Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T06:58:56.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selectivity during background extinction: Plio-Pleistocene scallops in California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

J. Travis Smith and
Kaustuv Roy
J. Travis Smith
Affiliation:
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, California 92093-0244. E-mail: j8smith@ucsd.edu
Kaustuv Roy
Affiliation:
Section of Ecology, Behavior, and Evolution, Division of Biological Sciences, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, California 92093-0116
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most studies of extinction selectivity have focused on mass extinctions. Here we analyze the patterns of susceptibility to extinction during the late Pliocene and Pleistocene of California in the family Pectinidae. The Pectinidae declined in diversity from a high of 32 species in the late Pliocene to the current level of 11 species living in the California region, indicating that the composition of the living fauna has been shaped primarily by extinction in the last several million years. Extinction appears to have occurred in one large pulse, but because of uneven sampling we were unable to resolve the timing further and have analyzed the patterns of extinction treating the late Pliocene through middle Pleistocene as a single period of elevated extinction. Extinctions were not random with regard to taxonomic relationships. Species-level extinctions were higher in more speciose genera, but these genera were buffered against genus-level extinctions. This resulted in a disproportionately large number of monospecific genera in the living fauna. In addition, extinctions were not random with regard to body size, with large species preferentially surviving. This selectivity pattern is evident only when clade membership is taken into account; when analyzed across the entire family, no pattern of size selectivity was apparent. Our results suggest that (1) patterns of extinction selectivity at the genus level may be a poor proxy for species-level patterns, and (2) whole-fauna analyses may not uncover strong selectivity within lineages.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , Summer 2006, pp. 408 - 416
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

Addicott, W. O. 1970. Tertiary paleoclimatic trends in the San Joaquin Basin, California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 644-D:D1–D19.Google Scholar
Addicott, W. O. 1974. Giant pectinids of the eastern north Pacific margin: significance in Neogene zoogeography and chronostratigraphy. Journal of Paleontology 48:180–194.Google Scholar
Addicott, W. O. 1981. Significance of pectinids in Tertiary biochronology of the Pacific Northwest. Geological Society of America Special Paper 184:17–37.Google Scholar
Allmon, W. D., Rosenberg, G., Portell, R. W., and Schindler, K. S. 1996. Diversity of Pliocene-Recent mollusks in the western Atlantic: extinction, origination, and environmental change. Pp. 271–302in Jackson, J. B. C., Budd, A. F., and Coates, A. G., eds. Evolution and environment in tropical America. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Alroy, J. 2001. A multispecies overkill simulation of the end-Pleistocene megafaunal mass extinction. Science 292:1893–1896.Google Scholar
Anderson, L. C. 2001. Temporal and geographic size trends in Neogene Corbulidae (Bivalvia) of tropical America: using environmental sensitivity to decipher causes of morphologic trends. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 166:101–120.Google Scholar
Barucca, M., Olmo, E., Schiaparelli, S., and Canapa, A. 2004. Molecular phylogeny of the family Pectinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) based on mitochondrial 16S and 12S rRNA genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 31:89–95.Google Scholar
Bennett, P. M., and Owens, I. P. F. 1997. Variation in extinction risk among birds: chance or evolutionary predisposition? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 264:401–408.Google Scholar
Bernard, F. R., McKinnell, S. M., and Jamieson, G. S. 1991. Distribution and zoogeography of the Bivalvia of the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 112.Google Scholar
Blake, G. H. 1991. Review of the Neogene biostratigraphy and stratigraphy of the Los Angeles Basin and implications for basin evolution. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 52:135–184.Google Scholar
Bowersox, J. R. 2005. Reassessment of extinction patterns of Pliocene molluscs from California and environmental forcing of extinction in the San Joaquin Basin. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 221:55–82.Google Scholar
Cardillo, M., and Bromham, L. 2001. Body size and risk of extinction in Australian mammals. Conservation Biology 15:1435–1440.Google Scholar
Coan, E. V., Scott, P. V., and Bernard, F. R. 2000. Bivalve seashells of western North America: marine bivalve mollusks from Arctic Alaska to Baja California. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Monographs Number 2.Google Scholar
