4.6 Review

Innovation not recovery: dynamic redox promotes metazoan radiations

期刊

BIOLOGICAL REVIEWS
卷 93, 期 2, 页码 863-873

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/brv.12375

关键词

anoxia; innovation; recovery; mass extinctions; radiations

类别

资金

  1. Geological Society of America
  2. NASA through the NASA Astrobiology Institute [NNA13AA90A]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Environmental fluctuations in redox may reinforce rather than hinder evolutionary transitions, such that variability in near-surface oceanic oxygenation can promote morphological evolution and novelty. Modern, low-oxygen regions are heterogeneous and dynamic habitats that support low diversity and are inhabited by opportunistic and non-skeletal metazoans. We note that several major radiation episodes follow protracted or repeating intervals (>1million years) of persistent and dynamic shallow marine redox (oceanic anoxic events). These are also often associated with short-lived mass-extinction events (<0.5million years) where skeletal benthic incumbents are removed, and surviving or newly evolved benthos initially inhabit transient oxic habitats. We argue that such intervals create critical opportunities for the generation of evolutionary novelty, followed by innovation and diversification. We develop a general model for redox controls on the distribution and structure of the shallow marine benthos in a dominantly anoxic world, and compile data from the terminal Ediacaran-mid-Cambrian (similar to 560-509Ma), late Cambrian-Ordovician (similar to 500-445Ma), and Permo-Triassic (similar to 255-205Ma) to test these predictions. Assembly of phylogenetic data shows that prolonged and widespread anoxic intervals indeed promoted morphological novelty in soft-bodied benthos, providing the ancestral stock for subsequently skeletonized lineages to appear as innovations once oxic conditions became widespread and stable, in turn promoting major evolutionary diversification. As a result, we propose that so-called 'recovery' intervals after mass extinctions might be better considered as 'innovation' intervals.

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

4.6
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