Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T09:45:30.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Marine biological responses to abrupt climate change in deep time

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2024

Wolfgang Kiessling*
Affiliation:
GeoZentrum Nordbayern, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
Carl J. Reddin
Affiliation:
Integrative Ecophysiology Department, Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz Centre for Polar & Marine Research, 27570 Bremerhaven, Germany
Elizabeth M. Dowding
Affiliation:
GeoZentrum Nordbayern, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
Danijela Dimitrijević
Affiliation:
GeoZentrum Nordbayern, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
Nussaïbah B. Raja
Affiliation:
GeoZentrum Nordbayern, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
Ádám T. Kocsis
Affiliation:
GeoZentrum Nordbayern, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
*
Corresponding author: Wolfgang Kiessling; Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Ancient changes in the biosphere, from organismic traits to wholesale ecosystem changes, can be aligned with climate forcing across the Phanerozoic. Clear examples of abrupt climate warming causing biodiversity crises are primarily found between the Permian and Paleogene periods. During these times, catastrophic events occurred, resembling the extreme climate scenarios projected for the near future. The paleobiologic literature around these events generally supports the hypothesis that abrupt climate change was a dominant trigger of extinction and/or ecological crisis. When climate change and climate history are considered, virtually all post-Paleozoic global biotic events can be confidently attributed to climatic change, with abrupt warming (hyperthermal events) leaving the most consistent fingerprint. The combined stress of deoxygenation and warming are sufficient to explain marine extinction patterns across most hyperthermal events. Although ocean acidification may have contributed, the direct role of pH on the extinction toll of organisms is not consistently demonstrated. Future research can enhance the correspondence between the magnitudes of climatic changes and their biological impacts, even though observed rates of change cannot currently be compared across different timescales. Mimicking multi-scale approaches in modern ecology, paleontological approaches to climate impact research will benefit from specifically targeting scaling relationships.

Type
Invited Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Paleontological Society

Non-technical Summary

Paleobiology can offer diverse insights into how climate change has affected past species and ecosystems. Timely and important areas of research focus on the potential of paleobiology to contribute to solutions for climate impacts on natural ecosystems. But how far can past responses to abrupt climate change be generalized to derive predictions for the modern and future worlds? The long timescales over which biological responses are observed in the deep-time past hamper the applicability of paleontological observations, but by how much? To address these questions, we review paleontological evidence for the impacts of geologically rapid climatic change. Fruitful avenues for future research lie in (1) characterizing the relationship between the magnitude of warming and extinction toll, (2) using physiology to bridge timescales, and (3) assessing the role of long-term climate history to predict the impact of short-term climate change. Identifying how consistent and robust paleontological signals are across timescales will help to make deep-time observations more useful for the modern world.

Introduction

We are in the midst of a coupled climate and biodiversity crisis that affects human society at a global scale (Pörtner et al. Reference Pörtner, Scholes, Arneth, Barnes, Burrows, Diamond and Duarte2023). By describing how climate and biodiversity interacted in the geological past, paleobiology can provide essential information for our potential future. As the fossil record largely predates human influence, paleobiology can identify conservation-relevant patterns on the impact of climate change on species and ecosystems (Kiessling et al. Reference Kiessling, Smith and Raja2023). In this review, we delve into research challenges and explore how a well-informed road map can effectively overcome them.

Throughout Earth's history, climate has fluctuated between icehouse and greenhouse intervals largely due to plate tectonics controlling the nature and amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Müller et al. Reference Müller, Mather, Dutkiewicz, Keller, Merdith, Gonzalez, Gorczyk and Zahirovic2022) as well as the distribution of heat governed by continental configuration. The profound impact that climate change can have on the biosphere is best seen in geologically rapid events of mean temperature change. While modern observations of climate impacts on the biosphere are dominantly focused on the often more easily observed terrestrial patterns, the marine fossil record is much richer and arguably more complete. Given that our current understanding of mass extinctions is primarily based upon time series of extinction magnitude derived from marine fossils (Raup and Sepkoski Reference Raup and Sepkoski1982; Marshall Reference Marshall2023), we here emphasize marine biological responses in the pre-Pleistocene (deep-time) fossil record. In this context, we review the evidence for past marine biological responses to climate change and identify the most promising routes of research for assessing and mitigating the ecological impacts of current and future climate change.

Current ecological impacts of climate warming are already ubiquitous, ranging from phenology (the seasonal timing of biological events) and range shifts, to changes in community structure, biodiversity, growth, and (local) extinctions (Poloczanska et al. Reference Poloczanska, Burrows, Brown, García Molinos, Halpern, Hoegh-Guldberg and Kappel2016; Cooley et al. Reference Cooley, Schoeman, Bopp, Boyd, Donner, Ghebrehiwet, Ito, Pörtner, Roberts, Tignor, Poloczanska, Mintenbeck, Alegría and Craig2022; Parmesan et al. Reference Parmesan, Morecroft, Trisurat, Adrian, Anshari, Arneth, Gao, Pörtner, Roberts, Tignor, Poloczanska, Mintenbeck, Alegría and Craig2022). Changes in phenology and geographic ranges are the most obvious ecological responses to current warming, with phenology advancing 4.4 ± 1.1 days per decade and expansion of the poleward range edges averaging 72 ± 13.5 km per decade in marine habitats (Poloczanska et al. Reference Poloczanska, Brown, Sydeman, Kiessling, Schoeman, Moore and Brander2013). However, not all ecological responses are traceable in the fossil record (Table 1), and those that are observable face the issue of causal attribution. Confirming that observed fossil biotic changes are indeed attributable to climate change is sometimes challenging, as there are often other coincidental stressors. Examples include poisoning (Vandenbroucke et al. Reference Vandenbroucke, Emsbo, Munnecke, Nuns, Duponchel, Lepot, Quijada, Paris, Servais and Kiessling2015; Broadley et al. Reference Broadley, Barry, Ballentine, Taylor and Burgess2018; Rakociński et al. Reference Rakociński, Marynowski, Pisarzowska, Bełdowski, Siedlewicz, Zatoń, Perri, Spalletta and Schönlaub2020), UV radiation (Liu et al. Reference Liu, Peng, Marshall, Lomax, Bomfleur, Kent, Fraser and Jardine2023), or shutdown of photosynthesis due to global darkness (Bond and Grasby Reference Bond and Grasby2017). By looking at pre-human worlds, we gain a signal of natural environmental stressors and avoid obstacles that confront the modern climate impact research due to mismatches in the scale of human climate forcing and the observed biological impacts (Parmesan et al. Reference Parmesan, Duarte, Poloczanska, Richardson and Singer2011). Moreover, the extensive timescale of paleontological observations can provide deeper insights than modern observations into the long-term ecological and evolutionary impacts of climate change.

Table 1. Biologic responses to climate change, present and past. “Present evidence” column uses confidence levels as given in the IPCC WGII Sixth Assessment Report for observed evidence in modern systems (IPCC Reference Pörtner, Roberts, Tignor, Poloczanska, Mintenbeck, Alegría and Craig2022). The level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers (“very low,” “low,” “medium,” “high,” and “very high”) and synthesizes the IPCC authors’ judgments about the validity of findings as determined through evaluation of evidence and agreement in the literature. “Paleo evidence” uses the same framework based on the references cited in this review.

The long timescales that deep-time paleontological data capture also pose challenges, particularly for application to conservation biology (Kiessling et al. Reference Kiessling, Raja, Roden, Turvey and Saupe2019). In many cases, we still lack a clear perspective on the importance of scale for assessing climate impacts. There is a rich literature on spatial scale dependency in ecological patterns (e.g., Chase and Leibold Reference Chase and Leibold2002; Keil et al. Reference Keil, Pereira, Cabral, Chase, May, Martins and Winter2018; Chase et al. Reference Chase, McGill, Thompson, Antão, Bates, Blowes and Dornelas2019; Gonzalez et al. Reference Gonzalez, Germain, Srivastava, Filotas, Dee, Gravel and Thompson2020; Huang et al. Reference Huang, Tucker, Hertel, Eyres and Albrecht2021), but much less is known about the role of temporal scale and the interaction between the two. In our context, scale dependency relates to the degree to which biological climate responses are dependent upon the time span of observation. A good example for temporal scale dependency is rate of change, wherein rates of change exhibit a power-law relationship with the time span of observation (Kemp et al. Reference Kemp, Eichenseer and Kiessling2015; Gingerich Reference Gingerich2021) such that any meaningful comparison of rates of change between the modern and deep time is prevented. For other variables, the scale dependency is less clear. For example, how well is the rank order of modern climate sensitivities among clades and ecosystems reflected in differential extinction rates in the past? To what extent does the sensitivity of reef corals to current climate change–induced heat waves (Gardner et al. Reference Gardner, Camp, Smith, Kahlke, Osman, Gendron, Hume, Pogoreutz, Voolstra and Suggett2019) correspond to increased extinction risks during ancient climate warming events? To what extent does the sensitivity of reef corals to current climate change–induced heat waves scale up to increased extinction risk at ancient climate warming events?

Here we summarize the evidence that geologically abrupt climatic changes were a dominant driver of biotic responses, and we propose research routes to reveal the impacts of deep-time climatic changes on the biosphere. We argue that our efforts will be most effective when focused on overcoming the challenges of variable spatiotemporal resolution. We highlight that promising routes are through quantifying commonalities in terms of vulnerabilities and magnitudes of change.

The Deadly Trio

Bijma et al. (Reference Bijma, Pörtner, Yesson and Rogers2013) coined the term “deadly trio” to emphasize the combined impact of warming, ocean acidification, and deoxygenation on marine ecosystems under current climate change. Each member of the deadly trio effects a range of outcomes dependent on environment, ecology, and latitude, but their strong influence on physiology means impacts tend to be interactive.

Temperature is a major driver of physiological processes (Clarke and Pörtner Reference Clarke and Pörtner2010), but oxygen supply and demand and their interactions with temperature are also crucial (Sampaio et al. Reference Sampaio, Santos, Rosa, Ferreira, Pörtner, Duarte, Levin and Rosa2021), governing metabolism and thermal tolerance (Vaquer-Sunyer and Duarte Reference Vaquer-Sunyer and Duarte2011; Reddin et al. Reference Reddin, Nätscher, Kocsis, Pörtner and Kiessling2020b). The fluctuating nature of the “oxyscape” (oxygen landscape) is thought to be a key driver of animal physiology (Fusi et al. Reference Fusi, Rigaud, Guadagnin, Barausse, Marasco, Daffonchio and Regis2023). The synergy of oxygen and temperature has far greater impacts in experiments than any other combination of temperature, oxygen, salinity, and pH (Reddin et al. Reference Reddin, Nätscher, Kocsis, Pörtner and Kiessling2020b).

Ocean acidification and other direct impacts of raised seawater CO2 have received considerable research attention in the last two decades (Kroeker et al. Reference Kroeker, Kordas, Crim, Hendriks, Ramajo, Singh, Duarte and Gattuso2013; Allison et al. Reference Allison, Cole, Hintz, Hintz, Rae and Finch2021), including the evaluation of deep-time impacts on marine life (Kiessling and Simpson Reference Kiessling and Simpson2011; Harper et al. Reference Harper, Hönisch, Zeebe, Shaffer, Haynes, Thomas and Zachos2020; Chen et al. Reference Chen, Fu, Wang, Wei, Zhang and Mansour2023). However, the impact of ocean acidification on marine life is much less consistent than often assumed (Sampaio et al. Reference Sampaio, Santos, Rosa, Ferreira, Pörtner, Duarte, Levin and Rosa2021), perhaps because pH-upregulating mechanisms exist even for relatively simple organisms such as corals (McCulloch et al. Reference McCulloch, Falter, Trotter and Montagna2012). Although evidence for ocean acidification in the end-Permian extinction has been presented (Jurikova et al. Reference Jurikova, Gutjahr, Wallmann, Flögel, Liebetrau, Posenato and Angiolini2020; Li et al. Reference Li, Wu, Shen, Wang, Chen, Algeo, Zhang and Zhang2023), the evidence for biological impacts is meager (Foster et al. Reference Foster, Hirtz, Farrell, Reistroffer, Twitchett and Martindale2022). On longer timescales (longer than 10,000 to 100,000 yr), seawater, seafloor carbonate sediments, and weathering on land buffer the effect of CO2 on pH and can even increase the seawater supersaturation of calcium carbonate (Hönisch et al. Reference Hönisch, Ridgwell, Schmidt, Thomas, Gibbs, Sluijs and Zeebe2012). Consequently, though local and short-term impacts of ocean acidification can be severe, the translation of these into observable deep-time impacts requires confirmation.

