Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T10:32:19.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A hierarchical branching model of evolutionary radiations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Mark E. Patzkowsky
Mark E. Patzkowsky*
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A hierarchical branching model is presented that tracks diversity of lineages and paraclades simultaneously. It is based on three parameters: (1) lineage origination within a paraclade, (2) lineage origination that founds new paraclades, and (3) lineage extinction. The model assumes stochastic constancy of evolutionary rates and, therefore, exponential growth of diversity is the null expectation. The probabilistic model can be used to generate confidence intervals for exponential growth through Monte Carlo simulation. These confidence intervals can be compared to empirical curves to test the null hypothesis of exponential growth. The analytic solution for paraclade diversity gives the statistical expectation for the probabilistic model. It can be applied to empirical diversity curves of supraspecific taxa to estimate total speciation rate, the intrinsic rate of increase, and the proportion of speciation events that found new paraclades. Two factors were identified with the model that may cause diversity curves for higher taxa (e.g., genera, families) to deviate from simple exponential growth during initial phases of diversification: (1) stochastic fluctuation at low diversity, and (2) taxonomic structure (i.e., species/genus ratio). These sources of variability should be evaluated before macroevolutionary explanations for specific diversity trends are invoked. Two kinds of evolutionary radiations were investigated with this model: (1) prolonged periods of low diversity (macroevolutionary lag) in cheilostome bryozoans and mammals prior to their main phases of diversification, and (2) rapid bursts in diversity of bivalves following the late Permian and end-Cretaceous mass extinctions. In all cases these patterns were found to deviate significantly from the null expectation of exponential growth lending support to previous macroevolutionary explanations. Finally, rates of speciation during radiations were compared to rates of speciation during background times for articulate brachiopods, cheilostome bryozoans, bivalves, and mammals. Speciation events that found new paraclades tend to make up a larger proportion of total speciation events during radiations compared to background times indicating that the opportunity for new adaptive zones to be filled at higher taxonomic levels is proportionately higher during these periods of increased evolutionary activity, and is not simply a result of an increased frequency of speciation.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , Fall 1995 , pp. 440 - 460
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Allmon, W. D. 1992. Genera in paleontology: definition and significance. Historical Biology 6:149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, N. T. J. 1964. The elements of stochastic processes, with applications to the natural sciences. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1993. Survivorship analysis of Paleozoic Crinoidea: effect of filter morphology on evolutionary rates. Paleobiology 19:304–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, M. J. 1987. Progress and competition in macroevolution. Biological Reviews 62:305–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, M. J. 1991. Extinction, biotic replacements, and clade interactions. Pp. 89–102in Dudley, E. C., ed. The unity of evolutionary biology. Dioscorides, Portland.Google Scholar
Bowring, S. A., Grotzinger, J. P., Isachsen, C. E., Knoll, A. H., Pelechaty, S. M., and Kolosov, P. 1993. Calibrating rates of Early Cambrian evolution. Science 261:1293–1298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyajian, G. E. 1989. Taxon aging and its role in models of background and mass extinction. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Boyajian, G. E. 1992. Taxon age, origination, and extinction through time. Historical Biology 6:281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, C. E., Miller, K. B., and Baird, G. C. 1990. A temporal hierarchy of paleoecologic processes within a middle Devonian epeiric sea. Paleontological Society Special Publication 5:178–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, C., Trexler, J. H. Jr., and Churkin, M. Jr. 1980. Dating of graptolite zones by sedimentation rates: implications for rates of evolution. Lethaia 13:279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, J. A., and Donoghue, M. J. 1993. Phylogenies and angiosperm diversification. Paleobiology 19:141–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, A. 1988. The genus in zoology: a contribution to the theory of evolutionary systematics. Mémoires du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle (Paris), Zoologie 140:1–122.Google Scholar
Erwin, D. H. 1992. A preliminary classification of evolutionary radiations. Historical Biology 6:133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erwin, D. H., Valentine, J. W., and Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1987. A comparative study of diversification events: the early Paleozoic versus the Mesozoic. Evolution 41:1177–1186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foote, M. J. 1988. Survivorship analysis of Cambrian and Ordovician trilobites. Paleobiology 14:258–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1989. There are extinctions and extinctions: examples from the Lower Palaeozoic. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 325:327–355.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1991. Taxonomy and extinction patterns. Pp. 82–88in Dudley, E. C., ed. The unity of evolutionary biology. Dioscorides, Portland.Google Scholar
Gilinsky, N. L., and Good, I. J. 1991. Probabilities of origination, persistence, extinction of families of marine invertebrate life. Paleobiology 17:145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harland, W. B., Armstrong, R. L., Cox, A. V., Craig, L. E., Smith, A. G., and Smith, D. G. 1990. A geologic time scale 1989. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Isachsen, C. E., Bowring, S. A., Landing, E., and Samson, S. D. 1994. New constraint on the division of Cambrian time. Geology 22:496–498.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1986a. Background and mass extinctions: the alternation of macroevolutionary regimes. Science 231:129–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jablonski, D. 1986b. Larval ecology and macroevolution in marine invertebrates. Bulletin of Marine Science 39:565–587.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D., and Bottjer, D. J. 1990. The origin and diversification of major groups: environmental patterns and macroevolutionary lags. Pp. 17–57in Taylor, P. D. and Larwood, G. P., eds. Major evolutionary radiations. Systematics Association Special Volume No. 42. