The K/T event and infaunality: morphological and ecological patterns of extinction and recovery in veneroid bivalves

Lockwood, Rowan

doi:10.1666/0094-8373(2004)030<0507:tteaim>2.0.co;2

Cited by 38 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While ammonoids may well have reached the limits of the morphospace available to them (Saunders and Swan 1984; McGowan 2004) they clearly possessed the developmental potential to re‐explore these limits. Other studies that evaluated disparity through mass extinctions include Lockwood (2004) and Dommergues et al . (2002) who found a slight increase in size disparity among Early Jurassic ammonoids after the end‐Triassic extinctions.…”

Section: Patterns Of Morphospace Occupation Through Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Disparity: Morphological Pattern and Developmental Context

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The distribution of organic forms is clumpy at any scale from populations to the highest taxonomic categories, and whether considered within clades or within ecosystems. The fossil record provides little support for expectations that the morphological gaps between species or groups of species have increased through time as it might if the gaps were created by extinction of a more homogeneous distribution of morphologies. As the quantitative assessments of morphology have replaced counts of higher taxa as a metric of morphological disparity, numerous studies have demonstrated the rapid construction of morphospace early in evolutionary radiations, and have emphasized the difference between taxonomic measures of morphological diversity and quantitative assessments of disparity. Other studies have evaluated changing patterns of disparity across mass extinctions, ecomorphological patterns and the patterns of convergence within ecological communities, while the development of theoretical morphology has greatly aided efforts to understand why some forms do not occur. A parallel, and until recently, largely separate research effort in evolutionary developmental biology has established that the developmental toolkit underlying the remarkable breadth of metazoan form is largely identical among Bilateria, and many components are shared among all metazoa. Underlying this concern with disparity is a question about temporal variation in the production of morphological innovations, a debate over the relative significance of the generation of new morphologies vs. differential probabilities of their successful introduction, and the relative importance of constraint, convergence and contingency in the evolution of form.Key words: Morphological disparity, morphospace, evolutionary radiation, ecomorphology, theoretical morphology.The diversity of morphological form has been at the heart of much of organismal biology since the days of Cuvier, who used the discontinuities in shape and form as a basis for grouping animals into clusters. But this clustering itself raises a host of questions: Why is it that the morphology of arthropods is so disparate, but that of priapulids, or flamingoes, so limited? Why do biological forms exist in clumps, at a variety of scales? What can we learn about the evolutionary process by tracking the diversity of organic form (disparity) through time? Understanding the processes and conditions that influence differences in the range of form is critical for understanding the construction of biodiversity. Over the past two centuries, many approaches have been pursued to understand disparity. Considerable impetus to this effort was provided in 1989 by Stephen Jay Gould's 'Wonderful Life', in which he employed the exquisite fossils of the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale to argue that the morphological disparity of arthropods at that single locality was greater than for all extant arthropods. Such early disparity was, in Gould's view, inconsistent with the predictions of an evolutionary theory that impli...

show abstract

Section: Patterns Of Morphospace Occupation Through Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Disparity: Morphological Pattern and Developmental Context

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Body size covaries with many biological characteristics (53), and its effect on extinction risk likely reflects the contributions of other covariates such as metabolic rate or fecundity. Among burrowing bivalves, body size also covaries with infaunal depth, which has been hypothesized to buffer species from environmental stress and reduce predation pressure (13,(54)(55)(56)(57). The differences in the effect of body size on duration in the Pectinoidea and Veneroidea may reflect variations in life history traits between epifaunal and infaunal species or a common response to environmental stress diminishing in intensity with increasing infaunal depth.…”

Section: Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Direct and indirect effects of biological factors on extinction risk in fossil bivalves