The great importance of deoxygenation in ancient biotic events is no surprise to deep-time paleobiologists, as virtually all global-scale biological events in the geological past were associated with anoxia or even euxinia (Harnik et al. Reference Harnik, Lotze, Anderson, Finkel, Finnegan, Lindberg and Liow2012; Bond and Grasby Reference Bond and Grasby2017) (Table 2). Black shales have been noted as a hallmark of Cretaceous events long before there was a broad scientific discussion of climate change (Schlanger and Jenkyns Reference Schlanger and Jenkyns1976). However, although anoxia and euxinia are facilitated by climate warming, they have numerous alternative drivers. For example, the Late Devonian events are marked by anoxia, which was likely governed by nutrient mobilization from the evolving forest ecosystems (Algeo and Scheckler Reference Algeo and Scheckler1998; Qie et al. Reference Qie, Zhang, Luo, Algeo, Chen, Xiang and Liang2023).

Table 2. Evidence of climate-related stressors across major biotic turnover events. Traditional “big five” mass extinctions are highlighted in bold. Underlined indicates evidence not yet provided in Harnik et al. (Reference Harnik, Lotze, Anderson, Finkel, Finnegan, Lindberg and Liow2012). References are listed in Supplementary Table 1. OAE, oceanic anoxic event.

Tracing Rapid Climatic Changes in Geological Time

Tracing past climatic changes with confidence is foundational to the study of their biotic impacts. Despite their shortcomings, geochemical proxies such as stable oxygen isotopes are still our main source of empirical evidence for long-term and short-term climatic changes. Such studies have been crucial to assess the magnitude of climate change across past hyperthermal events (e.g., Ruhl et al. Reference Ruhl, Bonis, Reichart, Damsté and Kürschner2011; Joachimski et al. Reference Joachimski, Lai, Shen, Jiang, Luo, Chen, Chen and Sun2012, Reference Joachimski, Alekseev, Grigoryan and Gatovsky2020; Frieling et al. Reference Frieling, Gebhardt, Huber, Adekeye, Akande, Reichart, Middelburg, Schouten and Sluijs2017; Gliwa et al. Reference Gliwa, Wiedenbeck, Schobben, Ullmann, Kiessling, Ghaderi, Struck and Korn2022; Tierney et al. Reference Tierney, Zhu, Li, Ridgwell, Hakim, Poulsen, Whiteford, Rae and Kump2022).

Paleoclimate models are another way of tracing climatic changes over time. Previous models focused on particular snapshot intervals such as the end-Cretaceous (Brugger et al. Reference Brugger, Feulner and Petri2017) or the Permian/Triassic boundary (Winguth et al. Reference Winguth, Thomas and Winguth2012, Reference Winguth, Shields and Winguth2015). A full suite of paleoclimate models across all Phanerozoic stages was first accomplished by Valdes et al. (Reference Valdes, Scotese and Lunt2021), and these are useful in providing a background against which geologically rapid climatic changes can be identified (Kiessling et al. Reference Kiessling, Smith and Raja2023) (Fig. 1). However, paleoclimate models still have issues to reliably capture some attributes of past climates such as equable latitudinal climate gradients during hothouse climates (Sagoo et al. Reference Sagoo, Valdes, Flecker and Gregoire Lauren2013) and more local features of epeiric seas (Judd et al. Reference Judd, Bhattacharya and Ivany2020). Another challenge for current climate models is the observation that climate sensitivity, the increase of surface temperature when atmospheric CO2 concentrations double, is far higher when greenhouse gas concentrations are already high (Tierney et al. Reference Tierney, Zhu, Li, Ridgwell, Hakim, Poulsen, Whiteford, Rae and Kump2022).

Figure 1. Climatic context of well-documented hyperthermal events across the Phanerozoic. Five extinction events (end-Ordovician, Late Devonian, end-Permian, end-Triassic, end-Cretaceous) plus three hyperthermals (Toarcian, Cenomanian–Turonian, Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum [PETM]). Hyperthermal events are in bold. The climate stripes are based on mean global temperatures from climate models per stage (Valdes et al. Reference Valdes, Scotese and Lunt2021), and the paleographic reconstructions are from Scotese (Reference Scotese2016). Symbols refer to hypothesized ultimate (volcanism, impact) and proximate drivers (cooling, warming, deoxygenation) of extinctions.

In the face of “unknown unknowns” it is thus best to refer to proxy data for identifying ancient episodes of rapid climate change (Foster et al. Reference Foster, Hull, Lunt and Zachos2018). Such data clearly identify six hyperthermal events over the last 300 Myr that are characterized by rapid warming, deoxygenation of oceanic water, and an intensified hydrological cycle, with increased continental erosion and negative carbon isotope excursions indicating the injection of isotopically light carbon (Foster et al. Reference Foster, Hull, Lunt and Zachos2018). “Rapid” refers to both onset and duration but, importantly, is relative to geological timescales, where it can mean over tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Here, we refer to geologically rapid onset as occurring in less than 500 kyr. Besides these well-known hyperthermals, there are also other episodes of rapid climatic changes, including cooling events (Fig. 1). Some of these cooling events were associated with mass extinctions (end-Ordovician, Late Devonian, end-Cretaceous), and in the case of the end-Ordovician (Finnegan et al. Reference Finnegan, Heim, Peters and Fischer2012) and end-Cretaceous mass extinctions (Brugger et al. Reference Brugger, Feulner and Petri2017), cooling is thought to have been a primary trigger.

Among the six hyperthermal events identified in the last 300 Myr, two are exceptionally well studied: the Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) and the end-Permian mass extinction (EPME). These two hyperthermals showcase how similar triggers may result in vastly different responses. Both hyperthermals are thought to have been triggered by the rapid injection of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, leading to profound warming and a global disturbance of the carbon cycle (Zachos et al. Reference Zachos, Dickens and Zeebe2008; Cui et al. Reference Cui, Li, van Soelen, Peterse and Kürschner2021). Yet, while the EPME (~252 Ma) was the most severe mass extinction of the Phanerozoic, extinction tolls across the PETM were conspicuously low (Kocsis et al. Reference Kocsis, Reddin, Alroy and Kiessling2019). Several options are available to explain the differences, ranging from the varying magnitude and rates of warming, to the different climate history, continental configuration, and buffering capacity of the Permian and Paleocene Earth systems. One immediate observation is the transient nature of the warming in the PETM (duration ca. 170 kyr; Röhl et al. Reference Röhl, Westerhold, Bralower and Zachos2007), whereas the Permian–Triassic warming lasted millions of years (Sun et al. Reference Sun, Joachimski, Wignall, Yan, Chen, Jiang, Wang and Lai2012). Explaining any vastly different outcomes of superficially similar hyperthermals is mandatory for paleobiologists aiming to contribute to current threats of biodiversity from climate change.

There is an apparent paucity of hyperthermal events in the earlier Paleozoic. Warming might have been involved in the end-Ordovician and Late Devonian mass extinctions, but they do not match Foster et al.'s (Reference Foster, Hull, Lunt and Zachos2018) definition of hyperthermals. Although the role of warming is increasingly being acknowledged in the end-Ordovician mass extinction (e.g., Bond and Grasby Reference Bond and Grasby2020), this warming was just a deglaciation of the Hirnantian glaciation, and cooling is still seen as the major trigger of the extinction (Saupe et al. Reference Saupe, Qiao, Donnadieu, Farnsworth, Kennedy-Asser, Ladant, Lunt, Pohl, Valdes and Finnegan2020). Similarly, the Late Devonian Kellwasser crisis was associated with a transient cooling episode interrupting a longer-term warming trend (Huang et al. Reference Huang, Joachimski and Gong2018). All major and minor events in the Paleozoic were associated with positive rather than negative excursions in stable carbon isotopes, which rules them out as hyperthermals sensu Foster et al. (Reference Foster, Hull, Lunt and Zachos2018). In spite of the lack of true-to-definition hyperthermal events, animals in the early Paleozoic are deemed to have been intrinsically prone to extinction because seawater temperatures were higher and continental configuration limited species’ geographic ranges (Pohl et al. Reference Pohl, Stockey, Dai, Yohler, Le Hir, Hülse, Brayard, Finnegan and Ridgwell2023).

Tracing Biological Impacts in Geological Time

Although deep-time observations are necessarily on much longer timescales than modern or historical records (Fig. 2), this is not automatically an issue if biotic responses are universal and time-scale invariant, that is, the response is similar regardless of temporal resolution and extent. For example, timescale invariance is suggested if marine extinction risk of evolutionary lineages matches the rank order of performance loss of individuals due to abiotic stressors within these lineages (Reddin et al. Reference Reddin, Nätscher, Kocsis, Pörtner and Kiessling2020b). Metabolic theory is commonly put forward to explain scale invariance. Particularly, the theory of oxygen and capacity limited thermal tolerance (OCLTT) may be applicable across organismic and evolutionary scales (Pörtner Reference Pörtner2012; Pörtner and Gutt Reference Pörtner and Gutt2016; Pörtner et al. Reference Pörtner, Bock and Mark2017). The OCLTT theory posits that molecular to whole-animal mechanisms dictate the thermal constraints on the capacity for oxygen supply to the organism in relation to oxygen demand. The synergistic effects described by OCLTT decrease individuals’ performance, which scales up over time to the vulnerability of populations and ultimately drives the species to extinction under profound climate change. OCLTT is also put forward to explain range shifts (Pörtner Reference Pörtner2021), the dwarfing of evolutionary lineages and marine communities under climate change (Calosi et al. Reference Calosi, Putnam, Twitchett and Vermandele2019), and even environmental origins of Ediacaran biota (Boag et al. Reference Boag, Stockey, Elder, Hull and Sperling2018).

Figure 2. Timescales over which climate impacts have been studied. Timescales of less than 1 year refer to laboratory studies and mostly refer to physiological experiments. Present-day and historical observations of climate impacts refer to timescales of 100 to 102 years, whereas everything coarser than that is near time (103 to 105 years) or deep time (104 years and greater) evidence. Key references are provided in Supplementary Table 2.

To the contrary, when factors are biologically important only in local areas and on short timescales but not directly increasing extinction risk, they are instead scale variant, probably due to emergent properties in a complex system (Congreve et al. Reference Congreve, Falk and Lamsdell2017). Biotic interactions, for example, may be crucial to explain biodiversity changes at local scales and perhaps for some macroevolutionary patterns (Liow and Quental Reference Liow and Quental2024), but they are unlikely to explain the near-simultaneous extinction of many species across clades (Congreve et al. Reference Congreve, Falk and Lamsdell2017).

The degree to which biotic responses depend on particular timescales is perhaps the key question of paleontological climate impact research. Finding generalities of climate change responses, especially those that are scale invariant, will make paleontological results more relevant for the discussion of modern climate impacts. We already have a reasonable understanding of climate impacts on particular timescales (Fig. 1, Table 1), but there are still untapped opportunities for paleobiology to contribute to the field (Table 1). We briefly summarize some key paleontological evidence for the impacts of climate change on organisms, focusing on unique signals of hyperthermals.

Changes of Life-History Traits

Life-history traits such as growth rate and mode of reproduction are commonly discussed in their capacity to predict climate change impacts (Foden et al. Reference Foden, Butchart, Stuart, Vié, Akçakaya, Angulo and DeVantier2013; Pearson et al. Reference Pearson, Stanton, Shoemaker, Aiello-Lammens, Ersts, Horning and Fordham2014; MacLean and Beissinger Reference MacLean and Beissinger2017; Kubicek et al. Reference Kubicek, Breckling, Hoegh-Guldberg and Reuter2019). Here, we seek traits that are directly affected by climate change. The scope of traits to predict biological impacts is discussed in subsequent sections. The most readily preserved traits are morphological.

