| Literature DB >> 24752221 |
Carrie L Tyler1, Michał Kowalewski1.
Abstract
Benthic marine fossil associations have been used in paleontological studies as multivariate environmental proxies, with particular focus on their utility as water depth estimators. To test this approach directly, we evaluated modern marine invertebrate communities along an onshore-offshore gradient to determine the relationship between community composition and bathymetry, compare the performance of various ordination techniques, and assess whether restricting community datasets to preservable taxa (a proxy for paleontological data) and finer spatial scales diminishes the applicability of multivariate community data as an environmental proxy. Different indirect (unconstrained) ordination techniques (PCoA, CA, DCA, and NMDS) yielded consistent outcomes: locality Axis 1 scores correlated with actual locality depths, and taxon Axis 1 scores correlated with actual preferred taxon depths, indicating that changes in faunal associations primarily reflect bathymetry, or its environmental correlatives. For datasets restricted to taxa with preservable hard parts, heavily biomineralized mollusks, open ocean habitats, and a single onshore-offshore gradient, the significant correlation between water depth and Axis 1 was still observed. However, for these restricted datasets, the correlation between Axis 1 and bathymetry was reduced and, in most cases, notably weaker than estimates produced by subsampling models. Consistent with multiple paleontological studies, the direct tests carried out here for a modern habitat using known bathymetry suggests that multivariate proxies derived from marine benthic associations may serve as a viable proxy of water depth. The general applicability of multivariate paleocommunity data as an indirect proxy of bathymetry is dependent on habitat type, intrinsic ecological characteristics of dominant faunas, taxonomic scope, and spatial and temporal scales of analysis, highlighting the need for continued testing in present-day depositional settings.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24752221 PMCID: PMC3994079 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095711
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Map of sample locations.
Inset box in top left corner shows location of the field area in North Carolina. Each locality (numbered 1–55) was sampled a minimum of three times. In the restricted data analyses, open ocean localities are all localities except 10–15 and 21–22, and the small grid of samples consists of localities 39–55.
Sample location data.
| Locality | Samples | Richness | Abundance | Depth (m) | GPS |
| 1 | 3 | 3 | 47 | 19.0 | N34° 34.383′ W76° 40.474′ |
| 2 | 3 | 12 | 47 | 18.8 | N34° 35.044′ W76° 39.650′ |
| 3 | 6 | 18 | 105 | 18.3 | N34° 36.506′ W76° 38.372′ |
| 4 | 6 | 29 | 256 | 16.7 | N34° 37.691′ W76° 37.404′ |
| 5 | 3 | 25 | 409 | 11.7 | N34° 39.516′ W76° 34.956′ |
| 6 | 3 | 9 | 63 | 18.7 | N34° 34.863′ W76° 39.714′ |
| 7 | 3 | 20 | 72 | 18.7 | N34° 35.888′ W76° 38.913′ |
| 8 | 6 | 36 | 408 | 15.5 | N34° 38.363′ W76° 36.237′ |
| 9 | 5 | 22 | 247 | 8.0 | N34° 39.473′ W76° 34.576′ |
| 10 | 3 | 21 | 119 | 8.5 | N34° 38.258′ W76° 32.752′ |
| 11 | 6 | 55 | 562 | 9.9 | N34° 40.698′ W76° 36.834′ |
| 12 | 4 | 31 | 537 | 8.8 | N34° 37.449′ W76° 32.854′ |
| 13 | 6 | 23 | 435 | 5.2 | N34° 48.006′ W76° 41.216′ |
| 14 | 8 | 40 | 398 | 5.4 | N34° 45.751′ W76° 40.562′ |
| 15 | 8 | 45 | 593 | 5.6 | N34° 43.445′ W76° 41.622′ |
| 16 | 8 | 25 | 1253 | 13.6 | N34° 40.877′ W76° 39.929′ |
| 17 | 6 | 12 | 73 | 6.7 | N34° 41.307′ W76° 41.185′ |
