Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T03:50:05.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Geographic ranges of genera and their constituent species: structure, evolutionary dynamics, and extinction resistance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Michael Foote ,
Kathleen A. Ritterbush  and
Arnold I. Miller
Michael Foote
Affiliation:
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, U.S.A. E-mail:mfoote@uchicago.edu.
Kathleen A. Ritterbush
Affiliation:
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, U.S.A. E-mail:mfoote@uchicago.edu.
Arnold I. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221, U.S.A. E-mail:arnold.miller@uc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We explore the relationships among the geographic ranges of genera, the ranges and positions of their constituent species, and the number of species they contain, considering variation among coeval genera and changes within genera over time. Measuring range size as the maximal distance, or extent, between occurrences within a taxon, we find that the range of the most widespread species is a good predictor of the range of the genus, and that the number of species is a better predictor still. This analysis is complicated by a forced correlation: the range of a genus must be at least as large as that of each of its constituent species. We therefore focus on a second measure of range, the mean squared distance, or dispersion, of occurrences from the geographic centroid, which, by analogy to the analysis of variance, allows the total dispersion of a genus to be compared to the mean within-species dispersion and the dispersion among species centroids. We find that among-species dispersion is the principal determinant of genus dispersion. Within-species dispersion also plays a major role. The role of species richness is relatively small. Our results are not artifacts of temporal variation in the geographic breadth of sampled data. The relationship between changes in genus dispersion and changes in within- and among-species dispersion shows a symmetry, being similar in cases when the genus range is expanding and when it is contracting. We also show that genera with greater dispersion have greater extinction resistance, but that within- and among-species dispersion are not demonstrable predictors of survival once the dispersion of the genus is accounted for. Thus it is the range of the genus, rather than how it is attained, that is most relevant to its fate. Species richness is also a clear predictor of survival, beyond its effects on geographic range.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 269 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 The Paleontological Society. All rights reserved 

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

Albert, A., and Anderson, J. A.. 1984. On the existence of maximum likelihood estimates in logistic regression models. Biometrika 71:1–10.Google Scholar
Altmann, E. G., Pierrehumbert, J. B., and Motter, A. E.. 2011. Niche as a determinant of word fate in online groups. PLoS ONE 6:e19009. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019009.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J. 1995. Diversification and extinction in the history of life. Science 268:52–58.Google Scholar
Burnham, K. P., and Anderson, D. R.. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Cock, A. G. 1966. Aspects of metrical growth and form in animals. Quarterly Review of Biology 41:131–190.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, N. I., Lewis, T., and Embleton, B. J. J.. 1987. Statistical analysis of spherical data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. 1953. Dispersion on a sphere. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 217:295–305.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 2007. Symmetric waxing and waning of marine invertebrate genera. Paleobiology 33:517–529.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 2014. Environmental controls on geographic range size in marine animal genera. Paleobiology 40:440–458.Google Scholar
Foote, M., and Miller, A. I.. 2013. Determinants of early survival in marine animal genera. Paleobiology 39:171–192.Google Scholar
Foote, M., Crampton, J. S., Beu, A. G., Marshall, B. A., Cooper, R. A., Maxwell, P. A., and Matcham, I.. 2007. Rise and fall of species occupancy in Cenozoic fossil mollusks. Science 318:1131–1134.Google Scholar
Foote, M., Crampton, J. S., Beu, A. G., and Cooper, R. A.. 2008. On the bidirectional relationship between geographic range and taxonomic duration. Paleobiology 34:421–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortey, R. A., Harper, D. A. T., Ingham, J. K., Owen, A. W., and Rushton, A. W. A.. 1995. A revision of Ordovician series and stages from the historical type area. Geological Magazine 132:15–30.Google Scholar
