Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T06:22:26.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Developmental change during a speciation event: evidence from planktic foraminifera

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2021

Karina Vanadzina*
Affiliation:
School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queens Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, U.K. E-mail: kv15207@my.bristol.ac.uk, D.Schmidt@bristol.ac.uk.
Daniela N. Schmidt
Affiliation:
School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queens Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, U.K. E-mail: kv15207@my.bristol.ac.uk, D.Schmidt@bristol.ac.uk.
*
*Corresponding author.

Abstract

Studies in extant populations have shown that plasticity in developmental trajectories can contribute to the origin of novel traits and species divergence via the expression of previously cryptic variation in response to environmental change. Finding evidence for plasticity-led evolution in the fossil record remains challenging due to the poor preservation of developmental stages in many organisms. Planktic foraminifera are ideally suited for addressing this knowledge gap, because adult organisms in species in which development has been studied retain information about all the ontogenetic stages they have undergone. Here we map changes in the developmental trajectories of 68 specimens in the Globorotalia plesiotumida–tumida lineage of planktic foraminifera from the late Miocene until Recent using high-resolution computer tomography techniques. Our unique dataset shows that the transition from the ancestral G. plesiotumida to the descendant G. tumida is preceded by an increased variability in total cumulative volume—an important indicator of reproductive success in this taxon. We also find that the transition interval is marked by a distinct shift in developmental trajectory, which supports a rapid lineage division rather than gradual change. We suggest that high levels of plasticity—particularly in the early stages of development—have contributed to divergence in the ancestral morphology when subjected to a global cooling trend in the late Miocene. The large variation in developmental trajectories that we uncover within our samples emphasizes the need for high-throughput approaches in studies of ontogenetic change in the fossil record.

Information

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Paleontological Society
Figure 0

Figure 1. A, Three-dimensional surface visualizations of typical ancestral Globorotalia plesiotumida and descendant Globorotalia tumida morphologies. Each specimen is shown in side view with the aperture visible (left) and in umbilical view (right). Scale bar, 100 μm. B, Change in cumulative chamber volume throughout ontogeny in five specimens during the G. plesiotumida–tumida transition interval (PTT; 6.3–5.3 Ma) and one modern specimen from Caromel et al. (2016); all trajectories have been obtained from synchrotron X-ray microtomography scans. C–E, Change in growth rate, expressed as linear regression residuals of log10-transformed cumulative chamber volume against chamber number for (C) a G. plesiotumida specimen at the start of the PTT and a modern G. tumida specimen; four specimens identified as (D) G. plesiotumida and (E) G. tumida throughout the PTT. The dotted line in C–E represents log-linear regression line.

Figure 1

Table 1. Locality (presented as site, then hole-core-section), age, and specimen numbers of Globorotalia plesiotumida–tumida samples used for population-level analysis. X-ray microtomography (microCT) and synchrotron X-ray microtomography (SXRTM) specifications included. The specimen marked with an asterisk (*) was reconstructed as part of Caromel et al. (2016). All specimens have been putatively assigned to either G. plesiotumida or G. tumida.

Figure 2

Figure 2. A–E, Trajectories of change in the cumulative chamber volume at each chamber addition in five samples throughout the history of the Globorotalia plesiotumida–tumida lineage. Both intact (n = 61) and externally damaged (n = 7) specimens included. F–J, Trajectories of change in growth rate expressed as linear regression residuals of log10-transformed cumulative chamber volume against chamber number. The trajectories of damaged specimens are marked with dashed lines; specimens reconstructed using synchrotron X-ray microtomography are marked with black lines. A previously reconstructed specimen of G. tumida from Caromel et al. (2016) was included in the most recent sample (0.25 Ma) for illustrative purposes but was not used in further analyses. The dotted line in F–J represents the log-linear regression line. The gray shading of the age bar represents the G. plesiotumida–tumida transition interval (PTT).

Figure 3

Figure 3. A–E, Trajectories of change in the surface area to volume ratio (SA:V) at each chamber addition in five samples throughout the history of the Globorotalia plesiotumida–tumida lineage; both SA and V represent cumulative values. Both intact (n = 61) and externally damaged (n = 7) specimens included. The trajectories of damaged specimens are marked with dashed lines; specimens reconstructed using synchrotron X-ray microtomography are marked with black lines. The gray shading of the age bar represents the G. plesiotumida–tumida transition interval (PTT).

Figure 4

Figure 4. A, Mean change in cumulative chamber volume throughout ontogeny in five populations throughout the history of the Globorotalia plesiotumida–tumida lineage. Each value represents the geometric mean of cumulative chamber volumes of all specimens per sample at a given chamber addition (depicted in full in Fig. 2A–E) with more than three specimens available. B, Mean change in growth rate, expressed as log-linear regression residuals of mean cumulative chamber volume against chamber number (residuals of individual growth trajectories depicted in Fig. 2F–J). The dotted line represents log-linear regression line. C, Mean trajectories of change in the surface area to volume ratio (SA:V) at each chamber addition. Each value represents the mean SA:V of all specimens per sample at a given chamber addition with more than three specimens available (depicted in full in Fig. 3). PTT, G. plesiotumida–tumida transition.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Coiling direction and chamber number in five populations throughout the history of the Globorotalia plesiotumida–tumida lineage. Top panel shows frequency distribution of specimens exhibiting sinistral or dextral coiling per sample; all specimens included (n = 78). Bottom panel shows chamber number counts per sample; solid black line represents the mean value, filled circles indicate specimens reconstructed using synchrotron X-ray microtomography; only intact specimens included (n = 61). PTT, G. plesiotumida–tumida transition.

Figure 6

Figure 6. A, Change in total cumulative volume vs. test length in five populations throughout the history of the Globorotalia plesiotumida–tumida lineage. B, Change in total cumulative volume vs. chamber number across five study populations. Filled circle represents a single specimen from the 5.3 Ma sample that could be identified as an ancestral G. plesiotumida; only intact specimens included (n = 61). PTT, G. plesiotumida–tumida transition.

Figure 7

Figure 7. A, Tukey box-and-whisker plots of variation in cumulative chamber volume at prolocular stage and at the six-chamber mark (n = 68; sample sizes listed before slash) and in total (only intact specimens included, n = 61; sample sizes listed after slash). B, Change in cumulative chamber volume in total or at the six-chamber mark vs. the prolocular volume. PTT, Globorotalia plesiotumida–tumida transition.