Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T04:23:10.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preservation of spatial and environmental gradients by death assemblages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Adam Tomašových  and
Susan M. Kidwell
Adam Tomašových
Affiliation:
Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637 Geological Institute, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dúbravská cesta 9, 84005 Bratislava, Slovakia. E-mail: [email protected]
Susan M. Kidwell
Affiliation:
University of Chicago, Department of Geophysical Sciences, Chicago, Illinois 60637. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although only a few studies have explicitly evaluated live-dead agreement of species and community responses to environmental and spatial gradients, paleoecological analyses implicitly assume that death assemblages capture these gradients accurately. We use nine data sets from modern, relatively undisturbed coastal study areas to evaluate how the response of living molluscan assemblages to environmental gradients (water depth and seafloor type; “environmental component” of a gradient) and geographic separation (“spatial component”) is captured by their death assemblages. We find that:

1. Living assemblages vary in composition either in response to environmental gradients alone (consistent with a species-sorting model) or in response to a combination of environmental and spatial gradients (mass-effect model). None of the living assemblages support the neutral model (or the patch-dynamic model), in which variation in species abundance is related to the spatial configuration of stations alone. These findings also support assumptions that mollusk species consistently differ in responses to environmental gradients, and suggest that in the absence of postmortem bias, environmental gradients might be accurately captured by variation in species composition among death assemblages. Death assemblages do in fact respond uniquely to environmental gradients, and show a stronger response when abundances are square-root transformed to downplay the impact of numerically abundant species and increase the effect of rare species.

2. Species' niche positions (position of maximum abundance) along bathymetric and sedimentary gradients in death assemblages show significantly positive rank correlations to species positions in living assemblages in seven of nine data sets (both square-root-transformed and presence-absence data).

3. The proportion of compositional variation explained by environmental gradients in death assemblages is similar to that of counterpart living assemblages. Death assemblages thus show the same ability to capture environmental gradients as do living assemblages. In some instances compositional dissimilarities in death assemblages show higher rank correlation with spatial distances than with environmental gradients, but spatial structure in community composition is mainly driven by spatially structured environmental gradients.

4. Death assemblages correctly identify the dominance of niche metacommunity models in mollusk communities, as revealed by counterpart living assemblages. This analysis of the environmental resolution of death assemblages thus supports fine-scale niche and paleoenvironmental analyses using molluscan fossil records. In spite of taphonomic processes and time-averaging effects that modify community composition, death assemblages largely capture the response of living communities to environmental gradients, partly because of redundancy in community structure that is inherently associated with multispecies assemblages. The molluscan data sets show some degree of redundancy as evidenced by the presence of at least two mutually exclusive subsets of species that replicate the community structure, and simple simulations show that between-sample relationships can be preserved and remain significant even when a large proportion of species is randomly removed from data sets.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , Winter 2009 , pp. 119 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Adler, P. B., HilleRisLambers, J., and Levine, J. M. 2007. A niche for neutrality. Ecology Letters 10:95–104.Google Scholar
Akcakaya, H. R., Halley, J. M., and Inchausti, P., 2003. Population-level mechanisms for reddened spectra in ecological time series. Journal of Animal Ecology 72:698–702.Google Scholar