Gaston, K. J. 1998. Species-range size distributions: products of speciation, extinction and transformation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 353:219–230.Google Scholar
Gaston, K. J. 2008. Biodiversity and extinction: the dynamics of geographic range size. Progress in Physical Geography 32:678–683.Google Scholar
Gaston, K. J., Quinn, R. M., Wood, S., and Arnold, H. R.. 1996. Measures of geographic range size: the effects of sample size. Ecography 19:259–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A., Jakulin, A., Pittau, M. G., and Su, Y.-S.. 2008. A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models. Annals of Applied Statistics 2:1360–1383.Google Scholar
Gradstein, F. M., Ogg, J., Schmitz, M., and Ogg, G.. 2012. The geologic time scale 2012. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hansen, T. A. 1980. Influence of larval dispersal and geographic distribution on species longevity in neogastropods. Paleobiology 6:193–207.Google Scholar
Harnik, P. G., Simpson, C., and Payne, J. L.. 2012. Long-term differences in extinction risk among the seven forms of rarity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 279:4969–4976.Google Scholar
Hendricks, J. R., Saupe, E. E., Myers, C. E., Hermsen, E. J., and Allmon, W. D.. 2014. The generification of the fossil record. Paleobiology 40:511–528.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1986. Background and mass extinctions: the alternation of macroevolutionary regimes. Science 231:129–133.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. 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
Jernvall, J., and Fortelius, M.. 2004. Maintenance of trophic structure in fossil mammal communities: site occupancy and taxon resilience. American Naturalist 164:614–624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Kolbe, S. E., Lockwood, R., and Hunt, G.. 2011. Does morphological variation buffer against extinction? A test using veneroid bivalves from the Plio-Pleistocene of Florida. Paleobiology 37:355–368.Google Scholar
Krug, A. Z., Jablonski, D., and Valentine, J. W.. 2008. Species–genus ratios reflect a global history of diversification and range expansion in marine bivalves. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 275:1117–1123.Google Scholar
Liow, L. H., and Stenseth, N. C.. 2007. The rise and fall of species: implications for macroevolutionary and macroecological studies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 274:2745–2752.Google Scholar
Liow, L. H., Skaug, H. J., Ergon, T., and Schweder, T.. 2010. Global occurrence trajectories of microfossils: environmental volatility and the rise and fall of individual species. Paleobiology 36:224–252.Google Scholar
Miller, A.I. 1997. A new look at age and area: the geographic and environmental expansion of genera during the Ordovician Radiation. Paleobiology 23:410–419.Google Scholar
Nicol, D. 1954. Growth and decline of populations and the distribution of marine pelecypods. Journal of Paleontology 28:22–25.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
Powell, M. G. 2007a. Geographic range and genus longevity of late Paleozoic brachiopods. Paleobiology 33:530–546.Google Scholar
Powell, M. G. 2007b. Latitudinal diversity gradients for brachiopod genera during late Palaeozoic time: links between climate, biogeography, and evolutionary rates. Global Ecology and Biogeography 16:519–528.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2011. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Raia, P., Meloro, C., Loy, A., and Barbera, C.. 2006. Species occupancy and its course in the past: Macroecological patterns in extinct communities. Evolutionary Ecology Research 8:181–194.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M., and Boyajian, G. E.. 1988. Patterns of generic extinction in the fossil record. Paleobiology 14:109–125.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M., and Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1982. Mass extinctions in the marine fossil record. Science 215:1501–1503.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 of London B 276:1485–1493.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1986. Phanerozoic overview of mass extinction. Pp. 277–295in D. M. Raup, and D. Jablonski, eds. Patterns and processes in the history of life. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1953. The major features of evolution. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1979. Macroevolution: pattern and process. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francicso.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1985. Rates of evolution. Paleobiology 11:13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tietje, M., and Kiessling, W.. 2013. Predicting extinction from fossil trajectories of geographic ranges in benthic marine molluscs. Journal of Biogeography 40:790–799.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. M. 1984. A resetting of Phanerozoic community evolution. Nature 307:50–52.Google Scholar