4.4 Review

General models of ecological diversification. I. Conceptual synthesis

期刊

PALEOBIOLOGY
卷 42, 期 2, 页码 185-208

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/pab.2016.3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Faculty Development (Benedictine University)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evolutionary paleoecologists have proposed many explanations for Phanerozoic trends in ecospace utilization, including escalation, seafood through time, filling of an empty ecospace, and tiering, among others. These hypotheses can be generalized into four models of functional diversification within a life-habit ecospace framework (functional-trait space). The models also incorporate concepts in community assembly, functional diversity, evolutionary diversification, and morphological disparity. The redundancy model produces an ecospace composed of clusters of functionally similar taxa. The partitioning model produces an ecospace that is progressively subdivided by taxa along life-habit gradients. The expansion model produces an ecospace that becomes progressively enlarged by the accumulation of taxa with novel life habits. These models can be caused by a wide range of ecological and evolutionary processes, but they are all caused by particular driven mechanisms. A fourth, neutral model also exists, in which ecospace is filled at random by life habits: this model can serve as a passive null model. Each model produces distinct dynamics for functional diversity/disparity statistics when simulated by stochastic simulations of ecospace diversification. In this first of two companion articles, I summarize the theoretical bases of these models, describe their expected statistical dynamics, and discuss their relevance to important paleoecological trends and theories. Although most synoptic interpretations of Phanerozoic ecological history invoke one or more of the driven models, I argue that this conclusion is premature until tests are conducted that provide better statistical support for them over simpler passive models.

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