The reduction of adult body size under current warming is already widespread in extant species (Daufresne et al. Reference Daufresne, Lengfellner and Sommer2009; Gardner et al. Reference Gardner, Peters, Kearney, Joseph and Heinsohn2011; Forster et al. Reference Forster, Hirst and Atkinson2012; Baudron et al. Reference Baudron, Needle, Rijnsdorp and Tara Marshall2014; Calosi et al. Reference Calosi, Putnam, Twitchett and Vermandele2019). Although size reductions may only be slightly more common than size increases as a response to warming (Audzijonyte et al. Reference Audzijonyte, Richards, Stuart-Smith, Pecl, Edgar, Barrett, Payne and Blanchard2020), it is tempting to relate the widespread Lilliput effect in ancient taxa to climate warming (Piazza et al. Reference Piazza, Duarte, Renaudie and Aberhan2019, Reference Piazza, Ullmann and Aberhan2020; Rita et al. Reference Rita, Nätscher, Duarte, Weis and Baets2019). Additionally, limited oxygen supply is expected in a warming ocean due to increased oxygen demand and decreased efficiency of oxygen delivery for organisms in warmer water (Chapelle and Peck Reference Chapelle and Peck1999; Deutsch et al. Reference Deutsch, Brix, Ito, Frenzel and Thompson2011). In both the modern ocean (Audzijonyte et al. Reference Audzijonyte, Barneche, Baudron, Belmaker, Clark, Marshall, Morrongiello and van Rijn2019; Verberk et al. Reference Verberk, Atkinson, Hoefnagel, Hirst, Horne and Siepel2021) and the paleontological record (Foster et al. Reference Foster, Gliwa, Lembke, Pugh, Hofmann, Tietje, Varela, Foster, Korn and Aberhan2019), limited oxygen supply is increasingly being recognized as a culprit of reduced body size in marine invertebrates. While this makes it hard to tease apart the explicit roles of temperature versus oxygen in past crises, all hyperthermal events of the last 300 Myr are marked by a coincidence of warming and widespread anoxia. Given their synergistic impacts (see “The Deadly Trio”), a separation may only be worthwhile during hypothermal events.

While the aforementioned strong links between hyperthermals, seawater deoxygenation, and a reduction in body size exist, the pattern is not universal across the Phanerozoic. Complicating observations include an increase in the size of radiolarians across the PETM (Westacott et al. Reference Westacott, Hollis, Pascher, Dickens and Hull2022) and no size change in ostracods over the end-Permian (Nätscher et al. Reference Nätscher, Gliwa, De Baets, Ghaderi and Korn2023). In addition, a substantial Lilliput effect has also been noted in the absence of rapid warming, such as across the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary, perhaps due to limited food supply (Smith and Jeffery Reference Smith and Jeffery1998; Aberhan et al. Reference Aberhan, Weidemeyer, Kiessling, Scasso and Medina2007). We are thus still lacking evidence for the generality of any distinct intraspecific body-size signature of hyperthermal events.

Skeletal growth specifically of reef corals appears to be impaired by warming (Cantin et al. Reference Cantin, Cohen, Karnauskas, Tarrant and McCorkle2010). However, there is a complex connection between growth rate, skeletal density, and temperature (Brachert et al. Reference Brachert, Reuter, Krüger, Böcker, Lohmann, Mertz-Kraus and Fassoulas2013), which renders it difficult to find a direct connection between temperature change and growth rate in fossil materials. Calcification rates of fossil Cenozoic corals are mostly lower than those of modern reef corals, which could be attributed to warmer climates of the past but perhaps more plausibly to a lower aragonite saturation state (Brachert et al. Reference Brachert, Corrège, Reuter, Wrozyna, Londeix, Spreter and Perrin2020). Similarly, irregular growth bands in surviving corals of the end-Triassic mass extinction have been attributed to environmental stress, but not necessarily temperature (Kiessling et al. Reference Kiessling, Roniewicz, Villier, Leonide and Struck2009). Modern studies supporting a thinning or change in the skeletal structure of bivalve shells (Mackenzie et al. Reference Mackenzie, Ormondroyd, Curling, Ball, Whiteley and Malham2014; Fitzer et al. Reference Fitzer, Torres Gabarda, Daly, Hughes, Dove, O'Connor, Potts, Scanes and Byrne2018) have yet to be demonstrated in past hyperthermals. Again, a distinct climate signal in growth and skeletal attributes is lacking across past episodes of rapid climate change. Metabolic theory suggests that body-size changes may become more variable and partly dependent on dispersal ability with warming (Deutsch et al. Reference Deutsch, Penn, Verberk, Inomura, Endress and Payne2022), which opens avenues for future research.

Distribution Shifts

Poleward range shifts are among the clearest responses of current climate warming (Sunday et al. Reference Sunday, Bates and Dulvy2012; Pecl et al. Reference Pecl, Araújo, Bell, Blanchard, Bonebrake, Chen and Clark2017; Kumagai et al. Reference Kumagai, García Molinos, Yamano, Takao, Fujii and Yamanaka2018). Ranges shift rapidly, especially in the ocean (Poloczanska et al. Reference Poloczanska, Brown, Sydeman, Kiessling, Schoeman, Moore and Brander2013; Lenoir et al. Reference Lenoir, Bertrand, Comte, Bourgeaud, Hattab, Murienne and Grenouillet2020), and track climate velocities well (Pinsky et al. Reference Pinsky, Worm, Fogarty, Sarmiento and Levin2013, Reference Pinsky, Selden and Kitchel2020), especially when considering dispersibility (Sunday et al. Reference Sunday, Pecl, Frusher, Hobday, Hill, Holbrook and Edgar2015). The rapid response of distributions to climate change challenges their detection in deep time (Yasuhara and Deutsch Reference Yasuhara and Deutsch2022). A short warming pulse such as the PETM likely leaves behind only limited numbers of fossils in higher latitudes, before subsequent cooling would shift ranges back equatorward. This would limit the chances of detecting transient range shifts in the fossil record. With this in mind, it is surprising that the PETM is especially rich in documented range shifts (Bowen et al. Reference Bowen, Clyde, Koch, Ting, Alroy, Tsubamoto, Wang and Wang2002; Wing et al. Reference Wing, Harrington, Smith, Bloch, Boyer and Freeman2005), although well-documented marine examples are limited to microplankton (Speijer et al. Reference Speijer, Scheibner, Stassen and Morsi2012). Equatorward range shifts with cooling have also been recorded (Kelley and Raymond Reference Kelley and Raymond1991), but there is only a single demonstration of latitudinal range shifts in accord with long-term temperature change across the Phanerozoic. This study (Reddin et al. Reference Reddin, Kocsis and Kiessling2018, Reference Reddin, Kocsis and Kiessling2020a), after correcting for sampling, found that range shifts roughly followed temperature changes derived from stable oxygen isotopes ever since the Ordovician.

Rather than tracing surviving taxa between time bins, quantifying latitudinal diversity gradients (LDG) may reveal the interplay between evolutionary dynamics and range shifts (Jablonski et al. Reference Jablonski, Roy and Valentine2006; Raja and Kiessling Reference Raja and Kiessling2021). The observation of diversity peaks away from the tropics, especially during greenhouse intervals, is suggestive of a climate signal (Mannion et al. Reference Mannion, Upchurch, Benson and Goswami2014; Brodie and Mannion Reference Brodie and Mannion2023), as tropical temperatures often approached metazoan limits (Storch et al. Reference Storch, Menzel, Frickenhaus and Pörtner2014) and the optimal temperature for aquatic phyla is centered around 20°C (Boag et al. Reference Boag, Gearty and Stockey2021; Costello et al. Reference Costello, Corkrey, Bates, Burrows, Chaudhary, Edgar, Stuart-Smith, Yasuhara and Wei2023). Overheated tropics seem to limit biodiversity due to both regional extirpations and raised relative extinction rates (Reddin et al. Reference Reddin, Kocsis and Kiessling2019). Latitudinal diversity shifts match well with range shifts on short timescales because here distributional changes alone, rather than speciation and extinction, are responsible for the LDG (Kiessling et al. Reference Kiessling, Simpson, Beck, Mewis and Pandolfi2012; Yasuhara et al. Reference Yasuhara, Wei, Kucera, Costello, Tittensor, Kiessling and Bonebrake2020; Chaudhary et al. Reference Chaudhary, Richardson, Schoeman and Costello2021). The flat LDG in the aftermath of the EPME is a mixed signal of high tropical extinction and poleward range shifts (Song et al. Reference Song, Huang, Jia, Dai, Wignall and Dunhill2020).

Besides poleward range shifts, depth migration might appear to be a promising route to escape the heat of shallow waters (Yasuhara and Deutsch Reference Yasuhara and Deutsch2023). Two factors limit migration of shallow-water species into greater water depths: (1) limited food supply in more light-limited, deeper settings and (2) limited oxygen availability in deeper waters approaching the oxygen minimum zone (Breitburg et al. Reference Breitburg, Levin, Oschlies, Grégoire, Chavez, Conley and Garçon2018). Accordingly, modern depth shifts are more pronounced in midlatitudes (Chaikin and Belmaker Reference Chaikin and Belmaker2023) and late Pleistocene to Holocene depth shifts have been observed in deep-sea ostracods for which the aforementioned limitations do not apply (Yasuhara et al. Reference Yasuhara, Cronin, deMenocal, Okahashi and Linsley2008). Perhaps due to the association of anoxia with ancient hyperthermal events, patterns of fossil depth shifts are not documented across past hyperthermals.

Extinction

Extinction is a defining theme for paleontology and perhaps the greatest asset of the discipline for deep-time climate impact research. Confirmed extinctions due to current climate change are rare (IPCC Reference Pörtner, Roberts, Tignor, Poloczanska, Mintenbeck, Alegría and Craig2022). Although future projections using species distribution models reach 14–32% of macroscopic species within 50 yr under even intermediate warming scenarios (Wiens and Zelinka Reference Wiens and Zelinka2024), the scope of species distribution models to predict extinction risk is currently problematic (Zurell et al. Reference Zurell, Fritz, Rönnfeldt and Steinbauer2023). The wealth of empirical evidence for climate-related extinction, properly scaled, provides a unique opportunity for paleontological data to validate such models and presumably the future under high warming scenarios.

For marine extinctions, the past drivers were likely the same deadly trio threatening modern marine life under climate change: warming, deoxygenation, and acidification (Payne and Clapham Reference Payne and Clapham2012). Groups that are most vulnerable to climate-related stressors on the timescale of days to weeks tend to have higher extinction rates, especially during hyperthermal events, than groups with greater resilience (Reddin et al. Reference Reddin, Nätscher, Kocsis, Pörtner and Kiessling2020b). Laboratory experiments suggest that synergies among stressors particularly pertain to combined warming and hypoxia, while other combinations of stressors such as warming and acidification do not lead to a greater effect size than individual stressors (Reddin et al. Reference Reddin, Nätscher, Kocsis, Pörtner and Kiessling2020b). Metabolic expectations combined with Earth system modeling also suggested that the combination of warming and deoxygenation can cause sufficient habitat loss to drive mass extinction (Deutsch et al. Reference Deutsch, Ferrel, Seibel, Pörtner and Huey2015; Penn et al. Reference Penn, Deutsch, Payne and Sperling2018).

Seeking life-history traits of raised vulnerability has a long history in paleobiology, particularly across major extinction events (e.g., Jablonski and Raup Reference Jablonski and Raup1995; Aberhan and Baumiller Reference Aberhan and Baumiller2003; Kiessling et al. Reference Kiessling, Aberhan, Brenneis and Wagner2007; Clapham and Payne Reference Clapham and Payne2011; Payne et al. Reference Payne, Bush, Heim, Knope and McCauley2016; Clapham Reference Clapham2017; Foster et al. Reference Foster, Allen, Kitzmann, Münchmeyer, Rettelbach, Witts, Whittle, Larina, Clapham and Dunhill2023). However, there are few studies to assess the specific signal of climate change (Ezard et al. Reference Ezard, Aze, Pearson and Purvis2011; Woodhouse et al. Reference Woodhouse, Swain, Fagan, Fraass and Lowery2023). Reddin et al. (Reference Reddin, Kocsis, Aberhan and Kiessling2021) compared a large suite of traits alongside taxonomic patterns across the six hyperthermal events identified by Foster et al. (Reference Foster, Hull, Lunt and Zachos2018) and found that photosymbiosis, deposit feeding, having actively burrowing or swimming adult life stages, an affinity for reef habitat, or aragonitic relative to low-Mg calcite skeletal composition consistently enhanced the extinction vulnerability of marine genera. Vulnerability here was defined relative to the genus's background extinction selectivity (sensu Raup and Boyajian Reference Raup and Boyajian1988). A meta-analysis showed that acidification responses of organisms in modern experiments were particularly severe for those with greater fossilization potential, suggesting that ancient acidification impacts should be particularly clear in the suite of organisms preserved as fossils (Reddin et al. Reference Reddin, Nätscher, Kocsis, Pörtner and Kiessling2020b). Surprisingly, ancient mass extinctions, including those that were triggered by hyperthermals, did not selectively remove larger-bodied forms (Payne et al. Reference Payne, Bush, Heim, Knope and McCauley2016). However, hyperthermals appear to increase the relative extinction risk of larger-bodied genera compared with non-hyperthermal times (Reddin et al. Reference Reddin, Kocsis, Aberhan and Kiessling2021).