Allen, A. P., Whittier, T. R., Larsen, D. P., Kaufmann, P. R., O'Conner, R. J., Hughes, R. M., Stemberger, R. S., Dixit, S. S., Brinkhurst, R. O., Herlihy, A. T., and Paulsen, S. G. 1999. Concordance of taxonomic composition patterns across multiple lake assemblages: effects of scale, body size and land use. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:2029–2040.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. J. 2001. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecology 26:32–46.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. J., and Willis, T. J. 2003. Canonical analysis of principal coordinates: a useful method of constrained ordination for ecology. Ecology 84:511–525.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. J., Ellingsen, K. E., and McArdle, B. H. 2006. Multivariate dispersion as a measure of beta diversity. Ecology Letters 9:683–693.Google Scholar
Aronson, R. B., Macintyre, I. G., Lewis, S. A., and Hilbun, N. L. 2005. Emergent zonation and geographic convergence of coral reefs. Ecology 86:2586–2600.Google Scholar
Austin, M. P. 2002. Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. Ecological Modelling 157:101–118.Google Scholar
Azeria, E. T., and Kolasa, J. 2008. Nestedness, niche metrics and temporal dynamics of a metacommunity in a dynamic natural model system. Oikos 117:1006–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrensmeyer, A. K. 1982. Time resolution in fluvial vertebrate assemblages. Paleobiology 8:211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrensmeyer, A. K., Western, D., and Boaz, D. E. Dechant 1979. New perspectives in vertebrate paleoecology from a Recent bone assemblage. Paleobiology 5:12–21.Google Scholar
Behrensmeyer, A. K., Kidwell, S. M., and Gastaldo, R. 2000. Taphonomy and paleobiology. In Erwin, D. H. and Wing, S. L., eds. Deep time: Paleobiology's Perspective Paleobiology 26(Suppl. to No. 4):103–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrensmeyer, A. K., Fürsich, F. T., Gastaldo, R. A., Kidwell, S. M., Kosnik, M. A., Kowalewski, M., Plotnick, R. E., Rogers, R. R., and Alroy, J. 2005. Are the most durable shelly taxa also the most common in the marine fossil record? Paleobiology 31:607–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, G. 2000. The distribution of abundance in neutral communities. American Naturalist 155:606–617.Google Scholar
Bell, G., Lechowicz, M. J., Appenzeller, A., Chandler, M., DeBlois, E., Jackson, L., Mackenzie, B., Preziosi, R., Schallenberg, M., and Tinker, N. 1993. The spatial structure of the physical environment. Oecologia 96:114–121.Google Scholar
Bennington, J. B. 2003. Transcending patchiness in the comparative analysis of paleocommunities: a test case from the Upper Cretaceous of New Jersey. Palaios 18:22–33.Google Scholar
Birks, H. J. B., Line, J. M., Juggins, S., Stevenson, A. C., and ter Braak, C. J. F. 1990. Diatoms and pH reconstruction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 327:263–278.Google Scholar
Borcard, D., and Legendre, P. 1994. Environmental control and spatial structure in ecological communities: an example using oribatid mites (Acari, Oribatei). Environmental and Ecological Statistics 1:37–61. [where cited?] Google Scholar
Borcard, D., Legendre, P., and Drapeau, P. 1992. Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73:1045–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosence, D. W. J. 1979. Live and dead faunas from coralline algal gravels, Co. Galway. Palaeontology 22:449–478.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E. 1998. Sequence stratigraphy, paleoecology, and evolution: biotic clues and responses to sea-level fluctuations. Palaios 13:241–262.Google Scholar
Chave, J., and Leigh, E. G. Jr. 2002. A spatially explicit neutral model of β-diversity in tropical forests. Theoretical Population Biology 62:153–168.Google Scholar
Case, T. 1981. Niche packing and coevolution in competition communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 78:5021–5025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, K. R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18:117–143.Google Scholar
