Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T03:04:09.353Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Macroevolutionary differences between the two major clades of Neogene planktonic foraminifera

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Steven M. Stanley,
Karen L. Wetmore and
James P. Kennett
Steven M. Stanley
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218
Karen L. Wetmore
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218
James P. Kennett
Affiliation:
Marine Science Institute and Department of Geological Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Being of especially high quality, the Neogene fossil record of planktonic foraminifera offers special opportunities for assessing patterns of extinction and speciation. A variety of metrics indicates that within this group the mean duration of lineages has been much shorter (rate of extinction has been higher) for the globorotaliid clade than for the globigerinid clade. Furthermore, in the globorotaliid clade rates of extinction and speciation have not been closely linked to changes in diversity, but rather have been relatively high even at times when diversity has undergone little change. Thus, the globorotaliid clade has undergone more rapid evolutionary turnover than the globigerinid clade. Data for living species reveal that neither geographic range nor temperature tolerance is the primary factor controlling lineage duration. On the other hand, there is evidence that lineages marked by low abundance (small population size) are relatively short-lived. The reason that globorotaliid lineages have generally survived for shorter intervals, on the average, may be that their populations have been less abundant and less stable. Usually they live deeper in the water column, where food is often sparse, and many flourish only in areas of upwelling. Furthermore, the globorotaliids lack symbiotic algae for nutritional support. The same ecological factors may have accelerated speciation in the globorotaliid clade, by causing species to be patchily distributed. Thus, population size and structure have been more important than geographic range in determining rates of extinction and speciation. This parallels the situation for Neogene marine bivalves.

For planktonic foraminifera, as for Western Atlantic Bivalvia, the normal pattern of extinction was reversed in late Pliocene time, apparently in response to climatic cooling. The globigerinids suffered a sudden pulse of extinction. The deeper dwelling globorotaliids fared better; probably many of their species benefited from elevation of the seasonal thermocline into the photic zone. At the same time, rate of speciation declined in the globorotaliid clade, which supports the idea, inferred from the evolutionary history of marine bivalves, that an increase in the size and stability of populations should depress both rate of extinction and rate of speciation.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , Summer 1988, pp. 235 - 249
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Bé, A. W. H. 1977. An ecological, zoogeographic and taxonomic review of Recent planktonic foraminifera. Pp. 1–100. In Ramsay, A. T. S. (ed.), Oceanic Micropaleontology Volume 1. Academic Press; London.Google Scholar
Bé, A. W. H. 1982. Biology of planktonic foraminifera. Pp. 51–89. In Broadhead, T. W. (ed.), Foraminifera, Notes for a Short Course. University of Tennessee Department of Geological Sciences Studies in Geology 6.Google Scholar
Bé, A. W. H. and Tolderlund, D. S. 1971. Distribution and ecology of living planktonic Foraminifera in surface waters of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Pp. 105–149. In Funnell, B. M. and Riedel, W. R. (eds.), The Micropaleontology of Oceans. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge.Google Scholar
Berger, W. H. 1969. Ecologic patterns of living planktonic Foraminifera. Deep-Sea Research 16:1–24.Google Scholar
Berggren, W. A., Kent, D. V., Flynn, J. J. and van Couvering, J. A. 1985. Cenozoic geochronology. Geological Society of America Bulletin 96:1407–1418.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cifelli, R. 1969. Radiation of Cenozoic planktonic foraminifera. Systematic Zoology 18:154–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cifelli, R. and Scott, G. 1986. Stratigraphic record of the Neogene globorotaliid radiation (planktonic Foraminiferida). Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 58:1–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dempster, J. P. 1975. Animal Population Ecology. Academic Press; New York. 155 pp.Google Scholar
Douglas, R.G. and Savin, S. M. 1978. Oxygen isotopic evidence for the depth stratification of Tertiary and Cretaceous planktic foraminifera. Marine Micropaleontology 3:175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elandt-Johnson, R. C. and Johnson, N. L. 1980. Survival Models and Data Analysis. John Wiley and Sons; New York. 457 pp.Google Scholar