| 18 | 7 | 18 | 283 | 7.9 | N34° 41.460′ W76° 42.554′ |
| 19 | 5 | 30 | 189 | 9.6 | N34° 40.499′ W76° 38.665′ |
| 20 | 4 | 17 | 208 | 15.5 | N34° 39.028′ W76° 38.063′ |
| 21 | 7 | 16 | 235 | 8.3 | N34° 41.528′ W76° 38.142′ |
| 22 | 5 | 29 | 213 | 4.9 | N34° 41.374′ W76° 33.769′ |
| 23 | 3 | 22 | 179 | 16.0 | N34° 40.375′ W76° 43.591′ |
| 24 | 3 | 31 | 779 | 15.0 | N34° 39.755′ W76° 40.362′ |
| 25 | 3 | 21 | 116 | 16.3 | N34° 38.595′ W76° 40.642′ |
| 26 | 3 | 16 | 87 | 17.0 | N34° 37.585′ W76° 40.868′ |
| 27 | 3 | 13 | 56 | 18.0 | N34° 36.316′ W76° 41.138′ |
| 28 | 3 | 15 | 65 | 18.3 | N34° 35.403′ W76° 41.331′ |
| 29 | 6 | 14 | 62 | 18.0 | N34° 35.952′ W76° 44.557′ |
| 30 | 3 | 14 | 91 | 17.5 | N34° 36.819′ W76° 44.487′ |
| 31 | 3 | 18 | 134 | 16.0 | N34° 38.218′ W76° 44.358′ |
| 32 | 3 | 22 | 128 | 17.0 | N34° 39.459′ W76° 44.176′ |
| 33 | 3 | 19 | 217 | 16.0 | N34° 35.740′ W76° 34.505′ |
| 34 | 3 | 9 | 60 | 18.0 | N34° 34.928′ W76° 35.792′ |
| 35 | 3 | 9 | 55 | 18.0 | N34° 34.009′ W76° 36.660′ |
| 36 | 3 | 8 | 59 | 19.0 | N34° 33.921′ W76° 40.914′ |
| 37 | 3 | 7 | 64 | 19.0 | N34° 33.230′ W76° 43.016′ |
| 38 | 3 | 13 | 82 | 18.7 | N34° 34.442′ W76° 44.632′ |
| 39 | 3 | 8 | 106 | 18.3 | N34° 34.939′ W76° 54.526′ |
| 40 | 3 | 15 | 82 | 16.9 | N34° 37.281′ W76° 47.791′ |
| 41 | 6 | 21 | 143 | 16.8 | N34° 38.852′ W76° 48.196′ |
| 42 | 4 | 21 | 137 | 13.3 | N34° 41.149′ W76° 48.010′ |
| 43 | 4 | 19 | 207 | 16.0 | N34° 40.118′ W76° 48.143′ |
| 44 | 4 | 33 | 356 | 17.2 | N34° 36.891′ W76° 50.267′ |
| 45 | 3 | 20 | 319 | 17.0 | N34° 38.122′ W76° 50.702′ |
| 46 | 3 | 22 | 442 | 16.0 | N34° 39.306′ W76° 50.736′ |
| 47 | 3 | 21 | 205 | 13.0 | N34° 40.761′ W76° 50.570′ |
| 48 | 3 | 16 | 257 | 11.3 | N34° 40.739′ W76° 53.045′ |
| 49 | 3 | 20 | 251 | 16.0 | N34° 40.015′ W76° 54.028′ |
| 50 | 3 | 15 | 100 | 16.0 | N34° 35.938′ W76° 50.392′ |
| 51 | 6 | 20 | 129 | 16.3 | N34° 38.005′ W76° 53.658′ |
| 52 | 3 | 12 | 94 | 17.0 | N34° 37.060′ W76° 54.003′ |
| 53 | 3 | 12 | 126 | 17.0 | N34° 36.077′ W76° 54.068′ |
| 54 | 3 | 12 | 546 | 17.0 | N34° 34.772′ W76° 54.699′ |
| 55 | 3 | 12 | 143 | 18.0 | N34° 35.938′ W76° 50.392′ |
Number of samples collected at each locality is listed under “Samples”.
Figure 2Locality and species abundance filtering.
(A) Dashed grey line indicates number of localities retained at a given minimum acceptable sample size. Solid black line indicates adjusted R2 values from regression of Axis 1 scores with locality depths. (B) Grey line with triangles indicates number of species retained at a given minimum acceptable sample size (i.e., a minimum acceptable number of specimens per species). Solid black line with circles indicates adjusted R2 values from regression of Axis 1 scores with weighted species occurrence depths. In both figures, each R2 value represents a new ordination. Note that a minimum species abundance of 10 and minimum locality abundance of 30 was used for all analyses, which allowed us to retain the bulk of the data and R2 consistent with values observed for larger sample sizes.
Figure 3Ordination species score plots for all four ordinations types.
(A) PCoA (Axis 1 = 18%, Axis 2 = 12%), (B) CA (principal inertias CA1 = 51%, CA2 = 49%), (C) DCA, (D) NMDS (stress 0.19). Symbols in (A), top right, denote depth ranges.
Figure 4Reduced major axis regression of weighted species depth estimates and Axis 1 species scores for four types of ordinations.
(A) Principal Coordinates Analysis, (B) Correspondence Analysis, (C) Detrended Correspondence Analysis, (D) Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling.