A robust prediction for the expected extinction toll based on a certain magnitude of global temperature change would be a leap forward. Song et al. (Reference Song, Kemp, Tian, Chu, Song and Dai2021) argued that 5.2°C of temperature change, warming or cooling, is a critical threshold for a mass extinction to occur, whereas Kaiho (Reference Kaiho2022) suggested 7°C of absolute temperature change as a critical value. Given that these results were achieved at rather coarse stratigraphic resolutions, revisiting the basic results at finer temporal resolutions would certainly be beneficial (Spalding and Hull Reference Spalding and Hull2021). Song et al. (Reference Song, Kemp, Tian, Chu, Song and Dai2021) also reported a rate of climate change of >10°C/Myr as critical for a mass extinction event. As we discuss later, referring to rates is generally problematic when timescales are different (see “The Crux with Rates of Change”). Although the critical rates may be informative on the stage-level stratigraphic resolutions in Song et al. (Reference Song, Kemp, Tian, Chu, Song and Dai2021), they have no relevance for current rates of change.

A potentially important and fitting subject for paleobiological scrutiny is the influence and mechanism of evolutionary legacies, which shape the vulnerability of organisms to climate change (Bennett et al. Reference Bennett, Sunday, Calosi, Villalobos, Martínez, Molina-Venegas and Araújo2021). The longer-term climatic history a clade has experienced influences its response to short-term climate change (Mathes et al. Reference Mathes, Kiessling and Steinbauer2021a,Reference Mathes, van Dijk, Kiessling and Steinbauerb). For example, abrupt warming is more deleterious when built upon a long-term warming trend than when the short-term warming follows a long-term cooling (Mathes et al. Reference Mathes, van Dijk, Kiessling and Steinbauer2021b). Coinciding directions of recent and legacy climatic change appear to consistently amplify the extinction response to recent climatic change, either in the case of warming or cooling. Evolutionary legacy may also be behind the observation that tropical species live close to their upper thermal limits, such that even mild temperature increases can lead to large regional species losses (Hodapp et al. Reference Hodapp, Roca, Fiorentino, Garilao, Kaschner, Kesner-Reyes and Schneider2023). More work on the relative influence of climate legacy on extinction risk is clearly a promising avenue for future research.

Ecosystems

Assessing the response of entire ecosystems to climate changes is perhaps more important than evaluating the responses of individual species. Clearly, the cumulative pressures on individual species must lead to altered ecosystem resilience (Malhi et al. Reference Malhi, Franklin, Seddon, Solan, Turner, Field and Knowlton2020). Modern marine ecosystems are sometimes said to be already exposed to pressures not encountered in millions of years (Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno Reference Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno2010), but this statement is not sufficiently scrutinized.

The main changes observed in modern marine ecosystems due to climate change include reduced primary productivity in most regions, altered food web dynamics, and reduced abundance of habitat-forming species (Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno Reference Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno2010; Cooley et al. Reference Cooley, Schoeman, Bopp, Boyd, Donner, Ghebrehiwet, Ito, Pörtner, Roberts, Tignor, Poloczanska, Mintenbeck, Alegría and Craig2022). These patterns can also be observed in response to past climatic changes.

Changes in past primary productivity can be traced with geochemical methods, which are beyond the scope of this review. However, there is increasing evidence for reduced primary productivity across the end-Permian (Algeo et al. Reference Algeo, Henderson, Tong, Feng, Yin and Tyson2013; Shen et al. Reference Shen, Schoepfer, Feng, Zhou, Yu, Song, Wei and Algeo2015; Grasby et al. Reference Grasby, Beauchamp and Knies2016) and end-Triassic crises (Schoepfer et al. Reference Schoepfer, Algeo, Ward, Williford and Haggart2016; Fujisaki et al. Reference Fujisaki, Fukami, Matsui, Sato, Sawaki and Suzuki2020) in line with projections under future climate change (Cooley et al. Reference Cooley, Schoeman, Bopp, Boyd, Donner, Ghebrehiwet, Ito, Pörtner, Roberts, Tignor, Poloczanska, Mintenbeck, Alegría and Craig2022). As a consequence of extinctions and reduced productivity, altered food web structures are to be expected (Roopnarine Reference Roopnarine2006) and have been noted across major environmental disturbances (e.g., Aberhan and Kiessling Reference Aberhan and Kiessling2015; Huang et al. Reference Huang, Chen, Roopnarine, Benton, Zhao, Feng and Li2023). Such changes are also evident in bioturbation intensity, which is commonly reduced after climate-induced crises (Calosi et al. Reference Calosi, Putnam, Twitchett and Vermandele2019). Increases in extinction risk of deposit feeders during hyperthermals relative to other times (Reddin et al. Reference Reddin, Kocsis, Aberhan and Kiessling2021) may occur because rapidly warming and periodically anoxic seafloor conditions sway resource competition among deposit feeders away from metazoans and toward prokaryotes (Crichton et al. Reference Crichton, Wilson, Ridgwell, Boscolo-Galazzo, John, Wade and Pearson2023).

Reduced abundance of habitat-forming species is a key response to climate change in present and past marine ecosystems. Together with kelp forests, coral reefs are known as the marine ecosystem most vulnerable to modern climate change (Cooley et al. Reference Cooley, Schoeman, Bopp, Boyd, Donner, Ghebrehiwet, Ito, Pörtner, Roberts, Tignor, Poloczanska, Mintenbeck, Alegría and Craig2022). Coral reefs also have an excellent geological record tracing back at least to the Ordovician (Kröger et al. Reference Kröger, Desrochers and Ernst2017). Although there is no significant cross-correlation between mean seawater temperature and fossil reef abundance (Kiessling Reference Kiessling, Kiessling, Flügel and Golonka2002, Reference Kiessling2009), it is nevertheless striking that times of global warmth such as the middle and Late Cretaceous and the early Paleogene were marked by depressed reef building (Pandolfi and Kiessling Reference Pandolfi and Kiessling2014). Likewise, the biotic composition of reefs seems to be linked to seawater temperature. For example, the long-term change from microbial-sponge-dominated reefs to coral-dominated reefs in the Triassic may be linked to cooling (Kiessling Reference Kiessling2010), whereas the Cretaceous demise of coral reefs and increase of rudist biostromes may be linked to warming (Pandolfi and Kiessling Reference Pandolfi and Kiessling2014). In this way, the reef builder's abundance and altered composition is a consistent signature of climate response. The study of habitat-forming species, their interactions, and ecosystem service from deep time to modern offers unique insights into ecosystem responses to climate change.

Adaptation to Climate Changes

The scope of modern marine organisms for local adaptation in a warming world is strongly debated (Hoffmann and Sgrò Reference Hoffmann and Sgrò2011; Araújo et al. Reference Araújo, Ferri-Yáñez, Bozinovic, Marquet, Valladares and Chown2013; Munday et al. Reference Munday, Warner, Monro, Pandolfi and Marshall2013; Kurman et al. Reference Kurman, Gómez, Georgian, Lunden and Cordes2017; Torda et al. Reference Torda, Donelson, Aranda, Barshis, Bay, Berumen and Bourne2017; Bairos-Novak et al. Reference Bairos-Novak, Hoogenboom, van Oppen and Connolly2021; Lachs et al. Reference Lachs, Donner, Mumby, Bythell, Humanes, East and Guest2023). Although the evolvability of many organismic traits is high, the adaptation potential to warming climates appears to be low (Araújo et al. Reference Araújo, Ferri-Yáñez, Bozinovic, Marquet, Valladares and Chown2013). Thermal limits have evolved mostly to become narrower with the evolution of increasingly complex domains of life (Storch et al. Reference Storch, Menzel, Frickenhaus and Pörtner2014). The fossil record supports that adaptation options to climate change are limited, with increasing evidence of niche conservatism within evolutionary lineages. Specifically, the thermal niches of species appear to be conserved over thousands to millions of years in foraminifers and mollusks, respectively (Yasuhara et al. Reference Yasuhara, Hunt, Dowsett, Robinson and Stoll2012; Saupe et al. Reference Saupe, Hendricks, Portell, Dowsett, Haywood, Hunter and Lieberman2014; Antell et al. Reference Antell, Fenton, Valdes and Saupe2021). Similarly, the message of the deep-time coral reef record is clear: coral reefs have limited scope for adaptation to climate warming, regardless of the inferred rate of change. Times of prolonged warming were equally bad for coral reef development, as were times of geologically rapid warming (Pandolfi and Kiessling Reference Pandolfi and Kiessling2014).

Rates of climate change are often in focus for the assessment of the adaptation potential (Peck et al. Reference Peck, Clark, Morley, Massey and Rossetti2009; Quintero and Wiens Reference Quintero and Wiens2013; Jezkova and Wiens Reference Jezkova and Wiens2016; Fordham et al. Reference Fordham, Jackson, Brown, Huntley, Brook, Dahl-Jensen and Gilbert2020; Williams et al. Reference Williams, Ordonez and Svenning2021). Simulations support that rates of climate change are critically important for speciation and extinction (Qiao et al. Reference Qiao, Saupe, Soberon, Peterson and Myers2016), but we argue that empirical rate measurements in deep time have no direct relevance for current climate impact research, especially not when they are compared across vastly different time spans such as this century against evolutionary rates measured over millions of years (Quintero and Wiens Reference Quintero and Wiens2013).

The Crux with Rates of Change

Rates of natural processes are virtually impossible to compare across timescales. Most natural processes advance more like a car on a long-distance trip rather than a rocket in space; similar to how the average speed of a car decreases as the distance increases due to bends in the road and pauses as the driver gets distracted, or needs to sleep, the progression of these processes slows down over time. Similarly, evolutionary rates, rates of climate change, and some measures of extinction rates are critically dependent upon the timescale of observation (Blois and Hadly Reference Blois and Hadly2009; Gingerich Reference Gingerich2009, Reference Gingerich2019, Reference Gingerich2021; Kemp et al. Reference Kemp, Eichenseer and Kiessling2015). Because none of these processes are monotonic, the true rate can change over time and, like a detoured car, even reverse direction (Fig. 3). Amid a longer-term warming trend, there might be intervals of stasis and even cooling. Similarly, there might be times of evolutionary stasis amid a directional long-term change. Overall, these vagaries produce a negative power-law relationship between time span of observation and observed rate of change. Without considering this temporal scaling, any comparison of historical and prehistorical rates of change is meaningless (Gingerich Reference Gingerich2019; Watkins Reference Watkins2023). It is mathematically straightforward to normalize rates to any arbitrary time span, but it is better to compare rates only when either the numerator (magnitude of change) or denominator (time span of change) is the same (Gingerich Reference Gingerich2019). Achieving a finer temporal resolution across hyperthermal events may also help to assess the basic pattern of true rate trajectories.

Figure 3. Potential patterns of temperature rise (ΔT) within a longer (e.g., geologically resolvable) time interval (Δt) of observation. Taking the rates at face value implies a naïve, linear interpolation (A). True temperature changes are likely to be much more complex and made up as a composite of patterns (B–F), all involving greater rates (steeper slopes, red color) at some times within Δt than the naïve rate. Increasing the temporal resolution is unlikely to capture the true maximum rate within Δt, but it might inform us of the underlying process(es). Within each panel, all trajectories move from the lower left to the upper right cross.

Research Challenges and a Way Forward

There are promising routes for paleobiology to better address and translate into conservation strategies under climate change. As discussed previously (Kiessling et al. Reference Kiessling, Smith and Raja2023), there are a number of simple measures to make paleontological findings more policy relevant. Foremost, reporting of paleobiological results needs to be improved by being clearer about effect sizes, uncertainties, and time spans over which effects are observed. Second, research needs to be more targeted toward projecting climate change impacts. The search for commonalities among mass extinctions was once fruitful for revealing macroevolutionary principles, but now a critical comparison among past hyperthermal events may be more rewarding (Reddin et al. Reference Reddin, Aberhan, Dimitrijević, Dowding, Kocsis, Mathes, Nätscher, Patzkowsky and Kiessling2023).

