Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:49:16.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological integration and covariance during astogeny of an Ordovician trepostome bryozoan from communities of different diversities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Joseph F. Pachut
Joseph F. Pachut*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Indiana University–Purdue University at Indianapolis, 723 West Michigan Street, Indianapolis 46202-5132
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Correlations exist between diversity and colonial growth pattern and variability in Paleozoic stenolaemate bryozoans. Habitats occupied by diverse communities contained colonies whose growth trajectories were different and were more highly constrained than those of low-diversity habitats. Because previous studies have not examined variability during colony growth, it was unclear whether observed variabilities were constant during growth (astogeny) or whether variability changed with age. Astogenetic trajectories and growth variability are here reexamined in populations of colonies of Heterotrypa ulrichi from the same high-diversity and low-diversity communities examined by Pachut (1989).

Growth trajectories of populations differ in both intermonticular and monticular regions of colonies for fundamental stereological characters. Total zooidal surface areas generally decrease during astogeny whereas zooidal densities increase. Surface areas per zooid also decrease with increasing age, but are consistently larger in monticular zooecia and in populations from low-diversity communities irrespective of the colony region sampled. These patterns of declining values are caused by increasing wall thicknesses, larger and more abundant mesozooecia and acanthostyles, and the development of maculae during colony growth. Larger values in low-diversity settings may have provided reproductive and feeding benefits necessary for survival.

Covariances reflect levels of morphological integration and are larger in populations from high-diversity communities in both intermonticular and monticular regions. Values differ more during early stages of growth (1–3) than later in astogeny (stages 4–5), and are consistently higher in intermonitulcar than in monticular zooecia. Lower levels of integration in monticules may be caused by spatial adjustments as the number of monticules increases across the expanding colony surface during growth. In general, stabilizing selection may have been weaker and less effective in establishing character covariance patterns in populations from low-diversity communities, perhaps because of greater environmental stress. These findings suggest that evaluations of astogenetic patterns and age-related changes in levels of morphological integration within a paleoenvironmental context are important in measuring species richness, in determining the direction of character evolution, and in assessing tempo and mode of evolutionary changes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 66 , Issue 5 , September 1992 , pp. 750 - 757
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