Clarke, K. R., and Green, R. H. 1988. Statistical design and analysis for a “biological effects” study. Marine Ecology Progress Series 46:213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, K. R., and Warwick, R. M. 1998. Quantifying structural redundancy in ecological communities. Oecologia 113:278–289.Google Scholar
Clarke, K. R., Somerfield, P. J., and Chapman, M. G. 2006. On resemblance measures for ecological studies, including taxonomic dissimilarities and a zero-adjusted Bray-Curtis coefficient for denuded assemblages. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 330:55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottenie, K. 2005. Integrating environmental and spatial processes in ecological community dynamics. Ecology Letters 8:1175–1182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cottenie, K., Michels, E., Nuytten, N., and De Meester, L. 2003. Zooplankton metacommunity structure: regional versus local processes in highly interconnected ponds. Ecology 84:991–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, H., Powell, E. N., Newton, H. J., Stanton, R. J. Jr., and Staff, G. 1986a. Assessing transportation by the covariance of species with comments on contagious and random distributions. Lethaia 19:1–22.Google Scholar
Cummins, H., Powell, E. N., Stanton, R. J. Jr., and Staff, G. 1986b. The rate of taphonomic loss in modern benthic habitats: how much of the potentially preservable community is preserved? Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology 52:291–320.Google Scholar
Cushman, S. A., and McGarigal, K. 2004. Patterns in the species-environment relationship depend on both scale and choice of response variables. Oikos 105:117–124.Google Scholar
Dale, M. R. T. 1988. The spacing and intermingling of species boundaries on an environmental gradient. Oikos 53:351–356.Google Scholar
Dolédec, S., Chessel, D., and Gimaret-Carpentier, C. 2000. Niche separation in community analysis: a new method. Ecology 81:2914–2927.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. M., Lounibos, L. P., and Holyoak, M. 2006. Evaluating the long-term metacommunity dynamics of tree hole mosquitoes. Ecology 87:2582–2590.Google Scholar
Etienne, R. S., and Alonso, D. 2007. Neutral community theory: how stochasticity and dispersal-limitation can explain species coexistence. Journal of Statistical Physics 128:485–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. A., and Miller, A. I. 2007. A sea change in Smuggler's Cove? Detection of decadal-scale compositional transitions in the subfossil record. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 254:418–429.Google Scholar
Fürsich, F. T., and Aberhan, M. 1990. Significance of time-averaging for palaeocommunity analysis. Lethaia 23:143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fürsich, F. T., and Flessa, K. W. 1987. Taphonomy of tidal flat mollusks in the northern Gulf of California: paleoenvironmental analysis despite the perils of preservation. Palaios 2:543–559.Google Scholar
Gavin, D. G., Oswald, W. W., Wahl, E. R., and Williams, J. W. 2003. A statistical approach to evaluating distance metrics and analog assignments for pollen records. Quaternary Research 60:356–367.Google Scholar
Gilbert, B., and Lechowicz, M. J. 2004. Neutrality, niches, and dispersal in a temperate forest understory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101:7651–7656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Megías, A., Gómez, J. M., and Sánchez-Piñero, F. 2007. Diversity-habitat heterogeneity relationship at different spatial and temporal scales. Ecography 30:31–41.Google Scholar
Gravel, D., Canham, C. C., Beaudet, M., and Messier, C. 2006. Reconciling niche and neutrality: the continuum hypothesis. Ecology Letters 9:399–409.Google Scholar
Green, R. H. 1971. A multivariate statistical approach to the Hutchinsonian niche: bivalve molluscs of central Canada. Ecology 52:543–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halley, J. M. 1996. Ecology, evolution, and 1/f-noise. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11:33–37.Google Scholar
