Increase in predator-prey size ratios throughout the Phanerozoic history of marine ecosystems.
16 Jun 2017-Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science)-Vol. 356, Iss: 6343, pp 1178-1180
TL;DR: It is shown that drill-hole size is a robust predictor of body size among modern drilling predators and that drill -hole size rose substantially from the Ordovician to the Quaternary period, whereas the size of drilled prey remained stable, which indicates a directional increase in predator-prey size ratios.
Abstract: The escalation hypothesis posits that predation by increasingly powerful and metabolically active carnivores has been a major driver of metazoan evolution. We test a key tenet of this hypothesis by analyzing predatory drill holes in fossil marine shells, which provide a ~500-million-year record of individual predator-prey interactions. We show that drill-hole size is a robust predictor of body size among modern drilling predators and that drill-hole size (and thus inferred predator size and power) rose substantially from the Ordovician to the Quaternary period, whereas the size of drilled prey remained stable. Together, these trends indicate a directional increase in predator-prey size ratios. We hypothesize that increasing predator-prey size ratios reflect increases in prey abundance, prey nutrient content, and predation among predators.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: A review of the types of paleontological data used to infer predation in the marine fossil record, discuss strengths and limitations of the evidence used to recognize and evaluate predatory activity, assess the influence of environmental gradients on predation patterns, and review fossil evidence for predator behavior and prey defense as mentioned in this paper.
72 citations
Cites background from "Increase in predator-prey size rati..."
...Unlike Cretaceous and Cenozoic drill holes, early Phanerozoic drill holes need to be interpreted more cautiously because, thus far, only platyceratid gastropods are known to drill in the Paleozoic (Baumiller, 1990), but drill-hole morphology varies (Brett, 2003; Klompmaker et al., 2016a)....
[...]
...…of the driller through quantitative or qualitative analyses (e.g., Dietl et al., 2004; Dietl and Kelley, 2006; Grey et al., 2005; Kowalewski, 2004; Paul and Herbert, 2014), although drill-hole convergence (i.e. different predators making similar drill holes) does occur (Klompmaker et al., 2016a)....
[...]
...…in echinoderms that may have been partially caused by embedment (e.g., Brett, 1985), are also known from the Triassic (Fürsich and Jablonski, 1984; Klompmaker et al., 2016a) and the Devonian (Smith et al., 1985) when naticids had not evolved yet (Kase and Ishikawa, 2003; Klompmaker et al., 2016a)....
[...]
...Examples include prey taxon selectivity of ostracods in the Paleocene of Nigeria (Reyment and Elewa, 2003) and Argentina (Villegas-Martín et al., 2019); mollusks from the Triassic of Italy (Klompmaker et al., 2016a), the Miocene of Bulgaria (Kojumdjieva, 1974) and Poland (Hoffman et al., 1974), and the Pliocene of Spain (Hoffman and Martinell, 1984) and the Netherlands (Klompmaker, 2009); of gastropods in the Miocene of Panama (Fortunato, 2007) and the Pliocene of Ecuador (Walker, 2001); and among brachiopods in the Devonian of New York state, USA (Smith et al., 1985) and the Miocene of Poland (Baumiller and Bitner, 2004)....
[...]
...Additionally, there is a strong focus on reporting positive evidence of predation, while research on negative evidence or low predation intensities (e.g., Forel et al., 2018; Klompmaker et al., 2016a; Tackett and Tintori, 2019) is equally important to assess temporal trends of predation intensity....
[...]
TL;DR: Cambrian durophagous and shell‐drilling predation is considered in the context of escalation – an evolutionary process that, amongst other scenarios, involves predators (and other ‘enemies’) as the predominant agents of natural selection.
Abstract: The Cambrian Explosion is arguably the most extreme example of a biological radiation preserved in the fossil record, and studies of Cambrian Lagerstatten have facilitated the exploration of many facets of this key evolutionary event. As predation was a major ecological driver behind the Explosion – particularly the radiation of biomineralising metazoans – the evidence for shell crushing (durophagy), drilling and puncturing predation in the Cambrian (and possibly the Ediacaran) is considered. Examples of durophagous predation on biomineralised taxa other than trilobites are apparently rare, reflecting predator preference, taphonomic and sampling biases, or simply lack of documentation. The oldest known example of durophagy is shell damage on the problematic taxon Mobergella holsti from the early Cambrian (possibly Terreneuvian) of Sweden. Using functional morphology to identify (or perhaps misidentify) durophagous predators is discussed, with emphasis on the toolkit used by Cambrian arthropods, specifically the radiodontan oral cone and the frontal and gnathobasic appendages of various taxa. Records of drill holes and possible puncture holes in Cambrian shells are mostly on brachiopods, but the lack of prey diversity may represent either a true biological signal or a result of various biases. The oldest drilled Cambrian shells occur in a variety of Terreneuvian-aged taxa, but specimens of the ubiquitous Ediacaran shelly fossil Cloudina also show putative drilling traces. Knowledge on Cambrian shell drillers is sorely lacking and there is little evidence or consensus concerning the taxonomic groups that made the holes, which often leads to the suggestion of an unknown ‘soft bodied driller’. Useful methodologies for deciphering the identities and capabilities of shell drillers are outlined. Evidence for puncture holes in Cambrian shelly taxa is rare. Such holes are more jagged than drill holes and possibly made by a Cambrian ‘puncher’. The Cambrian arthropod Yohoia may have used its frontal appendages in a jack-knifing manner, similar to Recent stomatopod crustaceans, to strike and puncture shells rapidly. Finally, Cambrian durophagous and shell-drilling predation is considered in the context of escalation – an evolutionary process that, amongst other scenarios, involves predators (and other ‘enemies’) as the predominant agents of natural selection. The rapid increase in diversity and abundance of biomineralised shells during the early Cambrian is often attributed to escalation: enemies placed selective pressure on prey, forcing phenotypic responses in prey and, by extension, in predator groups over time. Unfortunately, few case studies illustrate long-term patterns in shelly fossil morphologies that may reflect the influence of predation throughout the Cambrian. More studies on phenotypic change in hard-shelled lineages are needed to convincingly illustrate escalation and the responses of prey during the Cambrian.