Anstey, R. L. 1970. The trepostome bryozoan fauna of the Eden Shale (Ordovician) in southeastern Indiana and adjacent areas in Kentucky and Ohio. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, 171 p.Google Scholar
Anstey, R. L. 1986. Bryozoan provinces and patterns of generic evolution and extinction in the Late Ordovician of North America. Lethaia, 19:33–51.Google Scholar
Anstey, R. L. 1987. Astogeny and phylogeny: evolutionary heterochrony in Paleozoic bryozoans. Paleobiology, 13:20–43.Google Scholar
Anstey, R. L., and Bartley, J. W. 1984. Quantitative stereology: an improved thin section biometry for bryozoans and other colonial organisms. Journal of Paleontology, 58:612–625.Google Scholar
Anstey, R. L., and Pachut, J. F. 1974. Size, shape and surface area variations of zooecia and monticular mosaics within zooecia of Paleozoic tubular bryozoans. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Meeting Abstracts, 1:2.Google Scholar
Anstey, R. L., and Pachut, J. F. 1980. Fourier packing ordinate: a univariate size-independent measurement of polygonal packing variation in Paleozoic bryozoans. Journal of the International Association of Mathematical Geology, 12:139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anstey, R. L., Pachut., J. F., and Prezbindowski, D. R. 1976. Morphogenetic gradients in Paleozoic bryozoan colonies. Paleobiology, 2:131–146.Google Scholar
Anstey, R. L., and Perry, T. G. 1973. Eden Shale bryozoans: a numerical study (Ordovician, Ohio Valley). Michigan State University, Publications of the Museum, Paleontological Series, 1:1–80.Google Scholar
Anstey, R. L., and Rabbio, S. F. 1989. Regional bryozoan biostratigraphy and taphonomy of the Edenian Stratotype (Kope Formation, Cincinnatian area): graphic correlation and gradient analysis. Palaois, 4:574–584.Google Scholar
Berven, K. A., Gill, D. E., and Smith-Gill, S. J. 1979. Countergradient selection in the green frog Rana clamitans. Evolution, 33:609–623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boardman, R. S. 1960. Trepostomatous bryozoa of the Hamilton Group of New York State. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 340, 87 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheverud, J. M. 1982. Phenotypic, genetic, and environmental morphological integration in the cranium. Evolution, 36:499–516.Google Scholar
Cheverud, J. M. 1984. Quantitative genetics and developmental constraints on evolution by selection. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 110:155–171.Google Scholar
Cheverud, J. M. 1988. A comparison of genetic and phenotypic correlations. Evolution, 42:958–968.Google Scholar
Cheverud, J. M. 1989. A comparative analysis of morphologic variation patterns in the papionins. Evolution, 43:1737–1747.Google Scholar
Cheverud, J. M., Wagner, G. P., and Dow, M. M. 1989. Methods for the comparative analysis of variation patterns. Systematic Zoology, 38:201–213.Google Scholar
Conover, W. J. 1971. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 462 p.Google Scholar
Cumings, E. R. 1904. Development of some Paleozoic Bryozoa. American Journal of Sciences, 17:49–78.Google Scholar
Cumings, E. R. 1912. Development and systematic position of the monticuliporoids. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 23:357–370.Google Scholar
Delmet, D. A., and Anstey, R. L. 1974. Fourier analysis of morphological plasticity within an Ordovician bryozoan colony. Journal of Paleontology, 48:217–226.Google Scholar
Hickey, D. R. 1988. Bryozoan astogeny and evolutionary novelties: their role in the origin and systematics of the Ordovician trepostome genus Peronopora. Journal of Paleontology, 62:180–203.Google Scholar
Horowitz, A. S., and Pachut, J. F. 1989. In search of the elusive earliest stages of colony development in the Paleozoic bryozoan order Cystoporida—an aid in phylogenetic reconstruction? Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 22:113.Google Scholar
Key, M. M. Jr. 1990. Intracolony variation in skeletal growth rates in Paleozoic ramose trepostome bryozoans. Paleobiology, 16:483–491.Google Scholar
Lande, R. 1980. The genetic covariance between characters maintained by pleiotropic mutation. Genetics, 94:203–215.Google Scholar
Lande, R. 1984. The genetic correlation between characters maintained by selection, linkage and inbreeding. Genetical Research, 44:309–320.Google Scholar
Lande, R. 1966. The dynamics of peak shifts and the pattern of morphological evolution. Paleobiology, 12:343–354.Google Scholar
Lande, R., and Arnold, S. J. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution, 37:1210–1226.Google Scholar
Lofsvold, D. 1986. Quantitative genetics of morphological differentiation in Peromyscus. I. Tests of homogeneity of genetic covariance structure among species and subspecies. Evolution, 40:559–573.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K. 1977. Autozooecial budding patterns in dendroid Paleozoic bryozoans. Journal of Paleontology, 51:303–329.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K. 1978. Astogeny of the lyre-shaped Carboniferous fenestrate bryozoan Lyroporella. Journal of Paleontology, 52:83–90.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1986. Ecological causation of heterochrony: a test and implications for evolutionary theory. Paleobiology, 12:282–289.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. 1987. Phenotypic plasticity and heterochrony in Cichlasoma managuense (Pisces, Cichlidae) and their implications for speciation in cichlid fishes. Evolution, 41:1357–1369.Google Scholar
Olson, E. C., and Miller, R. L. 1958. Morphological Integration. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 317 p.Google Scholar
Pachut, J. F. 1982. Morphologic variation within and among genotypes in two Devonian bryozoan species: an independent indicator of paleostability? Journal of Paleontology, 56:703–716.Google Scholar
Pachut, J. F. 1987. Population genetics of four species of Ordovician bryozoans: stereology and jackknifed analysis of variance. Journal of Paleontology, 61:927–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pachut, J. F. 1989. Heritability and intraspecific heterochrony in Ordovician bryozoans from environments differing in diversity. Journal of Paleontology, 63:182–194.Google Scholar
Pachut, J. F., and Anstey, R. L. 1979. A developmental explanation of stability-diversity-variation hypotheses: morphogenetic regulation in Ordovician bryozoan colonies. Paleobiology, 5:168–187.Google Scholar
Pachut, J. F., and Cuffey, R. J. 1991. Clinal variation, intraspecific heterochrony, and microevolution in the Permian bryozoan Tabulipora carbonaria. Lethaia, 24:165–185.Google Scholar
Pachut, J. F., Cuffey., R. J., and Anstey, R. L. 1991. The concepts of astogeny and ontogeny in stenolaemate bryozoans, and their illustration in colonies of Tabulipora carbonaria from the Lower Permian of Kansas. Journal of Paleontology, 65:213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, T. G., and Hattin, D. E. 1958. Astogenetic study of fistuliporoid bryozoans. Journal of Paleontology, 32:1039–1050.Google Scholar
Pielou, E. C. 1974. Population and Community Ecology. Gordon and Breach, New York, 424 p.Google Scholar
Podell, M. E., and Anstey, R. L. 1979. The interrelationship of early colony development, monticules and branches in Paleozoic bryozoans. Palaeontology, 22:965–982.Google Scholar
Rabbio, S. F. 1988. Ecologic and taphonomic gradients in storm disturbed bryozoan communities of the Kope Formation (Cincinnatian Series, Upper Ordovician), Cincinnati Arch region. Unpubl. M.S. thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 219 p.Google Scholar
Russ, J. C. 1986. Practical Stereology. Plenum Press, New York, 185 p.Google Scholar
Smith, J. M., Burian, R., Kauffman, S., Alberch, P., Campbell, J., Goodwin, B., Lande, R., Raup, D., and Wolpert, L. 1985. Developmental constraints on evolution. Quarterly Review of Biology, 60:265–287.Google Scholar
Smith-Gill, S. J. 1983. Developmental plasticity: developmental conversion versus phenotypic modulation. American Zoologist, 23:47–55.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 859 p.Google Scholar
Tissot, B. N. 1988. Geographic variation and heterochrony in two species of cowries (Genus Cypraea). Evolution, 42:103–117.Google Scholar
Zelditch, M. L. 1987. Evaluating models of developmental integration in the laboratory rat using confirmatory factor analysis. Systematic Zoology, 36:268–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelditch, M. L. 1988. Ontogenetic variation in patterns of phenotypic integration in the laboratory rat. Evolution, 42:28–41.Google Scholar
Zelditch, M. L., and Carmichael, A. C. 1989. Ontogenetic variation in patterns of developmental and functional integration in skulls of Sigmodon fulviventer. Evolution, 43:814–824.Google Scholar
Zelditch, M. L., Straney, D. O., Swiderski, D. L., and Carmichael, A. C. 1990. Variation in developmental constraints in Sigmodon. Evolution, 44:1738–1747.Google Scholar