Hassan, G. S., Espinosa, M. A., and Isla, F. I. 2008. Fidelity of dead diatom assemblages in estuarine sediments: how much environmental information is preserved? Palaios 23:112–120.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., Miller, A. I., Meyer, D. L., and Dattilo, B. F. 2001. The detection and importance of subtle biofacies within a single lithofacies: the Upper Ordovician Kope Formation of the Cincinnati, Ohio region. Palaios 16:205–217.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M. 2005. The signatures of patches and gradients in ecological ordinations. Palaios 20:573–580.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., and Patzkowsky, M. E. 2004. Ecosystem structure and stability: Middle Upper Ordovician of central Kentucky, USA. Palaios 19:316–331.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, S. M., and Patzkowsky, M. E. 2007. Gradient ecology of a biotic invasion: biofacies of the type Cincinnatian series (Upper Ordovician), Cincinnati, Ohio region, USA. Palaios 22:392–407.Google Scholar
Holland, J. D., Bert, D. G., and Fahrig, L. 2004. Determining the spatial scale of species' responses to habitat. BioScience 54:227–233.Google Scholar
Holoyak, M., and Loreau, M. 2006. Reconciling empirical ecology with neutral community models. Ecology 87:1370–1377.Google Scholar
Holt, R. D., and Gaines, M. S. 1992. Analysis of adaptation in heterogeneous landscapes: implications for the evolution of fundamental niches. Evolutionary Ecology 6:433–447.Google Scholar
Holt, R. D., and Gomulkiewicz, R. 1997. The evolution of species' niches: a population dynamic perspective. Pp. 25–50. in Adler, F., ed. Case studies in mathematical modeling: ecology, physiology, and cell biology: Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J. Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. 2001. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Monographs in Population Biology, Vol. 32. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. 2005. Neutral theory in community ecology and the hypothesis of ecological equivalence. Functional Ecology 19:166–172.Google Scholar
Jabot, F., Etienne, R. S., and Chave, J. 2008. Reconciling neutral community models and environmental filtering: theory and an empirical test. Oikos 117:1308–1320.Google Scholar
Jones, M. M., Tuomisto, H., Borcard, D., Legendre, P., Clark, D. B., and Olivas, P. C. 2008. Explaining variation in tropical plant community composition: influence of environmental and spatial data quality. Oecologia 155:593–604.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W., Baumiller, T. K., and Ausich, W. I. 1997. Species longevity as a function of niche breadth: evidence from fossil crinoids. Geology 25:219–222.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karl, J. W., Heglund, P. J., Garton, E. O., Scott, J. M., Wright, N. M., and Hutto, R. L. 2000. Sensitivity of species habitat-relationship model performance to factors of scale. Ecological Applications 10:1690–1705.Google Scholar
Karst, J., Gilbert, B., and Lechowicz, M. J. 2005. Fern community assembly: the roles of chance and the environment at local and intermediate scales. Ecology 86:2473–2486.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 2001. Preservation of species abundance in marine death assemblages. Science 294:1091–1094.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 2002a. Mesh-size effects on the ecological fidelity of death assemblages: A meta-analysis of molluscan live-dead studies. Geobios Mémoire Spécial 24:107–119.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 2002b. Time-averaged molluscan death assemblages: palimpsests of richness, snapshots of abundance. Geology 30:803–806.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 2007. Discordance between living and death assemblages as evidence for anthropogenic ecological change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104:17701–17706 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kidwell, S. M. 2008. Ecological fidelity of open marine molluscan death assemblages: effects of post-mortem transportation, shelf health, and taphonomic inertia. Lethaia 41:199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kindt, R., and Coe, R. 2005. Tree diversity analysis: a manual and software for common statistical methods for ecological and biodiversity studies. www.worldagroforestry.org/treesandmarkets/tree_diversity_analysis.asp Google Scholar