Dulvy, N. K., and Reynolds, J. D. 2002. Predicting extinction vulnerability in skates. Conservation Biology 16:440–450.Google Scholar
Gaston, K. J., and Blackburn, T. M. 1995. Birds, body size and the threat of extinction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 347:205–212.Google Scholar
Gaston, K. J., and Blackburn, T. M. 1996. Conservation implications of geographic range-body size relationships. Conservation Biology 10:638–646.Google Scholar
Grau, G. 1959. Pectinidae of the eastern Pacific. Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions 23. University of Southern California Press, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Groves, L. T. 1991. Paleontology and biostratigraphy of the Plio-Pleistocene Lower Saugus Formation, Santa Susana Mountains, Southern California. M.S. thesis. California State University, Northridge.Google Scholar
Hertlein, L. G., and Grant, U. S. IV. 1972. The geology and paleontology of the marine Pliocene of San Diego, California (Paleontology: Pelecypoda). San Diego Society of Natural History Memoir 2B.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. 1991. Extinctions: a paleontological perspective. Science 253:754–757.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1994. Extinctions in the fossil record. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 344:11–17.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1995. Extinctions in the fossil record. Pp. 25–44in May, R. M. and Lawton, J. H., eds. Extinction rates. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1996. Body size and macroevolution. Pp. 256–289in Jablonski, D., Erwin, D. H., and Lipps, J. H., eds. Evolutionary paleobiology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1997. Body-size evolution in Cretaceous molluscs and the status of Cope's rule. Nature 385:250–252.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D., and Flessa, K. W. 1986. The taxonomic structure of shallow-water marine faunas: implications for Phanerozoic extinctions. Malacologia 27:43–66.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D., and Raup, D. M. 1995. Selectivity of end-Cretaceous marine bivalve extinctions. Science 268:389–391.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C., Jung, P., Coates, A. G., and Collins, L. S. 1993. Diversity and extinction of tropical American mollusks and emergence of the Isthmus of Panama. Science 260:1624–1625.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C., Jung, P., and Fortunato, H. 1996. Paciphilia revisited: transisthmian evolution of the Strombina group (Gastropoda: Columbellidae). Pp. 234–270in Jackson, J. B. C., Budd, A. F., and Coates, A. G., eds. Evolution and environment in tropical America. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. N., Delean, S., and Balmford, A. 2002. Phylogeny and the selectivity of extinction in Australian marsupials. Animal Conservation 5:135–142.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. G., and Curry, G. B. 2001. Regional biotic turnover dynamics in the Plio-Pleistocene molluscan fauna of the Wanganui Basin, New Zealand. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 172:39–51.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. G., Budd, A. F., and Stemann, T. A. 1995. Extinction selectivity and ecology of Neogene Caribbean reef corals. Paleobiology 21:52–73.Google Scholar
Leck, C. F. 1979. Avian extinctions in an isolated tropical wet-forest preserve, Ecuador. Auk 96:343–352.Google Scholar
Lindberg, D. R., and Lipps, J. H. 1997. Reading the chronicle of Quaternary temperate rocky shore faunas. Pp. 161–182in Jablonski, D., Erwin, D. H., and Lipps, J. H., eds. Evolutionary paleobiology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Lockwood, J. L., Brooks, T. M., and McKinney, M. L. 2000. Taxonomic homogenization of the global avifauna. Animal Conservation 3:27–35.Google Scholar
Lockwood, J. L., Russell, G. J., Gittleman, J. L., Daehler, C. C., McKinney, M. L., and Purvis, A. 2002. A metric for analyzing taxonomic patterns of extinction risk. Conservation Biology 16:1137–1142.Google Scholar
Lockwood, R. 2005. Body size, extinction events, and the early Cenozoic record of venerid bivalves: a new role for recoveries? Paleobiology 31:578–590.Google Scholar
Lozano, F. D., and Schwartz, M. W. 2005. Patterns of rarity and taxonomic group size in plants. Biological Conservation 126:146–154.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, M., and Hayami, I. 2000. Phylogenetic analysis of the family Pectinidae (Bivalvia) based on mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1. Journal of Molluscan Studies 66:477–488.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1995. Extinction selectivity among lower taxa: gradational patterns and rarefaction error in extinction estimates. Paleobiology 21:300–313.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1997. Extinction vulnerability and selectivity: combining ecological and paleontological views. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:495–516.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L., and Lockwood, J. L. 1999. Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14:450–453.Google Scholar