We identify three outstanding scientific questions: (1) Context dependency: why are responses to similar climatic changes sometimes very different? (2) Scale dependency: which responses, if any, are scale-invariant and how can we quantify scale-dependence? (3) Applicability: how can we translate deep-time paleontological findings into conservation strategies?

The first question is perhaps the most pressing. There are differences in extinction magnitude that cannot be simply attributed to differences in climate forcing. There seems to be a stronger impact of hyperthermals that occurred during Pangean times than later on, which has been attributed to a lack of chemical buffering in the pre-Jurassic oceans (Zeebe and Westbroek Reference Zeebe and Westbroek2003; Wignall Reference Wignall2016). This hypothesis makes the implicit assumption that disturbances of the carbon cycles, for example, through ocean acidification, were directly responsible for the extinctions. Following Sampaio et al. (Reference Sampaio, Santos, Rosa, Ferreira, Pörtner, Duarte, Levin and Rosa2021) and Reddin et al. (Reference Reddin, Nätscher, Kocsis, Pörtner and Kiessling2020b), we challenge this assumption, noting that the interplay of deoxygenation and temperature rise was likely a major extinction trigger. Recent evidence suggests that the extent of anoxia across the PETM was much more limited than during Mesozoic anoxic events (Clarkson et al. Reference Clarkson, Lenton, Andersen, Bagard, Dickson and Vance2021) and the ocean was generally less prone to anoxia after the Turonian (Smith and Stockley Reference Smith and Stockley2005; Kiessling and Kocsis Reference Kiessling and Kocsis2015). Climate legacies (Mathes et al. Reference Mathes, van Dijk, Kiessling and Steinbauer2021b) and the shorter duration of the warming might also contribute to the lower impact of post-Cretaceous warmings.

The second question (scale dependency) is directly linked to the third (applicability). Scale dependency needs to be quantified as much as possible with both empirical paleontological work and modeling. How predictable are the impacts of climate change across timescales? For example, sponges are sometimes conceived as the winners of climate change relative to corals (Bell et al. Reference Bell, Bennett, Rovellini and Webster2018), but the evidence is equivocal in the modern ocean (Lesser and Slattery Reference Lesser and Slattery2020). The fossil record tells us that sponges were consistently less vulnerable during past hyperthermal events than corals when differing sampling completeness is taken into account (Reddin et al. Reference Reddin, Kocsis, Aberhan and Kiessling2021), but more work is clearly needed to specify which groups of sponges might be the future reef builders. We may benefit from ecological approaches to measure scale dependence in biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships (Gonzalez et al. Reference Gonzalez, Germain, Srivastava, Filotas, Dee, Gravel and Thompson2020).

The fossil record can also help reveal how a climate-induced mass extinction unfolds. Gradually increasing warming leading to gradual body-size reductions and pulsed extinctions culminating in a more or less abrupt extinction have been documented for the EPME (Kiessling et al. Reference Kiessling, Schobben, Ghaderi, Hairapetian, Leda and Korn2018; Gliwa et al. Reference Gliwa, Wiedenbeck, Schobben, Ullmann, Kiessling, Ghaderi, Struck and Korn2022). However, we still need a higher temporal resolution of both geochemical and paleontological data at global scales, including a consideration of sampling biases at all hyperthermal events. Simulations based on metabolic theory are promising to bridge gaps in space, time, and genealogical as well as ecological hierarchies (Penn and Deutsch Reference Penn and Deutsch2022). For instance, poleward range shifts may be a precursor to raised tropical and polar extinctions (the former being scale dependent and the latter potentially scale invariant), as endemic species are funneled into habitat area bottlenecks (Reddin et al. Reference Reddin, Aberhan, Raja and Kocsis2022). Finally, assessing the impacts of ancient climatic events also requires robust estimates of background variability and a comparison with events that were likely not primarily driven by climate change. The latter are rare, as even the impact-driven end-Cretaceous mass extinction had severe climatic consequences, albeit with cooling dominating (Vellekoop et al. Reference Vellekoop, Esmeray-Senlet, Miller, Browning, Sluijs, van de Schootbrugge, Sinninghe Damsté and Brinkhuis2016). In addition, background variability is probably insufficiently characterized due to the research focus of extreme events. A future quest will thus be to contrast hyperthermal extinction drivers against non-hyperthermal drivers.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (KI 806/15-2, KI 806/17-1, AB 109/11-1, Ko 5382/2-1), and by the Paleosynthesis Project through the Volkswagen Stiftung (Az 96 796). The work is embedded in the Research Unit TERSANE (FOR 2332: Temperature-related Stressors as a Unifying Principle in Ancient Extinctions). We thank reviewers P. Monarrez and M. Yasuhara as well as editor M. Patzkowsky for their valuable comments.

Competing Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Data Availability Statement

Supplementary materials are available from the Zenodo Repository: https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.13283783.

