View - Kowalewski, M. - Virginia Tech

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY PAPERS, V. 8, 2002abFIGURE 19—Comparison of the diversity of predators with that of non-predators. (a) Boundary-crossingdiversity of predators and all marine metazoa compared through the Phanerozoic. (b) Diversity ofmarine predators as a proportion of the diversity of all marine metazoa.346
BAMBACH—SUPPORTING PREDATORSIn an earlier study, I discussed possibleinfluences on energetics in the marine ecosystem,emphasizing the changes that may have taken placewhen terrestrial biomass initially increased on landduring the Devonian and when angiospermsbecame dominant on land in the Cretaceous andEarly Cenozoic (Bambach, 1999). In that study, Inoted major changes in diversity dominance of bothpredator and prey taxa in the Devonian, whenevolutionary volatility in predators began toincrease, although overall diversity did not. Theincrease in proportion of predator taxa in theCenozoic was also noted, although the evaluationof the number of predator taxa in that paper shouldbe regarded as preliminary to the more complete,but still predominantly estimated, analysispresented here. I argued that both intervals ofchange reflected change in the energetics of theecosystem. These intervals of change map withSignor and Brett’s (1984) “precursor to theMesozoic marine revolution” and Vermeij’s (1977)classic analysis of the Mesozoic marine revolution.However, the two major changes in predators as aproportion of the diversity of the marine faunadocumented in the current study, which occur inthe recovery intervals following the devastation ofthe two era-bounding mass extinctions, do notcoincide with the suggestion of Vermeij thatrevolutions in the history of life are not linked tocrises (Vermeij, 1995, p. 145).When we consider the proportion of diversityof several different groups of taxa within thepredators as a whole, a pattern of more continuousturnover in predator diversity dominance emerges.The three groupings illustrated in Figure 20 wereselected because of some general similarities in thediversity histories of the individual taxa. Trilobites,eurypterids, arthropod incertae sedis, conodonts,placoderms, and acanthodians all reached theirmaximum diversity in the Paleozoic, weregenerally confined to the Paleozoic, and were allextinct by the end of the Triassic. When groupedtogether they comprise over 90% of the diversityof Cambrian predators and decline continuouslyin their share of predator diversity after that(Fig.20a). Predatory polychaetes and cephalopodseach display a fairly even diversity path throughthe bulk of the Phanerozoic; and anthozoans,echinoderms, and chondrichthyans have peaks ofdiversity in the Paleozoic and Cenozoic withmarkedly lower diversity in between, but their post-Paleozoic diversity increase is not dramatic andthey fit with the polychaetes and cephalopods inhaving high Paleozoic diversity with Cenozoicdiversity still in the same general range. Summedtogether (Fig. 20b), these groups, which eachreached a Paleozoic peak of diversity and alsopersisted through the Mesozoic, became thediversity dominant predators in the OrdovicianRadiation (rising from less than 10% to 70% ofpredator diversity during that time). Their share ofpredator diversity averaged about 70% through therest of the Paleozoic, fluctuating from 58% to 75%.In the Mesozoic it decreased some, but remainedover 50%, and averaged slightly below 60%, ratherthan over 65% as in the bulk of the Paleozoic. Notethat this group of taxa maintains a relatively stableproportion of predator diversity through the laterPaleozoic and early Mesozoic, despite many oftheir constituent taxa having lower absolutediversity during that interval, because total predatordiversity was lower during that time. Late in theEarly Cretaceous the share of predator diversityheld by these taxa began to drop continuously, andit is now at a low point of 10%. A third group oftaxa, the gastropods, malacostracans, Osteichthyes,and tetrapods, all have diversity maxima in theCenozoic and little or no Paleozoic diversity.Grouped together (Fig. 20c), these taxacontinuously increased their share of predatordiversity through the Phanerozoic. They comprisedless than 10% of predator diversity until the mid-Devonian, but passed 70% of total predatordiversity in the Paleocene.Many of the taxa in the groups that reachedhigh diversity in the Paleozoic are relatively lowenergy-expendingpredators (starfish, anthozoa).In my earlier paper (Bambach, 1999) I alsodocumented that the turnover in diversitydominance in predators in the Devonian may havebeen a replacement of taxa with lower energeticsby those with higher energetics (lower and higher347
Page 1:
THE PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETYPAPERSVo
Page 4 and 5:
The Paleontological Society Special
Page 6 and 7:
AuthorsRICHARD K. BAMBACHBotanical
Page 9 and 10:
THE FOSSIL RECORD OF PREDATIONMicha
Page 13 and 14:
INTRODUCTIONTHE FOSSIL RECORD OF PR
Page 15:
KOWALEWSKI—ANALYTICAL METHODSTHE
Page 18 and 19:
PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY PAPERS, V.
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309: PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY PAPERS, V.
Page 408 and 409:
Page 410 and 411:
Page 412:
THE PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY PAPERSP
show all

View - Kowalewski, M. - Virginia Tech

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?