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C. 1995. Constancy and change of life in the sea. Pp. 45–54in Lawton, J. H. and May, R. M., eds. Extinction rates. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, D. G. 1966. Branching processes since 1873. Journal of the London Mathematical Society 41:385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemen, C. A., and Freeman, P. W. 1984. The genus: a macroevolutionary problem. Evolution 38:1219–1237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, A. I., and Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1988. Modeling bivalve diversification: the effect of interaction on a macroevolutionary system. Paleobiology 14:364–369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, C., and Smith, A. B. 1987. Is the periodicity of extinctions a taxonomic artefact? Nature (London) 330:248–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, C., and Smith, A. B. 1989. Periodicity in extinction: the role of systematics. Ecology 70:802–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. E. 1995. Gradient analysis of Middle Ordovician brachiopod biofacies: biostratigraphic, biogeographic, and macroevolutionary implications. Palaios 10:154–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1978. Cohort analysis of generic survivorship. Paleobiology 4:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1979. Biases in the fossil record of species and genera. Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History 13:85–91.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1985. Mathematical models of cladogenesis. Paleobiology 11:42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1991. A kill curve for Phanerozoic marine species. Paleobiology 17:37–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raup, D. M. 1992. Large-body impact and extinction in the Phanerozoic. Paleobiology 18:80–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanderson, M. J., and Donoghue, M. J. 1994. Shifts in diversification rate with the origin of angiosperms. Science 264:1590–1593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1978. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity. I. Analysis of marine orders. Paleobiology 4:223–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1979. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity. II. Early Phanerozoic families and multiple equilibria. Paleobiology 5:222–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1981. A factor analytic description of the Phanerozoic marine fossil record. Paleobiology 7:36–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1987. Reply [to Patterson and Smith, 1987]. Nature (London) 330:251–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1991. Population biology models in macroevolution. Pp. 136–156. in Gilinsky, N. L. and Signor, P. W., eds. Analytical paleobiology. Short Courses in Paleontology no. 4. Paleontological Society, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr., and Kendrick, D. C. 1993. Numerical experiments with model monophyletic and paraphyletic taxa. Paleobiology 19:168–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr., and Miller, A. I. 1985. Evolutionary faunas and the distribution of Paleozoic benthic communities in space and time. Pp. 153–190. in Valentine, J. W., ed. Phanerozoic diversity patterns: profiles in macroe volution. Princeton University Press and Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr., and Sheehan, P. M. 1983. Diversification, faunal change, and community replacement during the Ordovician radiations. Pp. 673–717. in Tevesz, M. J. S. and McCall, P. M., eds. Biotic interactions in recent and fossil benthic communities. Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1953. The major features of evolution. Simon and Schuster, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloan, R. E., Rigby, J. K. Jr., Van Valen, L. M., and Gabriel, D. 1986. Gradual dinosaur extinction and simultaneous ungulate radiation in the Hell Creek Formation. Science 252:629–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. B., and Patterson, C. 1988. The influence of taxonomic method on the perception of patterns of evolution. Evolutionary Biology 23:127–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1968. Post-Paleozoic adaptive radiation of infaunal bivalve molluscs—a consequence of mantle fusion and siphon formation. Journal of Paleontology 42:214–229.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1975. A theory of evolution above the species level. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science United States of America 72:646–650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanley, S. M. 1978. Chronospecies' longevities, the origin of genera, and the punctuational model of evolution. Paleobiology 4:26–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1979. Macroevolution: pattern and process. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1990. Adaptive radiation and macroevolution. Pp. 1–16. in Taylor, P. D. and Larwood, G. P., eds. Major evolutionary radiations. Systematics Association Special Volume no. 42. Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Stucky, R. K., and McKenna, M. C. 1993. Mammalia. Pp. 739–771in Benton, M. J., ed. The fossil record 2. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Taylor, P. D. 1988. Major radiation of cheilostome bryozoans: triggered by the evolution of a new larval type? Historical Biology 1:45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P. D., and Larwood, G. P. 1990. Major evolutionary radiations. Systematics Association Special Volume no. 42. Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W. 1990. The macroevolution of clade shape. Pp. 128–150in Ross, R. M. and Allmon, W. D., eds. Causes of evolution: a paleontological perspective. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W., and Walker, T. D. 1986. Diversity trends within a model taxonomic heirarchy. Physica D 22:31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentine, J. W., and Walker, T. D. 1987. Extinctions in a model taxonomic heirarchy. Paleobiology 13:193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valen, L. M. 1985. A theory of origination and extinction. Evolutionary Theory 7:133–142.Google Scholar
Walker, T. D. 1985. Diversification functions and rate of taxonomic evolution. Pp. 311–334in Valentine, J. W., ed. Phanerozoic diversity patterns: profiles in macroevolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Walker, T. D., and Valentine, J. W. 1984. Equilibrium models of evolutionary species diversity and the number of empty niches. American Naturalist 124:887–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M. V. H. 1983. Is there a characteristic rate of radiation for insects? Paleobiology 9:79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yule, G. U. 1924. A mathematical theory of evolution, based on the conclusions of Dr. J. C. Willis, F.R.S. Royal Society of London, Philosophical Transactions (B) 213:21–87.Google Scholar