66 citations
Cites background from "Increase in predator-prey size rati..."
...The Cambrian is often cited as a period when escalation drove phenotypic change in organisms (e.g. Marshall, 2006; Wood & Zhuravlev, 2012; Na & Kiessling, 2015; Klompmaker et al., 2017)....
[...]
...This segregation is driller-dependent, and drill hole diameter can also be used to estimate the body size of the predator (Klompmaker et al., 2017)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the behaviour of the iconic ichnogenus Chondrites is re-evaluated based on review of existing literature and analysis of novel data (macroscopic, thin section and ESEM-EDX observations; CT-scans and resin peels of modern analogues; computer-controlled serial grinding; morphometric analysis and theoretical morphology).
48 citations
TL;DR: The authors used the Ruin Wash Lagerstatte (Nevada, USA; Stage 4, Cambrian Series 2) to study the early Palaeozoic predation of trilobites.
23 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the authors consider the problem of setting approximate confidence intervals for a single parameter θ in a multiparameter family, and propose a method to automatically incorporate transformations, bias corrections, and so on.
Abstract: We consider the problem of setting approximate confidence intervals for a single parameter θ in a multiparameter family. The standard approximate intervals based on maximum likelihood theory, , can be quite misleading. In practice, tricks based on transformations, bias corrections, and so forth, are often used to improve their accuracy. The bootstrap confidence intervals discussed in this article automatically incorporate such tricks without requiring the statistician to think them through for each new application, at the price of a considerable increase in computational effort. The new intervals incorporate an improvement over previously suggested methods, which results in second-order correctness in a wide variety of problems. In addition to parametric families, bootstrap intervals are also developed for nonparametric situations.
2,870 citations
01 Jan 1987
TL;DR: In this article, the authors consider the problem of setting approximate confidence intervals for a single parameter 0 in a multiparameter family, and propose the bootstrap confidence intervals that automatically incorporate transformations, bias corrections, and so forth.
Abstract: We consider the problem of setting approximate confidence intervals for a single parameter 0 in a multiparameter family. The standard approximate intervals based on maximum likelihood theory, 8 2 &z(=), can be quite misleading. In practice, tricks based on transformations, bias corrections, and so forth, are often used to improve their accuracy. The bootstrap confidence intervals discussed in this article automatically incorporate such tricks without requiring the statistician to think them through for each new application, at the price of a considerable increase in computational effort. The new intervals incorporate an improvement over previously suggested methods, which results in second-order correctness in a wide variety of problems. In addition to parametric families, bootstrap intervals are also developed for nonparametric situations.
2,828 citations
TL;DR: This work highlights episodes of climate change that have disrupted ecosystems and trophic interactions over time scales ranging from years to millennia by changing species’ relative abundances and geographic ranges, causing extinctions, and creating transient and novel communities dominated by generalist species and interactions.
Abstract: Biotic interactions drive key ecological and evolutionary processes and mediate ecosystem responses to climate change. The direction, frequency, and intensity of biotic interactions can in turn be altered by climate change. Understanding the complex interplay between climate and biotic interactions is thus essential for fully anticipating how ecosystems will respond to the fast rates of current warming, which are unprecedented since the end of the last glacial period. We highlight episodes of climate change that have disrupted ecosystems and trophic interactions over time scales ranging from years to millennia by changing species’ relative abundances and geographic ranges, causing extinctions, and creating transient and novel communities dominated by generalist species and interactions. These patterns emerge repeatedly across disparate temporal and spatial scales, suggesting the possibility of similar underlying processes. Based on these findings, we identify knowledge gaps and fruitful areas for research that will further our understanding of the effects of climate change on ecosystems.
615 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a seawater pH correction to the Phanerozoic temperature reconstruction based on δO variations in marine fossils is presented, and it is shown that even though the CO2 signature cannot be seen, the pH correction implies only a somewhat higher global temperature sensitivity than that in Shaviv and Veizer (2003), a sensitivity that is consistent with a black body Earth, but only marginally with the lower limit of the IPCC range.
Abstract: Royer et al. (2004) introduce a seawater pH correction to the Phanerozoic temperature reconstruction based on δO variations in marine fossils. Although this correction is a novel idea and it is likely to have played some role in offsetting the δO record, we show that (a) The correction cannot be as large as claimed by Royer et al. (b) Irrespective of the size of the correction, a CO2 signature cannot possibly be seen in the data. (c) Even though the CO2 signature cannot be seen, the pH correction implies only a somewhat higher global temperature sensitivity than that in Shaviv and Veizer (2003), a sensitivity that is consistent with a “black body Earth”, but only marginally with the lower limit of the IPCC range.
548 citations