4.7 Article

Ecological ranking of Phanerozoic biodiversity crises: ecological and taxonomic severities are decoupled

期刊

PALAEOGEOGRAPHY PALAEOCLIMATOLOGY PALAEOECOLOGY
卷 211, 期 3-4, 页码 289-297

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2004.05.010

关键词

biodiversity crisis; mass extinction; ecosystem evolution; ecological replacement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The past two decades have seen extensive analyses of the taxonomic severity of major biodiversity crises in geologic time. In contrast, we propose here an alternative analysis of the ecological severity of biodiversity crises. It is clear that the ecological impacts of the five Phanerozoic biodiversity crises were not all the same. Ranking the five Phanerozoic biodiversity crises by ecological severity reveals that the taxonomic and ecological severities of the events are decoupled. The most striking example of the decoupling is the end-Cretaceous biodiversity crisis, which is the least severe in terms of taxonomic diversity loss yet is ecologically the second most severe event in the entire Phanerozoic. A second striking example is the end-Ordovician biodiversity crisis: the environmental degradation produced by the end-Ordovician glaciations precipitated a major loss of marine diversity, yet the extinction failed to eliminate any key taxa or evolutionary traits, and was of minimal ecological impact. We suggest that the decoupled severities indicates that the ecological importance of component species in an ecosystem is at least as important as species diversity in maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem and that this ecological phenomenon operates on geological timescales. The selective elimination of dominant and/or keystone taxa that occurs in the ecologically most devastating biodiversity crises indicates that a strategy emphasizing the preservation of taxa with high ecological value is necessary to mitigate the ecological effects of the current ongoing loss of global biodiversity. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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