| Literature DB >> 22558396 |
Catherine Girard1, Sabrina Renaud.
Abstract
Early periods in Earth's history have seen a progressive increase in complexity of the ecosystems, but also dramatic crises decimating the biosphere. Such patterns are usually considered as large-scale changes among supra-specific groups, including morphological novelties, radiation, and extinctions. Nevertheless, in the same time, each species evolved by the way of micro-evolutionary processes, extended over millions of years into the evolution of lineages. How these two evolutionary scales interacted is a challenging issue because this requires bridging a gap between scales of observation and processes. The present study aims at transferring a typical macro-evolutionary approach, namely disparity analysis, to the study of fine-scale evolutionary variations in order to decipher what processes actually drove the dynamics of diversity at a micro-evolutionary level. The Late Frasnian to Late Famennian period was selected because it is punctuated by two major macro-evolutionary crises, as well as a progressive diversification of marine ecosystem. Disparity was estimated through this period on conodonts, tooth-like fossil remains of small eel-like predators that were part of the nektonic fauna. The study was focused on the emblematic genus of the period, Palmatolepis. Strikingly, both crises affected an already impoverished Palmatolepis disparity, increasing risks of random extinction. The major disparity signal rather emerged as a cycle of increase and decrease in disparity during the inter-crises period. The diversification shortly followed the first crisis and might correspond to an opportunistic occupation of empty ecological niche. The subsequent oriented shrinking in the morphospace occupation suggests that the ecological space available to Palmatolepis decreased through time, due to a combination of factors: deteriorating climate, expansion of competitors and predators. Disparity changes of Palmatolepis thus reflect changes in the structure of the ecological space itself, which was prone to evolve during this ancient period where modern ecosystems were progressively shaped.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22558396 PMCID: PMC3338699 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036230
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Temporal and geographical sampling, and terminology on conodont elements.
(A) Timescale, composite section along the end Frasnian and the Famennian and stratigraphic log of the studied sections. Absolute ages after [24] and conodont zones after [77]. Note that the postera and expansa zones are not sampled. Along the stratigraphic log of each section, dots represent the sampled levels. Abbreviations: E = Early, M = Middle, L = Late. (B) Paleogeographic map [19] of the Famennian. Circles = location of the French (blue circle) and German (red circle) sections contributing to the composite section. Black dots = location of the sections that delivered additional sampling of Palmatolepis (Palmatolepis) linguiformis. (C) Illustration of Palmatolepis platform elements, with the terminology of the morphological features used in taxonomy. To the left a specimen of Pa. (Palmatolepis) rugosa (trachytera zone). To the right a specimen of Pa. (Manticolepis) rotunda (rhenana zone).
Figure 2Temporal distribution and illustration of the Palmatolepis groups (end Frasnian to end Famennian).
Each group is illustrated by a characteristic specimen and the average reconstructed outline. Vertical black bars represent the temporal extension of the groups, grey bars the temporal distribution of the (sub)species of the illustrated specimen. The horizontal dotted lines represent the F/F and the D/C crises.
Sampling of the different groups and (sub)species through end-Frasnian and Famennian.
| Zones | Early | Late |
| Early | Middle | Late |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Groups | (sub)species | |||||||||||
| Manticolepis |
| 20 | 10 | |||||||||
|
| 11 | 16 | ||||||||||
|
| 6 | |||||||||||
|
| 3 | |||||||||||
|
| 545 | 1698 | 220 | |||||||||
| Palmatolepis |
| 59 | ||||||||||
|
| 55 | 49 | 49 | 33 | ||||||||
|
| 7 | |||||||||||
| Perlobata |
| 10 | 84 | 51 | 16 | |||||||
|
| 25 | 34 | 62 | |||||||||
|
| 18 | |||||||||||
|
| 22 | |||||||||||
| Rhomboidea |
| 12 | 21 | |||||||||
|
| 22 | 12 | ||||||||||
|
| 3 | 12 | ||||||||||
|
| 43 | |||||||||||
| Regularis |
| 4 | 23 | 21 | ||||||||
| Subperlobata |
| 46 | ||||||||||
|
| 2 | 5 | ||||||||||
|
| 11 | |||||||||||
|
| 66 | |||||||||||
| Panderolepis |
| 21 | 43 | |||||||||
|
| 8 | 81 | 196 | 21 | ||||||||
|
| 35 | 32 | ||||||||||
|
| 30 | |||||||||||
| Conditolepis |
| 218 | ||||||||||
|
| 5 | |||||||||||
| Deflectolepis |
| 39 | 40 | 34 | 18 | |||||||
|
| 11 | 88 | 520 | |||||||||
| indet | 16 | 28 | 147 | 60 | 20 | 54 | ||||||
| Total/zone | 576 | 1733 | 279 | 51 | 183 | 433 | 311 | 268 | 650 | 167 | 520 |
Number of Palmatolepis elements measured for the morphometric analysis, detailed by stratigraphic zones (columns) and taxonomic units (rows). Groups and (sub) species are presented in order of their first occurrence in the successive stratigraphic zones.