Figure 5Reduced major axis regression of locality depth and Axis 1 locality scores for four types of ordinations.
(A) Principal Coordinates Analysis, (B) Correspondence Analysis, (C) Detrended Correspondence Analysis, (D) Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling.
Figure 6NMDS plots of locality and species scores.
(A) plot by species, (B) plot by localities. Symbols denote depth ranges of species (A) or localities (B).
Axis score correlation coefficients.
| Method |
|
|
| CA1 vs. DC1 | −1.00 | −1.00 |
| CA1 vs. MDS1 | −0.81 | −0.91 |
| CA1 vs. PCO1 | 0.91 | −0.84 |
| PCO1 vs. MDS1 | −0.88 | 0.74 |
| DC1 vs. MDS1 | 0.81 | 0.91 |
| DC1 vs. PCO1 | −0.90 | 0.84 |
| CA2 vs. DC2 | 0.09 | 0.11 |
| CA2 vs. MDS2 | −0.06 | −0.09 |
| CA2 vs. PCO2 | 0.21 | 0.54 |
| PCO2 vs. MDS2 | 0.56 | 0.08 |
| DC2 vs. MDS2 | −0.19 | −0.09 |
| DC2 vs. PCO2 | −0.48 | 0.11 |
Spearman’s Rank correlation coefficients (r) of Axis 1 and Axis 2 locality (L) and species (Sp) scores for each ordination method.
*Denotes significant correlations (α = 0.05).
Figure 7NMDS plot of species scores and preservation potential.
Symbols denote relative preservation potential (4 = heavily biomineralized, 3 = fragile but skeletonized hard parts, 2 = some hard parts such as chitin, 1 = all soft parts). Note that species with various ranks of preservation potentials are distributed along the entire range of Axis 1.
Figure 8Effects of taphonomic biases and taxonomic scaling.
Reduced major axis regressions between Axis 1 scores and depth for: (A–B) all taxa, (C–D) preservable taxa (stress 0.2), and (E–F) heavily biomineralized mollusks (stress 0.2). Plots on the left utilize species scores, plots on the right use locality scores. Note the presence of two notable outliers in 8E (bottom right quadrant, bivalves Spisula solidissima and Ensis directus), and one in 8F (bottom right quadrant, locality 49), without which the relationship between species or sample depth and Axis 1 scores would greatly improve.
Figure 9Effects of geographic scaling.
NMDS locality score plots and corresponding reduced major axis regressions between Axis 1 locality scores and depth for: (A–B) the entire study area (stress 0.2), (C–D) open ocean localities only (stress 0.2), (E–F) a small onshore-offshore gradient (stress 0.17). Symbols in NMDS plots denote depth ranges (reversed triangle = 0–5 m, filled circle = 6–10 m, inverted triangle = 11–15 m, cross = 16–20 m).
Figure 10Distributions of r2 values resulting from random resampling.
(A) Preservable Taxa, (B) Heavily Biomineralized Mollusks, (C) Ocean localities, and (D) Small Grid. White dot denotes mean of simulations, red dot denotes actual observed value, and black dot denotes value for complete data set. Color contours within plots denote density from low (dark blue) to high (red).
Confidence intervals for correlation coefficients.
| Species Scores |
|
|
| Lower CI | Upper CI | Lower CI(bootstrap) | Upper CI(bootstrap) |
| Entire Dataset | 69 | −0.90 | <<0.0001 | −0.94 | −0.85 | −0.94 | −0.85 |
| Preservable | 61 | −0.89 | <<0.0001 | −0.93 | −0.83 | −0.94 | −0.83 |
| Robust Mollusks | 18 | −0.54 | 0.02 | −0.80 | −0.10 | −0.94 | −0.03 |
| Open Ocean | 52 | −0.72 | <<0.0001 | −0.83 | −0.55 | −0.83 | −0.57 |
| Grid Transect | 50 | −0.45 | 0.001 | −0.65 | −0.20 | −0.64 | −0.21 |
|
| |||||||
| Entire Dataset | 49 | −0.82 | <<0.0001 | −0.89 | −0.70 | −0.89 | −0.72 |
| Preservable | 46 | −0.82 | <0.0001 | −0.90 | −0.70 | −0.90 | −0.73 |
| Robust Mollusks | 28 | −0.65 | 0.002 | −0.83 | −0.37 | −0.93 | −0.28 |
| Open Ocean | 42 | −0.74 | <<0.0001 | −0.85 | −0.57 | −0.84 | −0.64 |
| Grid Transect | 17 | −0.77 | 0.0003 | −0.91 | −0.46 | −0.91 | −0.59 |
Pearson correlation coefficients, parametric p-values, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are shown for the entire dataset, and each data subset.