–397.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. 1992. Natural selection: domains, levels, and challenges. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford.Google Scholar
Zachos, J. C., Lohmann, K. C., Walker, J. C. G., and Wise, S. W. 1993. Abrupt climate change and transient climates during the Paleogene: a marine perspective. Journal of Geology 101:191–213.Google Scholar