Figure 3Occupation of the Palmatolepis morphospace through the end Frasnian and the Famennian.
The morphospace is defined by the first two axes of a principal component analysis on the Fourier coefficients of the platform outline. The representation has been split by temporal zones. (A) Total variation (each dot corresponds to a single specimen). Symbols correspond to the morphological groups illustrated on the Fig. 2. (B) Variation among (sub)species (each dot corresponds to the average value of the corresponding taxonomic unit). Colours correspond to morphological groups.
Figure 4End Frasnian to end Famennian variations in Palmatolepis disparity and morphology, and paleoenvironment.
(A) Temporal variations in Palmatolepis disparity. Blue diamonds = total disparity (for the linguiformis zone, two values are provided: including additional Pa. (Pa.) linguiformis [full line] or relying on Coumiac sampling only [dotted line]). Red squares = (sub)species disparity. Green circles = group disparity. Disparity was estimated as the variance among units (elements, (sub)species or groups), i.e. the sum of the variance of the Fourier coefficients. Robustness of the total disparity estimate to variations in sampling has been evaluated by a random rarefaction procedure, each sample being randomly subsampled 10 times to the lowest sample size (51 elements). Error bars (95% confidence interval [CI]) are represented but are masked by the symbol of the mean value of the rarefied samples (grey squares). (B) Morphometric variation of the different Palmatolepis groups through time. The first axis (PC1) of the morphospace has been considered as synthetic shape axis. Average value +/−95% CI has been represented for each group. (C) Morphometric variation of the total assemblage through time, represented by the average value +/−95% CI per zone of all elements on the synthetic shape axis (PC1). Reconstructed outlines visualize the shape change along PC1, corresponding to the presence (negative values) or absence (positive values) of a lobe. (D) Variation in sea-surface temperature per zone based on conodont apatite ∂18O (data from [10]), +/−95% CI. The solid line corresponds to the Frasnian/Famennian boundary. The dashed line represents the separation between two periods characterized by different environmental conditions: at the base an overall warm period with non-oriented fluctuations, followed by an oriented cooling trend.
Relationship between Palmatolepis shape and disparity, and paleoenvironmental variations.
| Raw | Detrend | ||||||||||||||
| Record | ∂18O | N | Rlin | Plin | Plin* | RSRO | PSRO | PSRO* | N | Rlin | Plin | Plin* | RSRO | PSRO | PSRO* |
| Total | PC1 | 11 | 0.700 |
|
| 0.418 | 0.201 | 0.133 | 10 | −0.107 | 0.769 | 0.953 | −0.285 | 0.425 | 0.934 |
| DispTot | 11 | −0.152 | 0.655 | 0.125 | −0.082 | 0.811 | 0.235 | 10 | −0.699 |
|
| −0.685 |
| 0.055 | |
| DispGp | 11 | −0.572 | 0.066 | −0.510 | 0.109 | 10 | −0.769 |
| −0.717 |
| |||||
| DispSp | 11 | −0.446 | 0.169 | −0.428 | 0.190 | 10 | −0.764 |
| −0.636 |
| |||||
| Part 1 | PC1 | 6 | −0.206 | 0.695 | 0.837 | −0.423 | 0.355 | 0.714 | 5 | −0.072 | 0.908 | 0.246 | −0.100 | 0.783 | 0.450 |
| DispTot | 6 | 0.064 | 0.904 | 0.680 | 0.143 | 0.714 | 0.933 | 5 | −0.330 | 0.588 | 0.450 | −0.600 | 0.233 | 0.683 | |
| DispGp | 6 | −0.502 | 0.310 | −0.320 | 0.650 | 5 | −0.549 | 0.337 | −0.200 | 0.683 | |||||
| DispSp | 6 | −0.595 | 0.213 | −0.232 | 0.650 | 5 | −0.642 | 0.243 | −0.500 | 0.450 | |||||
| Part 2 | PC1 | 5 | 0.953 |
| 1.000 |
| 5 | ||||||||
| DispTot | 5 | −0.961 |
| −1.000 |
| 5 | |||||||||
| DispGp | 5 | −0.994 |
| −1.000 |
| 5 | |||||||||
| DispSp | 5 | −0.943 |
| −1.000 |
| 5 |
Correlations between the paleoenvironmental proxy (∂18O) and Palmatolepis mean shape (PC1), total disparity (DispTot), group disparity (DispGp) and (sub)species disparity (DispSp) were calculated using linear regressions (lin) and Spearman rank-order correlation (SRO). For both, the number of items (N), the coefficient of correlation (R) and the probability of the correlation (P) are provided. A star (*) indicates values calculated without the specimens of Pa. (Pa.) linguiformis added to the one of Coumiac. To the left, values based on raw data; to the right, values based on detrended data (first order difference, i.e. differences between successive samples).
The correlations have been estimated for the whole record (Total), its first part corresponding to non-oriented climatic fluctuations (Part 1, from rhenana to triangularis), and on its second part marked by a cooling trend (Part 2, from crepida to praesulcata).