Moore, E. J. 1984. Tertiary marine pelecypods of California and Baja California: Propeamussiidae and Pectinidae. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1228-B.Google Scholar
Nee, S., and May, R. M. 1997. Extinction and the loss of evolutionary history. Science 278:692–694.Google Scholar
Owens, I. P. F., and Bennett, P. M. 2000. Ecological basis of extinction risk in birds: habitat loss versus human persecution and introduced predators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97:12144–12148.Google Scholar
Peters, R. H. 1983. The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Pimm, S. L., Jones, H. L., and Diamond, J. 1988. On the risk of extinction. American Naturalist 132:757–785.Google Scholar
Purvis, A., and Gittleman, J. L. 2000. Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 267:1947–1952.Google Scholar
Purvis, A., Agapow, P., Gittleman, J. L., and Mace, G. M. 2000. Nonrandom extinction and the loss of evolutionary history. Science 288:328–330.Google Scholar
Purvis, A., Orme, C. D. L., and Dolphin, K. 2003. Why are most species small-bodied? A phylogenetic view. Pp. 155–173in Blackburn, T. M. and Gaston, K. J., eds. Macroecology: concepts and consequences. Blackwell, Malden, Mass.Google 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 11:368–388.Google Scholar
Roopnarine, P. D. 1996. Systematics, biogeography and extinction of chionine bivalves (Bivalvia: Veneridae) in Tropical America: Early Oligocene to Recent. Malacologia 38:103–142.Google Scholar
Roopnarine, P. D. 2001. A history of diversification, extinction, and invasion in tropical America as derived from species-level phylogenies of chionine genera (Family Veneridae). Journal of Paleontology 75:644–657.Google Scholar
Roy, K., Jablonski, D., and Valentine, J. W. 2002. Body size and invasion success in marine bivalves. Ecology Letters 5:163–167.Google Scholar
Schwartz, M. W., and Simberloff, D. 2001. Taxon size predicts rates of rarity in vascular plants. Ecology Letters 4:464–469.Google Scholar
Smith, J. Travis 2000. Extinction dynamics of the Late Neogene Pectinidae in California. M.S. thesis. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Smith, Judith T. 1991. Cenozoic giant pectinids from California and the Tertiary Caribbean province: Lyropecten, “Macrochlamis,” Vertipecten, and Nodipecten species. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1391.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1986. Population size, extinction, and speciation: the fission effect in Neogene Bivalvia. Paleobiology 12:89–110.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M., and Campbell, L. D. 1981. Neogene mass extinction of western Atlantic mollusks. Nature 293:457–459.Google Scholar
Stearns, S. C. 1983. The influence of size and phylogeny on patterns of covariation among life-history traits in mammals. Oikos 41:173–187.Google Scholar
Stearns, S. C. 1984. The effects of size and phylogeny on patterns of covariation in the life history traits of lizards and snakes. American Naturalist 123:56–72.Google Scholar
Stump, T. E. 1979. The evolutionary biogeography of the west Mexican Pectinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Todd, J. A., Jackson, J. B. C., Johnson, K. G., Fortunato, H. M., Heitz, A., Alvarez, M., and Jung, P. 2002. The ecology of extinction: molluscan feeding and faunal turnover in the Caribbean Neogene. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269:571–577.Google Scholar
Ulrich, W. 2005. Regional species richness of families and the distribution of abundance and rarity in a local community of forest Hymenoptera. Acta Oecologica 28:71–76.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W. 1961. Paleoecologic molluscan geography of the California Pleistocene. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences: 34:309–442.Google Scholar
Vedder, J. G., and Norris, R. M. 1963. Geology of San Nicolas Island. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 369.Google Scholar
Waller, T. R. 1991. Evolutionary relationships among commercial scallops (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Pectinidae). Pp. 1–73in Shumway, S. E., ed. Scallops: biology, ecology and aquaculture. Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
Waller, T. R. 1993. The evolution of “Chlamys“ (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Pectinidae) in the tropical western Atlantic and eastern Pacific. American Malacological Bulletin 10:195–249.Google Scholar
Weaver, C. E., Beck, R. S., Bramlette, M. N., Carlson, S. A., Forrest, L. C., Frederic, R., Kleinpell, R. M., Putnam, W. C., Taliaferro, N. L., Thorup, R. R., Ver Weibe, W. A., and Watson, E. A. 1944. Correlation of the marine Cenozoic formations of western North America (chart no. 11). Geological Society of America Bulletin 55:569–598.Google Scholar
Webb, C. O., and Pitman, N. C. A. 2002. Phylogenetic balance and ecological evenness. Systematic Biology 51:898–907.Google Scholar
Woodring, W. P., Bramlette, M. N., and Kew, W. S. W. 1946. Geology and paleontology of Palos Verdes Hills, California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 207.Google Scholar