References

Literature Cited

Aberhan, M., and Baumiller, T. K.. 2003. Selective extinction among Early Jurassic bivalves: a consequence of anoxia. Geology 31:10771080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aberhan, M., and Kiessling, W.. 2015. Persistent ecological shifts in marine molluscan assemblages across the end-Cretaceous mass extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 112:72077212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aberhan, M., Weidemeyer, S., Kiessling, W., Scasso, R., and Medina, F. A.. 2007. Faunal evidence for reduced productivity and uncoordinated recovery in Southern Hemisphere Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary sections. Geology 35:227230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Algeo, T. J., and Scheckler, S. E.. 1998. Terrestrial-marine teleconnections in the Devonian—links between the evolution of land plants, weathering processes, and marine anoxic events. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 353:113128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Algeo, T. J., Henderson, C. M., Tong, J., Feng, Q., Yin, H., and Tyson, R. V.. 2013. Plankton and productivity during the Permian–Triassic boundary crisis: an analysis of organic carbon fluxes. Global and Planetary Change 105:5267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, N., Cole, C., Hintz, C., Hintz, K., Rae, J., and Finch, A.. 2021. Resolving the interactions of ocean acidification and temperature on coral calcification media pH. Coral Reefs 40:18071818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antell, G. S., Fenton, I. S., Valdes, P. J., and Saupe, E. E.. 2021. Thermal niches of planktonic foraminifera are static throughout glacial-interglacial climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 118:e2017105118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Araújo, M. B., Ferri-Yáñez, F., Bozinovic, F., Marquet, P. A., Valladares, F., and Chown, S. L.. 2013. Heat freezes niche evolution. Ecology Letters 16:12061219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Audzijonyte, A., Barneche, D. R., Baudron, A. R., Belmaker, J., Clark, T. D., Marshall, C. T., Morrongiello, J. R., and van Rijn, I.. 2019. Is oxygen limitation in warming waters a valid mechanism to explain decreased body sizes in aquatic ectotherms? Global Ecology and Biogeography 28:6477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audzijonyte, A., Richards, S. A., Stuart-Smith, R. D., Pecl, G., Edgar, G. J., Barrett, N. S., Payne, N., and Blanchard, J. L.. 2020. Fish body sizes change with temperature but not all species shrink with warming. Nature Ecology and Evolution 4:809814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bairos-Novak, K. R., Hoogenboom, M. O., van Oppen, M. J. H., and Connolly, S. R.. 2021. Coral adaptation to climate change: meta-analysis reveals high heritability across multiple traits. Global Change Biology 27:56945710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baudron, A. R., Needle, C. L., Rijnsdorp, A. D., and Tara Marshall, C.. 2014. Warming temperatures and smaller body sizes: synchronous changes in growth of North Sea fishes. Global Change Biology 20:10231031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, J. J., Bennett, H. M., Rovellini, A., and Webster, N. S.. 2018. Sponges to be winners under near-future climate scenarios. BioScience 68:955968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J. M., Sunday, J., Calosi, P., Villalobos, F., Martínez, B., Molina-Venegas, R., Araújo, M. B., et al. 2021. The evolution of critical thermal limits of life on Earth. Nature Communications 12:1198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bijma, J., Pörtner, H.-O., Yesson, C., and Rogers, A. D.. 2013. Climate change and the oceans—What does the future hold? Marine Pollution Bulletin 74:495505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blois, J. L., and Hadly, E. A.. 2009. Mammalian response to Cenozoic climatic change. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 37:181208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boag, T. H., Stockey, R. G., Elder, L. E., Hull, P. M., and Sperling, E. A.. 2018. Oxygen, temperature and the deep-marine stenothermal cradle of Ediacaran evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 285:20181724.Google ScholarPubMed
Boag, T. H., Gearty, W., and Stockey, R. G.. 2021. Metabolic tradeoffs control biodiversity gradients through geological time. Current Biology 31:29062913.e3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bond, D. P. G., and Grasby, S. E.. 2017. On the causes of mass extinctions. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 478:329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, D. P. G., and Grasby, S. E.. 2020. Late Ordovician mass extinction caused by volcanism, warming, and anoxia, not cooling and glaciation. Geology 48:777781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowen, G. J., Clyde, W. C., Koch, P. L., Ting, S., Alroy, J., Tsubamoto, T., Wang, Y., and Wang, Y.. 2002. Mammalian dispersal at the Paleocene/Eocene boundary. Science 295:20622065.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brachert, T. C., Reuter, M., Krüger, S., Böcker, A., Lohmann, H., Mertz-Kraus, R., and Fassoulas, C.. 2013. Density banding in corals: barcodes of past and current climate change. Coral Reefs 32:10131023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brachert, T. C., Corrège, T., Reuter, M., Wrozyna, C., Londeix, L., Spreter, P., and Perrin, C.. 2020. An assessment of reef coral calcification over the late Cenozoic. Earth-Science Reviews 204:103154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breitburg, D., Levin, L. A., Oschlies, A., Grégoire, M., Chavez, F. P., Conley, D. J., Garçon, V., et al. 2018. Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters. Science 359:eaam7240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broadley, M. W., Barry, P. H., Ballentine, C. J., Taylor, L. A., and Burgess, R.. 2018. End-Permian extinction amplified by plume-induced release of recycled lithospheric volatiles. Nature Geoscience 11:682687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodie, J. F., and Mannion, P. D.. 2023. The hierarchy of factors predicting the latitudinal diversity gradient. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 38:1523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brugger, J., Feulner, G., and Petri, S.. 2017. Baby, it's cold outside: climate model simulations of the effects of the asteroid impact at the end of the Cretaceous. Geophysical Research Letters 44:419427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calosi, P., Putnam, H. M., Twitchett, R. J., and Vermandele, F.. 2019. Marine metazoan modern mass extinction: improving predictions by integrating fossil, modern, and physiological data. Annual Review of Marine Science 11:369390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cantin, N. E., Cohen, A. L., Karnauskas, K. B., Tarrant, A. M., and McCorkle, D. C.. 2010. Ocean warming slows coral growth in the central Red Sea. Science 329:322325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaikin, S., and Belmaker, J.. 2023. Fish depth redistributions do not allow maintenance of abundance in a region of rapid change. Oikos 2023:e09650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, G., and Peck, L. S.. 1999. Polar gigantism dictated by oxygen availability. Nature 399:114115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, J. M., and Leibold, M. A.. 2002. Spatial scale dictates the productivity–biodiversity relationship. Nature 416:427430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chase, J. M., McGill, B. J., Thompson, P. L., Antão, L. H., Bates, A. E., Blowes, S. A., Dornelas, M., et al. 2019. Species richness change across spatial scales. Oikos 128:10791091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhary, C., Richardson, A. J., Schoeman, D. S., and Costello, M. J.. 2021. Global warming is causing a more pronounced dip in marine species richness around the equator. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 118:e2015094118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, M. H., Fu, X. G., Wang, J., Wei, H. Y., Zhang, Q., and Mansour, A.. 2023. Tethyan ocean acidification triggered the end-Triassic mass extinction: new Ca isotopic constraints from the Qiangtang Basin. Gondwana Research 124:206217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapham, M. E. 2017. Organism activity levels predict marine invertebrate survival during ancient global change extinctions. Global Change Biology 23:14771485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clapham, M. E., and Payne, J. L.. 2011. Acidification, anoxia, and extinction: a multiple logistic regression analysis of extinction selectivity during the Middle and Late Permian. Geology 39:10591062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, A., and Pörtner, H. O.. 2010. Temperature, metabolic power and the evolution of endothermy. Biological Reviews 85:703727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarkson, M. O., Lenton, T. M., Andersen, M. B., Bagard, M.-L., Dickson, A. J., and Vance, D.. 2021. Upper limits on the extent of seafloor anoxia during the PETM from uranium isotopes. Nature Communications 12:399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Congreve, C. R., Falk, A. R., and Lamsdell, J. C.. 2017. Biological hierarchies and the nature of extinction. Biological Reviews 93:811826.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooley, S., Schoeman, D., Bopp, L., Boyd, P., Donner, S., Ghebrehiwet, D. Y., Ito, S.-I., et al. 2022. Ocean and coastal ecosystems and their services. Pp. 379550 in Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D. C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E. S., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Craig, M., et al., eds. Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Costello, M. J., Corkrey, R., Bates, A. E., Burrows, M. T., Chaudhary, C., Edgar, G. E., Stuart-Smith, R. D., Yasuhara, M., and Wei, C.-L.. 2023. The universal evolutionary and ecological significance of 20°C. Frontiers of Biogeography 15:e61673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crichton, K. A., Wilson, J. D., Ridgwell, A., Boscolo-Galazzo, F., John, E. H., Wade, B. S., and Pearson, P. N.. 2023. What the geological past can tell us about the future of the ocean's twilight zone. Nature Communications 14:2376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cui, Y., Li, M., van Soelen, E. E., Peterse, F., and Kürschner, W. M.. 2021. Massive and rapid predominantly volcanic CO2 emission during the end-Permian mass extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 118:e2014701118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daufresne, M., Lengfellner, K., and Sommer, U.. 2009. Global warming benefits the small in aquatic ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106:1278812793.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deutsch, C., Brix, H., Ito, T., Frenzel, H., and Thompson, L.. 2011. Climate-forced variability of ocean hypoxia. Science 333:336339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deutsch, C., Ferrel, A., Seibel, B., Pörtner, H.-O., and Huey, R. B.. 2015. Climate change tightens a metabolic constraint on marine habitats. Science 348:11321135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deutsch, C., Penn, J. L., Verberk, W. C. E. P., Inomura, K., Endress, M.-G., and Payne, J. L.. 2022. Impact of warming on aquatic body sizes explained by metabolic scaling from microbes to macrofauna. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 119:e2201345119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ezard, T. H. G., Aze, T., Pearson, P. N., and Purvis, A.. 2011. Interplay between climate and species’ ecology drives macroevolutionary dynamics. Science 332:349351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finnegan, S., Heim, N. A., Peters, S. E., and Fischer, W. W.. 2012. Climate change and the selective signature of the Late Ordovician mass extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109:68296834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzer, S. C., Torres Gabarda, S., Daly, L., Hughes, B., Dove, M., O'Connor, W., Potts, J., Scanes, P., and Byrne, M.. 2018. Coastal acidification impacts on shell mineral structure of bivalve mollusks. Ecology and Evolution 8:89738984.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foden, W. B., Butchart, S. H. M., Stuart, S. N., Vié, J.-C., Akçakaya, H. R., Angulo, A., DeVantier, L. M., et al. 2013. Identifying the world's most climate change vulnerable species: a systematic trait-based assessment of all birds, amphibians and corals. PLoS ONE 8:e65427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fordham, D. A., Jackson, S. T., Brown, S. C., Huntley, B., Brook, B. W., Dahl-Jensen, D., Gilbert, M. T. P., et al. 2020. Using paleo-archives to safeguard biodiversity under climate change. Science 369:eabc5654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forster, J., Hirst, A. G., and Atkinson, D.. 2012. Warming-induced reductions in body size are greater in aquatic than terrestrial species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109:1931019314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foster, G. L., Hull, P., Lunt, D. J., and Zachos, J. C.. 2018. Placing our current “hyperthermal” in the context of rapid climate change in our geological past. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 376:20170086.Google ScholarPubMed
Foster, W. J., Gliwa, J., Lembke, C., Pugh, A., Hofmann, R., Tietje, M., Varela, S., Foster, L. C., Korn, D., and Aberhan, M.. 2019. Evolutionary and ecophenotypic controls on bivalve body size distributions following the end-Permian mass extinction. Global and Planetary Change 185:103088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, W. J., Hirtz, J. A., Farrell, C., Reistroffer, M., Twitchett, R. J., and Martindale, R. C.. 2022. Bioindicators of severe ocean acidification are absent from the end-Permian mass extinction. Scientific Reports 12:1202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foster, W. J., Allen, B. J., Kitzmann, N. H., Münchmeyer, J., Rettelbach, T., Witts, J. D., Whittle, R. J., Larina, E., Clapham, M. E., and Dunhill, A. M.. 2023. How predictable are mass extinction events? Royal Society Open Science 10:221507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frieling, J., Gebhardt, H., Huber, M., Adekeye, O. A., Akande, S. O., Reichart, G.-J., Middelburg, J. J., Schouten, S., and Sluijs, A.. 2017. Extreme warmth and heat-stressed plankton in the tropics during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Science Advances 3:e1600891.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fujisaki, W., Fukami, Y., Matsui, Y., Sato, T., Sawaki, Y., and Suzuki, K.. 2020. Redox conditions and nitrogen cycling during the Triassic–Jurassic transition: a new perspective from the mid-Panthalassa. Earth-Science Reviews 204:103173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fusi, M., Rigaud, S., Guadagnin, G., Barausse, A., Marasco, R., Daffonchio, D., Regis, J., et al. 2023. Ideas and perspectives: the fluctuating nature of oxygen shapes the ecology of aquatic habitats and their biogeochemical cycles—the aquatic oxyscape. Biogeosciences 20:35093521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, J. L., Peters, A., Kearney, M. R., Joseph, L., and Heinsohn, R.. 2011. Declining body size: a third universal response to warming? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 26:285291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, S. G., Camp, E. F., Smith, D. J., Kahlke, T., Osman, E. O., Gendron, G., Hume, B. C. C., Pogoreutz, C., Voolstra, C. R., and Suggett, D. J.. 2019. Coral microbiome diversity reflects mass coral bleaching susceptibility during the 2016 El Niño heat wave. Ecology and Evolution 9:938956.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gingerich, P. D. 2009. Rates of evolution. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 40:657675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 2019. Rates of evolution: a quantitative synthesis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gingerich, P. D. 2021. Rates of geological processes. Earth-Science Reviews 220:103723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gliwa, J., Wiedenbeck, M., Schobben, M., Ullmann, C. V., Kiessling, W., Ghaderi, A., Struck, U., and Korn, D.. 2022. Gradual warming prior to the end-Permian mass extinction. Palaeontology 65:e12621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, A., Germain, R. M., Srivastava, D. S., Filotas, E., Dee, L. E., Gravel, D., Thompson, P. L., et al. 2020. Scaling-up biodiversity-ecosystem functioning research. Ecology Letters 23:757776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grasby, S. E., Beauchamp, B., and Knies, J.. 2016. Early Triassic productivity crises delayed recovery from world's worst mass extinction. Geology 44:779782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harnik, P. G., Lotze, H. K., Anderson, S. C., Finkel, Z. V., Finnegan, S., Lindberg, D. R., Liow, L. H., et al. 2012. Extinctions in ancient and modern seas. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27:608617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harper, D. T., Hönisch, B., Zeebe, R. E., Shaffer, G., Haynes, L. L., Thomas, E., and Zachos, J. C.. 2020. The magnitude of surface ocean acidification and carbon release during Eocene Thermal Maximum 2 (ETM-2) and the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology 35:e2019PA003699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodapp, D., Roca, I. T., Fiorentino, D., Garilao, C., Kaschner, K., Kesner-Reyes, K., Schneider, B., et al. 2023. Climate change disrupts core habitats of marine species. Global Change Biology 29:33043317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., and Bruno, J. F.. 2010. The impact of climate change on the world's marine ecosystems. Science 328:15231528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffmann, A. A., and Sgrò, C. M.. 2011. Climate change and evolutionary adaptation. Nature 470:479485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hönisch, B., Ridgwell, A., Schmidt, D. N., Thomas, E., Gibbs, S. J., Sluijs, A., Zeebe, R., et al. 2012. The geological record of ocean acidification. Science 335:10581063.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, C., Joachimski, M. M., and Gong, Y.. 2018. Did climate changes trigger the Late Devonian Kellwasser Crisis? Evidence from a high-resolution conodont δ18OPO4 record from South China. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 495:174184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, S., Tucker, M. A., Hertel, A. G., Eyres, A., and Albrecht, J.. 2021. Scale-dependent effects of niche specialisation: the disconnect between individual and species ranges. Ecology Letters 24:14081419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, Y., Chen, Z.-Q., Roopnarine, P. D., Benton, M. J., Zhao, L., Feng, X., and Li, Z.. 2023. The stability and collapse of marine ecosystems during the Permian–Triassic mass extinction. Current Biology 33:10591070.e4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IPCC. 2022. Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D. C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Craig, M., et al., eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D., and Raup, D. M.. 1995. Selectivity of end-Cretaceous marine bivalve extinctions. Science 268:389391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jablonski, D., Roy, K., and Valentine, J. W.. 2006. Out of the tropics: evolutionary dynamics of the latitudinal diversity gradient. Science 314:102106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jezkova, T., and Wiens, J. J.. 2016. Rates of change in climatic niches in plant and animal populations are much slower than projected climate change. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 283:20162104.Google Scholar
Joachimski, M. M., Lai, X., Shen, S., Jiang, H., Luo, G., Chen, B., Chen, J., and Sun, Y.. 2012. Climate warming in the latest Permian and the Permian–Triassic mass extinction. Geology 40:195198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joachimski, M. M., Alekseev, A. S., Grigoryan, A., and Gatovsky, Y. A.. 2020. Siberian Trap volcanism, global warming and the Permian–Triassic mass extinction: new insights from Armenian Permian–Triassic sections. GSA Bulletin 132:427443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judd, E. J., Bhattacharya, T., and Ivany, L. C.. 2020. A dynamical framework for interpreting ancient sea surface temperatures. Geophysical Research Letters 47:e2020GL089044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurikova, H., Gutjahr, M., Wallmann, K., Flögel, S., Liebetrau, V., Posenato, R., Angiolini, L., et al. 2020. Permian–Triassic mass extinction pulses driven by major marine carbon cycle perturbations. Nature Geoscience 13:745750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiho, K. 2022. Relationship between extinction magnitude and climate change during major marine and terrestrial animal crises. Biogeosciences 19:33693380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keil, P., Pereira, H. M., Cabral, J. S., Chase, J. M., May, F., Martins, I. S., and Winter, M.. 2018. Spatial scaling of extinction rates: theory and data reveal nonlinearity and a major upscaling and downscaling challenge. Global Ecology and Biogeography 27:213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, P. H., and Raymond, A.. 1991. Migration, origination and extinction of Southern Hemisphere brachiopods during the middle Carboniferous. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 86:2339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, D. B., Eichenseer, K., and Kiessling, W.. 2015. Maximum rates of climate change are systematically underestimated in the geological record. Nature Communications 6:8890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiessling, W. 2009. Geologic and biologic controls on the evolution of reefs. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 40:173192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiessling, W. 2010. Reef expansion during the Triassic: spread of photosymbiosis balancing climatic cooling. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 290:1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiessling, W., and Kocsis, Á. T.. 2015. Biodiversity dynamics and environmental occupancy of fossil azooxanthellate and zooxanthellate scleractinian corals. Paleobiology 41:402414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiessling, W., and Simpson, C.. 2011. On the potential for ocean acidification to be a general cause of ancient reef crises. Global Change Biology 17:5667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiessling, W. 2002. Secular variations in the Phanerozoic reef ecosystem. In Kiessling, W., Flügel, E., and Golonka, J., eds. Phanerozoic reef patterns. SEPM Special Publication 72:625690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiessling, W., Aberhan, M., Brenneis, B., and Wagner, P. J.. 2007. Extinction trajectories of benthic organisms across the Triassic–Jurassic boundary. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 244:201222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiessling, W., Roniewicz, E., Villier, L., Leonide, P., and Struck, U.. 2009. An early Hettangian coral reef in southern France: implications for the end-Triassic reef crisis. Palaios 24:657671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiessling, W., Simpson, C., Beck, B., Mewis, H., and Pandolfi, J. M.. 2012. Equatorial decline of reef corals during the last Pleistocene interglacial. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 109:2137821383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiessling, W., Schobben, M., Ghaderi, A., Hairapetian, V., Leda, L., and Korn, D.. 2018. Pre–mass extinction decline of latest Permian ammonoids. Geology 46:283286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiessling, W., Raja, N. B., Roden, V. J., Turvey, S. T., and Saupe, E. E.. 2019. Addressing priority questions of conservation science with palaeontological data. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 374:20190222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiessling, W., Smith, J. A., and Raja, N. B.. 2023. Improving the relevance of paleontology to climate change policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 120:e2201926119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kocsis, A. T., Reddin, C. J., Alroy, J., and Kiessling, W.. 2019. The R package divDyn for quantifying diversity dynamics using fossil sampling data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10:735743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroeker, K. J., Kordas, R. L., Crim, R., Hendriks, I. E., Ramajo, L., Singh, G. S., Duarte, C. M., and Gattuso, J.-P.. 2013. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms: quantifying sensitivities and interaction with warming. Global Change Biology 19:18841896.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kröger, B., Desrochers, A., and Ernst, A.. 2017. The reengineering of reef habitats during the great Ordovician biodiversification event. Palaios 32:584599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubicek, A., Breckling, B., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., and Reuter, H.. 2019. Climate change drives trait-shifts in coral reef communities. Scientific Reports 9:3721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumagai, N. H., García Molinos, J., Yamano, H., Takao, S., Fujii, M., and Yamanaka, Y.. 2018. Ocean currents and herbivory drive macroalgae-to-coral community shift under climate warming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 115:89908995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurman, M. D., Gómez, C. E., Georgian, S. E., Lunden, J. J., and Cordes, E. E.. 2017. Intra-specific variation reveals potential for adaptation to ocean acidification in a cold-water coral from the Gulf of Mexico. Frontiers in Marine Science 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lachs, L., Donner, S. D., Mumby, P. J., Bythell, J. C., Humanes, A., East, H. K., and Guest, J. R.. 2023. Emergent increase in coral thermal tolerance reduces mass bleaching under climate change. Nature Communications 14:4939.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lenoir, J., Bertrand, R., Comte, L., Bourgeaud, L., Hattab, T., Murienne, J., and Grenouillet, G.. 2020. Species better track climate warming in the oceans than on land. Nature Ecology and Evolution 4:10441059.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lesser, M. P., and Slattery, M.. 2020. Will coral reef sponges be winners in the Anthropocene? Global Change Biology 26:32023211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, R., Wu, N., Shen, S.-Z., Wang, X.-L., Chen, H., Algeo, T. J., Zhang, H., and Zhang, F.. 2023. A rapid onset of ocean acidification associated with the end-Permian mass extinction. Global and Planetary Change 225:104130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liow, L. H. and Quental, T. B.. 2024. Biotic interactions and their consequences for macroevolution: learning from the fossil record and beyond. Paleobiology (in press).Google Scholar