Harnik

2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological factors, such as abundance and body size, may contribute directly to extinction risk and indirectly through their influence on other biological characteristics, such as geographic range size. Paleontological data can be used to explicitly test many of these hypothesized relationships, and general patterns revealed through analysis of the fossil record can help refine predictive models of extinction risk developed for extant species. Here, I use structural equation modeling to tease apart the contributions of three canonical predictors of extinction-abundance, body size, and geographic range size-to the duration of bivalve species in the early Cenozoic marine fossil record of the eastern United States. I find that geographic range size has a strong direct effect on extinction risk and that an apparent direct effect of abundance can be explained entirely by its covariation with geographic range. The influence of geographic range on extinction risk is manifest across three ecologically disparate bivalve clades. Body size also has strong direct effects on extinction risk but operates in opposing directions in different clades, and thus, it seems to be decoupled from extinction risk in bivalves as a whole. Although abundance does not directly predict extinction risk, I reveal weak indirect effects of both abundance and body size through their positive influence on geographic range size. Multivariate models that account for the pervasive covariation between biological factors and extinction are necessary for assessing causality in evolutionary processes and making informed predictions in applied conservation efforts.A ll species eventually go extinct, and biological correlates of extinction risk have been the focus of many studies of extant and extinct taxa (1-4). Most studies have analyzed biological factors separately, tacitly assuming independence among them. However, few biological characteristics are independent, and unaccounted for covariation confounds causal interpretation, weakens the power of predictive models, and inhibits successful synthesis. In addition, most studies have considered only the direct effects of biological factors on extinction. However, factors can contribute both directly and indirectly through their influence on other more proximal biological characteristics, and thus, accounting for indirect effects can be important when assessing the relative influence of multiple factors (5-7).Here, I investigate the direct and indirect effects of multiple biological factors on extinction risk using the early Cenozoic marine fossil record of the eastern United States. I focus on the contributions of abundance, body size, and geographic range size to the observed stratigraphic range (termed duration hereafter) of species. Measures of geographic range and abundance are commonly used to set conservation priorities (8), and empirical support exists for the influence of both on extinction risk over geologic time scales (9-14). Body size is also widely believed to influence extinction risk, altho...

show abstract

“…), palaeoecology (e.g. motility, tiering, feeding strategy; Sheehan & Hansen ; Lockwood ), geographical range of a given species or clade (Jablonski & Raup ; Longrich et al . ; Landman et al .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nature and timing of biotic recovery in Antarctic benthic marine ecosystems following the Cretaceous–Palaeogene mass extinction

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taxonomic and ecological recovery from the Cretaceous–Palaeogene (K–Pg) mass extinction 66 million years ago shaped the composition and structure of modern ecosystems. The timing and nature of recovery has been linked to many factors including palaeolatitude, geographical range, the ecology of survivors, incumbency and palaeoenvironmental setting. Using a temporally constrained fossil dataset from one of the most expanded K–Pg successions in the world, integrated with palaeoenvironmental information, we provide the most detailed examination of the patterns and timing of recovery from the K–Pg mass extinction event in the high southern latitudes of Antarctica. The timing of biotic recovery was influenced by global stabilization of the wider Earth system following severe environmental perturbations, apparently regardless of latitude or local environment. Extinction intensity and ecological change were decoupled, with community scale ecological change less distinct compared to other locations, even if the taxonomic severity of the extinction was the same as at lower latitudes. This is consistent with a degree of geographical heterogeneity in the recovery from the K–Pg mass extinction. Recovery in Antarctica was influenced by local factors (such as water depth changes, local volcanism, and possibly incumbency and pre‐adaptation to seasonality of the local benthic molluscan population), and also showed global signals, for example the radiation of the Neogastropoda within the first million years of the Danian, and a shift in dominance between bivalves and gastropods.

show abstract

The K/T event and infaunality: morphological and ecological patterns of extinction and recovery in veneroid bivalves

Cited by 38 publications

References 52 publications

Disparity: Morphological Pattern and Developmental Context

Disparity: Morphological Pattern and Developmental Context

Direct and indirect effects of biological factors on extinction risk in fossil bivalves

Nature and timing of biotic recovery in Antarctic benthic marine ecosystems following the Cretaceous–Palaeogene mass extinction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About