4.4 Article

Estimating spatial variation in origination and extinction in deep time: a case study using the Permian-Triassic marine invertebrate fossil record

期刊

PALEOBIOLOGY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/pab.2023.1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding spatial variation in origination and extinction rates is crucial for understanding macroevolutionary patterns. In this study, we develop and test metrics for regional analysis and apply them to the Permian and Triassic marine invertebrate record to examine variation in extinction and origination rates across latitudes. Our results show that extinction and origination rates were generally uniform across latitudes for these time intervals, cautioning against attributing observed differences to contrasting evolutionary dynamics. We also find that origination and extinction levels were more variable across clades than across latitudes.
Understanding spatial variation in origination and extinction can help to unravel the mechanisms underlying macroevolutionary patterns. Although methods have been developed for estimating global origination and extinction rates from the fossil record, no framework exists for applying these methods to restricted spatial regions. Here, we test the efficacy of three metrics for regional analysis, using simulated fossil occurrences. These metrics are then applied to the marine invertebrate record of the Permian and Triassic to examine variation in extinction and origination rates across latitudes. Extinction and origination rates were generally uniform across latitudes for these time intervals, including during the Capitanian and Permian-Triassic mass extinctions. The small magnitude of this variation, combined with the possibility of its attribution to sampling bias, cautions against linking any observed differences to contrasting evolutionary dynamics. Our results indicate that origination and extinction levels were more variable across clades than across latitudes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据