Fairbanks, R. G., Sverdlove, M., Free, R., Wiebe, P. H., and Bé, A. W. H. 1982. Vertical distribution and isotopic fractionation of living planktonic foramiera from the Panama Basin. Nature 298:841–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, M. B. 1980. A water depth model for the evolution of the planktonic foraminiferida. Nature 286:252–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, A. and Kitchell, J. A. 1984. Evolution in a pelagic planktic system: a paleobiologic test of models of multispecies evolution. Paleobiology 10:9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, G. 1985. Depth stratification of planktonic foraminifers in the Miocene ocean. Pp. 177–196. In Kennett, J. P. (ed.), The Miocene Ocean: paleoceanography and biogeography. Geological Society of America Memoir 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennett, J. P. and Srinivasan, M. S. 1983. Neogene Planktonic Foraminifera, a Phylogenetic atlas. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, Stroudsberg. Pennsylvania. 265 pp.Google Scholar
Kennett, J. P., Elmstrom, K., and Penrose, N. 1985a. The last deglaciation in Orca basin, Gulf of Mexico: high-resolution planktonic foraminiferal changes. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 50:189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennett, J. P., Keller, G., and Srinivasan, M. S. 1985b. Miocene planktonic foraminiferal biogeography and paleoceanographic development of the Indo-Pacific region. Pp. 197–236. In Kennett, J. P. (ed.), The Miocene Ocean: paleoceanography and biogeography. Geological Society of America Memoir 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leinen, M. 1979. Biogenic silica accumulation in the central equatorial Pacific and its implications for Cenozoic paleoceanography. Geological Society of America Bulletin 90:1310–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinton, J. S. and Ginsburg, L. 1984. Repeatability of taxon longevity in successive foraminifera radiations and a theory of random appearance and extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (U.S.A.) 81:5478–5481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loeblich, A. R. and Tappan, H. 1964. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (C) Protista 2. Moore, R. C. (ed.), Geological Society of America and the University Press of Kansas; Boulder, Colorado, and Lawrence, Kansas. 900 pp.Google Scholar
Prell, W. L. and Hays, J. D. 1976. Late Pleistocene faunal and temperature patterns of the Columbia Basin, Caribbean Sea. Geological Society Memoir 145:201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raffi, S., Stanley, S. M., and Marasti, R. 1985. Biogeographic patterns and Plio-Pleistocene extinction of Bivalvia in the Mediterranean and southern North Sea. Paleobiology 11:368–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1975. Taxonomic survivorship curves and Van Valen's law. Paleobiology 1:82–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schopf, T. J. M., Raup, D. M., Gould, S. J., and Simberloff, D. S. 1975. Genomic versus morphologic rates of evolution: The influence of morphologic complexity. Paleobiology 1:63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackleton, N. J., Backman, J., Zimmerman, H., Kent, D. V., Hall, M. A., Roberts, D. G., Schnitker, D., Baldauf, J. G., Desprairies, A., Homrighauser, R., Huddleston, P., Keene, J. N., Kalfenback, A. J., Krumsiek, K. A. O., Morton, A. C., Murray, J. W., and Westberg-Smith, J. 1984. Oxygen isotope calibration of the onset of ice-rafting and history of glaciation in the North Atlantic region. Nature 307:620–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1986a. Anatomy of a regional mass extinction: Plio-Pleistocene decimation of the Western Atlantic bivalve fauna. Palaios 1:17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1986b. Population size, extinction, and speciation: the fission effect in Neogene Bivalvia. Paleobiology 12:89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M. and Campbell, L. A. 1981. Neogene mass extinction of Western Atlantic molluscs. Nature 293:457–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thunell, R. C., Curry, W. B., and Honjo, S. 1983. Seasonal variation in the flux of planktonic foraminifera: time series sediment trap results from the Panama Basin. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 64:44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrba, E. S. 1985. African Bovidae: evolutionary events since the Miocene. South African Journal of Science 81:263–266.Google Scholar
Wei, K-Y. and Kennett, J. P. 1983. Nonconstant extinction rates of Neogene planktonic foraminifera. Nature 305:218–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wei, K-Y. and Kennett, J. P. 1986. Taxonomic evolution of Neogene planktonic foraminifera and paleoceanographic relations. Paleoceanography 1:67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetmore, K. L. 1987. A new method to estimate mean taxon durations using life table analysis. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 19:888.Google Scholar