Liu, F., Peng, H., Marshall, J. E. A., Lomax, B. H., Bomfleur, B., Kent, M. S., Fraser, W. T., and Jardine, P. E.. 2023. Dying in the Sun: direct evidence for elevated UV-B radiation at the end-Permian mass extinction. Science Advances 9:eabo6102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackenzie, C. L., Ormondroyd, G. A., Curling, S. F., Ball, R. J., Whiteley, N. M., and Malham, S. K.. 2014. Ocean warming, more than acidification, reduces shell strength in a commercial shellfish species during food limitation. PLoS ONE 9:e86764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLean, S. A., and Beissinger, S. R.. 2017. Species’ traits as predictors of range shifts under contemporary climate change: a review and meta-analysis. Global Change Biology 23:40944105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malhi, Y., Franklin, J., Seddon, N., Solan, M., Turner, M. G., Field, C. B., and Knowlton, N.. 2020. Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 375:20190104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mannion, P. D., Upchurch, P., Benson, R. B. J., and Goswami, A.. 2014. The latitudinal biodiversity gradient through deep time. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 29:4250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, C. R. 2023. Forty years later: the status of the “Big Five” mass extinctions. Cambridge Prisms: Extinction 1:e5.Google Scholar
Mathes, G. H., Kiessling, W., and Steinbauer, M. J.. 2021a. Deep-time climate legacies affect origination rates of marine genera. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 118(36):e2105769118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathes, G. H., van Dijk, J., Kiessling, W., and Steinbauer, M. J.. 2021b. Extinction risk controlled by interaction of long-term and short-term climate change. Nature Ecology and Evolution 5:304310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCulloch, M., Falter, J., Trotter, J., and Montagna, P.. 2012. Coral resilience to ocean acidification and global warming through pH up-regulation. Nature Climate Change 2:623633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, R. D., Mather, B., Dutkiewicz, A., Keller, T., Merdith, A., Gonzalez, C. M., Gorczyk, W., and Zahirovic, S.. 2022. Evolution of Earth's tectonic carbon conveyor belt. Nature 605:629639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munday, P. L., Warner, R. R., Monro, K., Pandolfi, J. M., and Marshall, D. J.. 2013. Predicting evolutionary responses to climate change in the sea. Ecology Letters 16:14881500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nätscher, P. S., Gliwa, J., De Baets, K., Ghaderi, A., and Korn, D.. 2023. Exceptions to the temperature–size rule: no Lilliput Effect in end-Permian ostracods (Crustacea) from Aras Valley (northwest Iran). Palaeontology 66:e12667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pandolfi, J. M., and Kiessling, W.. 2014. Gaining insights from past reefs to inform understanding of coral reef response to global climate change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 7:5258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmesan, C., Duarte, C., Poloczanska, E., Richardson, A. J., and Singer, M. C.. 2011. Overstretching attribution. Nature Climate Change 1:2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmesan, C., Morecroft, M. D., Trisurat, Y., Adrian, R., Anshari, G. Z., Arneth, A., Gao, Q., et al. 2022. Terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems and their services. Pp. 197377 in Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D. C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E. S., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Craig, M., et al., eds. Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Payne, J. L., and Clapham, M. E.. 2012. End-Permian mass extinction in the oceans: an ancient analog for the twenty-first century? Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 40:89111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. L., Bush, A. M., Heim, N. A., Knope, M. L., and McCauley, D. J.. 2016. Ecological selectivity of the emerging mass extinction in the oceans. Science 353:12841286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearson, R. G., Stanton, J. C., Shoemaker, K. T., Aiello-Lammens, M. E., Ersts, P. J., Horning, N., Fordham, D. A., et al. 2014. Life history and spatial traits predict extinction risk due to climate change. Nature Climate Change 4:217221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peck, L. S., Clark, M. S., Morley, S. A., Massey, A., and Rossetti, H.. 2009. Animal temperature limits and ecological relevance: effects of size, activity and rates of change. Functional Ecology 23:248256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pecl, G. T., Araújo, M. B., Bell, J. D., Blanchard, J., Bonebrake, T. C., Chen, I.-C., Clark, T. D., et al. 2017. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355:eaai9214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penn, J. L., and Deutsch, C.. 2022. Avoiding ocean mass extinction from climate warming. Science 376:524526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penn, J. L., Deutsch, C., Payne, J. L., and Sperling, E. A.. 2018. Temperature-dependent hypoxia explains biogeography and severity of end-Permian marine mass extinction. Science 362:eaat1327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piazza, V., Duarte, L. V., Renaudie, J., and Aberhan, M.. 2019. Reductions in body size of benthic macroinvertebrates as a precursor of the early Toarcian (Early Jurassic) extinction event in the Lusitanian Basin, Portugal. Paleobiology 45:296316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piazza, V., Ullmann, C. V., and Aberhan, M.. 2020. Temperature-related body size change of marine benthic macroinvertebrates across the Early Toarcian Anoxic Event. Scientific Reports 10:4675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinsky, M. L., Worm, B., Fogarty, M. J., Sarmiento, J. L., and Levin, S. A.. 2013. Marine taxa track local climate velocities. Science 341:12391242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinsky, M. L., Selden, R. L., and Kitchel, Z. J.. 2020. Climate-driven shifts in marine species ranges: scaling from organisms to communities. Annual Review of Marine Science 12:153179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pohl, A., Stockey, R. G., Dai, X., Yohler, R., Le Hir, G., Hülse, D., Brayard, A., Finnegan, S., and Ridgwell, A.. 2023. Why the Early Paleozoic was intrinsically prone to marine extinction. Science Advances 9:eadg7679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poloczanska, E. S., Brown, C. J., Sydeman, W. J., Kiessling, W., Schoeman, D. S., Moore, P. J., Brander, K., et al. 2013. Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nature Climate Change 3:919925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poloczanska, E. S., Burrows, M. T., Brown, C. J., García Molinos, J., Halpern, B. S., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Kappel, C. V., et al. 2016. Responses of marine organisms to climate change across oceans. Frontiers in Marine Science 3:https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pörtner, H.-O. 2012. Integrating climate-related stressor effects on marine organisms: unifying principles linking molecule to ecosystem-level changes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 470:273290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pörtner, H.-O. 2021. Climate impacts on organisms, ecosystems and human societies: integrating OCLTT into a wider context. Journal of Experimental Biology 224(Suppl. 1):jeb238360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pörtner, H.-O., and Gutt, J.. 2016. Impacts of climate variability and change on (marine) animals: physiological underpinnings and evolutionary consequences. Integrative and Comparative Biology 56:3144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pörtner, H.-O., Bock, C., and Mark, F. C.. 2017. Oxygen- and capacity-limited thermal tolerance: bridging ecology and physiology. Journal of Experimental Biology 220:26852696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pörtner, H.-O., Scholes, R. J., Arneth, A., Barnes, D. K. A., Burrows, M. T., Diamond, S. E., Duarte, C. M., et al. 2023. Overcoming the coupled climate and biodiversity crises and their societal impacts. Science 380:eabl4881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qiao, H., Saupe, E. E., Soberon, J., Peterson, A. T., and Myers, C. E.. 2016. Impacts of niche breadth and dispersal ability on macroevolutionary patterns. American Naturalist 188:149162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qie, W., Zhang, J., Luo, G., Algeo, T. J., Chen, B., Xiang, L., Liang, K., et al. 2023. Enhanced continental weathering as a trigger for the end-Devonian Hangenberg crisis. Geophysical Research Letters 50:e2022GL102640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quintero, I., and Wiens, J. J.. 2013. Rates of projected climate change dramatically exceed past rates of climatic niche evolution among vertebrate species. Ecology Letters 16:10951103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raja, N. B., and Kiessling, W.. 2021. Out of the extratropics: the evolution of the latitudinal diversity gradient of Cenozoic marine plankton. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 288:20210545.Google ScholarPubMed
Rakociński, M., Marynowski, L., Pisarzowska, A., Bełdowski, J., Siedlewicz, G., Zatoń, M., Perri, M. C., Spalletta, C., and Schönlaub, H. P.. 2020. Volcanic related methylmercury poisoning as the possible driver of the end-Devonian mass extinction. Scientific Reports 10:7344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M., and Boyajian, G. E.. 1988. Patterns of generic extinction in the fossil record. Paleobiology 14:109125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raup, D. M., and Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1982. Mass extinctions in the marine fossil record. Science 215:15011503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reddin, C. J., Kocsis, Á. T., and Kiessling, W.. 2018. Marine invertebrate migrations trace climate change over 450 million years. Global Ecology and Biogeography 27:704713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddin, C. J., Kocsis, Á. T., and Kiessling, W.. 2019. Climate change and the latitudinal selectivity of ancient marine extinctions. Paleobiology 45:7084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddin, C. J., Kocsis, Á. T., and Kiessling, W.. 2020a. Corrigendum: marine invertebrate migrations trace climate change over 450 million years. Global Ecology and Biogeography 29:12801282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddin, C. J., Nätscher, P. S., Kocsis, Á. T., Pörtner, H.-O., and Kiessling, W.. 2020b. Marine clade sensitivities to climate change conform across timescales. Nature Climate Change 10:249253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddin, C. J., Kocsis, Á. T., Aberhan, M., and Kiessling, W.. 2021. Victims of ancient hyperthermal events herald the fates of marine clades and traits under global warming. Global Change Biology 27:868878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reddin, C. J., Aberhan, M., Raja, N. B., and Kocsis, Á. T.. 2022. Global warming generates predictable extinctions of warm- and cold-water marine benthic invertebrates via thermal habitat loss. Global Change Biology 28:57935807.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reddin, C. J., Aberhan, M., Dimitrijević, D., Dowding, E. M., Kocsis, Á. T., Mathes, G., Nätscher, P. S., Patzkowsky, M. E., and Kiessling, W.. 2023. Oversimplification risks too much: a response to “How Predictable Are Mass Extinction Events?” Royal Society Open Science 10:230400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rita, P., Nätscher, P., Duarte, L. V., Weis, R., and Baets, K. D.. 2019. Mechanisms and drivers of belemnite body-size dynamics across the Pliensbachian–Toarcian crisis. Royal Society Open Science 6:190494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Röhl, U., Westerhold, T., Bralower, T. J., and Zachos, J. C.. 2007. On the duration of the Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum (PETM). Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems 8. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GC001784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roopnarine, P. D. 2006. Extinction cascades and catastrophe in ancient food webs. Paleobiology 32:119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruhl, M., Bonis, N. R., Reichart, G.-J., Damsté, J. S. S., and Kürschner, W. M.. 2011. Atmospheric carbon injection linked to end-Triassic mass extinction. Science 333:430434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sagoo, N., Valdes, P., Flecker, R., and Gregoire Lauren, J.. 2013. The Early Eocene equable climate problem: can perturbations of climate model parameters identify possible solutions? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 371:20130123.Google ScholarPubMed
Sampaio, E., Santos, C., Rosa, I. C., Ferreira, V., Pörtner, H.-O., Duarte, C. M., Levin, L. A., and Rosa, R.. 2021. Impacts of hypoxic events surpass those of future ocean warming and acidification. Nature Ecology and Evolution 5:311321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saupe, E. E., Hendricks, J. R., Portell, R. W., Dowsett, H. J., Haywood, A., Hunter, S. J., and Lieberman, B. S.. 2014. Macroevolutionary consequences of profound climate change on niche evolution in marine molluscs over the past three million years. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 281:20141995.Google ScholarPubMed
Saupe, E. E., Qiao, H., Donnadieu, Y., Farnsworth, A., Kennedy-Asser, A. T., Ladant, J.-B., Lunt, D. J., Pohl, A., Valdes, P., and Finnegan, S.. 2020. Extinction intensity during Ordovician and Cenozoic glaciations explained by cooling and palaeogeography. Nature Geoscience 13:6570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlanger, S., and Jenkyns, H.. 1976. Cretaceous oceanic anoxic events: causes and consequences. Geologie en mijnbouw 55:179184.l2016. Testing the limits in a greenhouse ocean: did low nitrogen availability limit marine productivity during the end-Triassic mass extinction? Earth and Planetary Science Letters 451:138–148.Google Scholar
Schoepfer, S. D., Algeo, T. J., Ward, P. D, Williford, K. H. and Haggart, J. W.. 2016. Testing the limits in a greenhouse ocean: did low nitrogen availability limit marine productivity during the end-Triassic mass extinction? Earth and Planetary Science Letters 451:138148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scotese, C. R. 2016. PALEOMAP PaleoAtlas for GPlates and the PaleoData Plotter Program. PALEOMAP Project. https://www.earthbyte.org/webdav/ftp/earthbyte/Scotese_PaleoAtlas_v3.zip.Google Scholar
Shen, J., Schoepfer, S. D., Feng, Q., Zhou, L., Yu, J., Song, H., Wei, H., and Algeo, T. J.. 2015. Marine productivity changes during the end-Permian crisis and Early Triassic recovery. Earth-Science Reviews 149:136162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. B., and Jeffery, C. H.. 1998. Selectivity of extinction among sea urchins at the end of the Cretaceous period. Nature 392:6971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. B., and Stockley, B.. 2005. The geological history of deep-sea colonization by echinoids: roles of surface productivity and deep-water ventilation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 272:865869.Google ScholarPubMed
Song, H., Huang, S., Jia, E., Dai, X., Wignall, P. B., and Dunhill, A. M.. 2020. Flat latitudinal diversity gradient caused by the Permian–Triassic mass extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 117:1757817583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Song, H., Kemp, D. B., Tian, L., Chu, D., Song, H., and Dai, X.. 2021. Thresholds of temperature change for mass extinctions. Nature Communications 12:4694.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spalding, C., and Hull, P. M.. 2021. Towards quantifying the mass extinction debt of the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 288:20202332.Google ScholarPubMed
Speijer, R., Scheibner, C., Stassen, P., and Morsi, A.-M. M.. 2012. Response of marine ecosystems to deep-time global warming: a synthesis of biotic patterns across the Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum (PETM). Austrian Journal of Earth Sciences 105(1):616.Google Scholar
Storch, D., Menzel, L., Frickenhaus, S., and Pörtner, H. O.. 2014. Climate sensitivity across marine domains of life: limits to evolutionary adaptation shape species interactions. Global Change Biology 20:30593067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sun, Y., Joachimski, M. M., Wignall, P. B., Yan, C., Chen, Y., Jiang, H., Wang, L., and Lai, X.. 2012. Lethally hot temperatures during the Early Triassic greenhouse. Science 338:366370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunday, J. M., Bates, A. E., and Dulvy, N. K.. 2012. Thermal tolerance and the global redistribution of animals. Nature Climate Change 2:686690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunday, J. M., Pecl, G. T., Frusher, S., Hobday, A. J., Hill, N., Holbrook, N. J., Edgar, G. J., et al. 2015. Species traits and climate velocity explain geographic range shifts in an ocean-warming hotspot. Ecology Letters 18:944953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tierney, J. E., Zhu, J., Li, M., Ridgwell, A., Hakim, G. J., Poulsen, C. J., Whiteford, R. D. M., Rae, J. W. B., and Kump, L. R.. 2022. Spatial patterns of climate change across the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 119:e2205326119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torda, G., Donelson, J. M., Aranda, M., Barshis, D. J., Bay, L., Berumen, M. L., Bourne, D. G., et al. 2017. Rapid adaptive responses to climate change in corals. Nature Climate Change 7:627636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdes, P. J., Scotese, C. R., and Lunt, D. J.. 2021. Deep ocean temperatures through time. Climate of the Past 17:14831506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandenbroucke, T. R. A., Emsbo, P., Munnecke, A., Nuns, N., Duponchel, L., Lepot, K., Quijada, M., Paris, F., Servais, T., and Kiessling, W.. 2015. Metal-induced malformations in early Palaeozoic plankton are harbingers of mass extinction. Nature Communications 6:17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaquer-Sunyer, R., and Duarte, C. M.. 2011. Temperature effects on oxygen thresholds for hypoxia in marine benthic organisms. Global Change Biology 17:17881797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vellekoop, J., Esmeray-Senlet, S., Miller, K. G., Browning, J. V., Sluijs, A., van de Schootbrugge, B., Sinninghe Damsté, J. S., and Brinkhuis, H.. 2016. Evidence for Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary bolide “impact winter” conditions from New Jersey, USA. Geology 44:619622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verberk, W. C. E. P., Atkinson, D., Hoefnagel, K. N., Hirst, A. G., Horne, C. R., and Siepel, H.. 2021. Shrinking body sizes in response to warming: explanations for the temperature–size rule with special emphasis on the role of oxygen. Biological Reviews 96:247268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watkins, A. 2023. Scaling procedures in climate science: using temporal scaling to identify a paleoclimate analogue. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 102:3144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westacott, S., Hollis, C. J., Pascher, K., Dickens, G. R., and Hull, P. M.. 2022. Radiolarian size and silicification across the Paleocene–Eocene boundary and into the early Eocene. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 609:111287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J. J., and Zelinka, J.. 2024. How many species will Earth lose to climate change? Global Change Biology 30:e17125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wignall, P. B. 2016. The worst of times: how life on earth survived eighty million years of extinctions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Williams, J. W., Ordonez, A., and Svenning, J.-C.. 2021. A unifying framework for studying and managing climate-driven rates of ecological change. Nature Ecology and Evolution 5:1726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wing, S. L., Harrington, G. J., Smith, F. A., Bloch, J. I., Boyer, D. M., and Freeman, K. H.. 2005. Transient floral change and rapid global warming at the Paleocene–Eocene boundary. Science 310:993996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winguth, A. M. E., Thomas, E., and Winguth, C.. 2012. Global decline in ocean ventilation, oxygenation, and productivity during the Paleocene—Eocene Thermal Maximum: implications for the benthic extinction. Geology 40:263266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winguth, A. M. E., Shields, C. A., and Winguth, C.. 2015. Transition into a hothouse world at the Permian–Triassic boundary—a model study. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 440:316327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodhouse, A., Swain, A., Fagan, W. F., Fraass, A. J., and Lowery, C. M.. 2023. Late Cenozoic cooling restructured global marine plankton communities. Nature 614:713718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yasuhara, M., and Deutsch, C. A.. 2022. Paleobiology provides glimpses of future ocean. Science 375:2526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yasuhara, M., and Deutsch, C. A.. 2023. Tropical biodiversity linked to polar climate. Nature 614:626628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yasuhara, M., Cronin, T. M., deMenocal, P. B., Okahashi, H., and Linsley, B. K.. 2008. Abrupt climate change and collapse of deep-sea ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105:15561560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yasuhara, M., Hunt, G., Dowsett, H. J., Robinson, M. M., and Stoll, D. K.. 2012. Latitudinal species diversity gradient of marine zooplankton for the last three million years. Ecology Letters 15:11741179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yasuhara, M., Wei, C.-L., Kucera, M., Costello, M. J., Tittensor, D. P., Kiessling, W., Bonebrake, T. C., et al. 2020. Past and future decline of tropical pelagic biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 117:1289112896.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zachos, J. C., Dickens, G. R., and Zeebe, R. E.. 2008. An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics. Nature 451:279283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeebe, R. E., and Westbroek, P.. 2003. A simple model for the CaCO3 saturation state of the ocean: the “Strangelove,” the “Neritan,” and the “Cretan” Ocean. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 4:1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zurell, D., Fritz, S. A., Rönnfeldt, A., and Steinbauer, M. J.. 2023. Predicting extinctions with species distribution models. Cambridge Prisms: Extinction 1:e8.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Biologic responses to climate change, present and past. “Present evidence” column uses confidence levels as given in the IPCC WGII Sixth Assessment Report for observed evidence in modern systems (IPCC 2022). The level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers (“very low,” “low,” “medium,” “high,” and “very high”) and synthesizes the IPCC authors’ judgments about the validity of findings as determined through evaluation of evidence and agreement in the literature. “Paleo evidence” uses the same framework based on the references cited in this review.

Figure 1

Table 2. Evidence of climate-related stressors across major biotic turnover events. Traditional “big five” mass extinctions are highlighted in bold. Underlined indicates evidence not yet provided in Harnik et al. (2012). References are listed in Supplementary Table 1. OAE, oceanic anoxic event.

Figure 2

Figure 1. Climatic context of well-documented hyperthermal events across the Phanerozoic. Five extinction events (end-Ordovician, Late Devonian, end-Permian, end-Triassic, end-Cretaceous) plus three hyperthermals (Toarcian, Cenomanian–Turonian, Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum [PETM]). Hyperthermal events are in bold. The climate stripes are based on mean global temperatures from climate models per stage (Valdes et al. 2021), and the paleographic reconstructions are from Scotese (2016). Symbols refer to hypothesized ultimate (volcanism, impact) and proximate drivers (cooling, warming, deoxygenation) of extinctions.

Figure 3

Figure 2. Timescales over which climate impacts have been studied. Timescales of less than 1 year refer to laboratory studies and mostly refer to physiological experiments. Present-day and historical observations of climate impacts refer to timescales of 100 to 102 years, whereas everything coarser than that is near time (103 to 105 years) or deep time (104 years and greater) evidence. Key references are provided in Supplementary Table 2.

Figure 4

Figure 3. Potential patterns of temperature rise (ΔT) within a longer (e.g., geologically resolvable) time interval (Δt) of observation. Taking the rates at face value implies a naïve, linear interpolation (A). True temperature changes are likely to be much more complex and made up as a composite of patterns (B–F), all involving greater rates (steeper slopes, red color) at some times within Δt than the naïve rate. Increasing the temporal resolution is unlikely to capture the true maximum rate within Δt, but it might inform us of the underlying process(es). Within each panel, all trajectories move from the lower left to the upper right cross.