Kosnik, M. A., Hua, Q., Jacobsen, G. E., Kaufman, D. S., and Wüst, R. A. 2007. Sediment mixing and stratigraphic disorder revealed by the age-structure of Tellina shells in Great Barrier Reef sediment. Geology 35:811–814.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M. 1996. Time-averaging, overcompleteness, and the geological record. Journal of Geology 104:317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalewski, M. 1997. The reciprocal taphonomic model. Lethaia 30:86–88.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M., Goodfriend, G. A., and Flessa, K. W. 1998. High-resolution estimates of temporal mixing within shell beds: the evils and virtues of time-averaging. Paleobiology 24:287–304.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M., Carroll, M., Casazza, L., Gupta, N., Hannisdal, B., Hendy, A., Krause, R. A. Jr., LaBarbera, M., Lazo, D. G., Messina, C., Puchalski, S., Rothfus, T. A., Sälgeback, J., Stempien, J., Terry, R. C., and Tomašových, A. 2003. Quantitative fidelity of brachiopod-mollusk assemblages from modern subtidal environments of San Juan Islands, USA. Journal of Taphonomy 1:43–65.Google Scholar
Kozak, K. H., and Wiens, J. J. 2006. Does niche conservatism promote speciation? A case study in North American salamanders. Evolution 60:2604–2621.Google Scholar
Kranz, P. M. 1977. A model for estimating standing crop in ancient communities. Paleobiology 3:415–421.Google Scholar
Kucera, M., Weinelt, M., Kiefer, T., Pflaumann, U., Hayes, A., Weinelt, M., Chen, M. T., Mix, A. C., Barrows, T. T., Cortijo, E., Duprat, J., Juggins, S., and Waelbroeck, C. 2005. Reconstruction of sea-surface temperatures from assemblages of planktonic foraminifera: multi-technique approach based on geographically constrained calibration data sets and its application to glacial Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Quaternary Science Reviews 24:951–998.Google Scholar
Lande, R. 1993. Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes. American Naturalist 142:911–927.Google Scholar
Lande, R. 1996. Statistics and partitioning of species diversity, and similarity among multiple communities. Oikos 76:5–13.Google Scholar
Lasiak, T. 2003. Influence of taxonomic resolution, biological attributes and data transformations on multivariate comparisons of rocky macrofaunal assemblages. Marine Ecology Progress Series 250:29–34.Google Scholar
Legendre, P. 1993. Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74:1659–1673.Google Scholar
Legendre, P., and Anderson, M. J. 1999. Distance-based redundancy analysis: testing multispecies responses in multifactorial ecological experiments. Ecological Monographs 69:1–24.Google Scholar
Legendre, P., and Fortin, M. 1989. Spatial pattern and ecological analysis. Vegetatio 80:107–138.Google Scholar
Legendre, P., and Gallagher, E. G. 2001. Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129:271–280.Google Scholar
Legendre, P., and Legendre, L. 1998. Numerical ecology. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Legendre, P., Borcard, D., and Peres-Neto, P. R. 2005. Analyzing beta diversity: partitioning the spatial variation of community composition data. Ecological Monographs 75:435–440.Google Scholar
Leibold, M. A., and McPeek, M. A. 2006. Coexistence of the niche and neutral perspectives in community ecology. Ecology 87:1399–1410.Google Scholar
Leibold, M. A., and Mikkelson, G. M. 2002. Coherence, species turnover, and boundary clumping: elements of meta-community structure. Oikos 97:237–250.Google Scholar
Leibold, M. A., Holyoak, M., Mouquet, N., Amarasekare, P., Chase, J. M., Hoopes, M. F., Holt, R. D., Shurin, J. B., Law, R., Tilman, D., Loreau, M., and Gonzalez, A. 2004. The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecology Letters 7:601–613.Google Scholar
Linse, K. 1997. Die Verbreitung epibenthischer Mollusken im chilenischen Beagle-Kanal. Distribution of epibenthic Mollusca from the Chilean Beagle Channel. Berichte zur Polarforschung 228:1–131.Google Scholar
Linse, K. 1999. Abundance and diversity of Mollusca in the Beagle Channel. Sciencia Marina 63(Suppl.):391–397.Google Scholar
Lockwood, R., and Chastant, L. R. 2006. Quantifying taphonomic bias of compositional fidelity, species richness, and rank abundance in molluscan death assemblages from the Upper Chesapeake Bay. Palaios 21:376–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotter, A. F., Birks, H. J. B., Hofmann, W., and Marchetto, A. 1998. Modern diatom, cladocera, chironomid, and chrysophyte cyst assemblages as quantitative indicators for the reconstruction of past environmental conditions in the Alps. II. Nutrients. Journal of Paleolimnology 19:443–463.Google Scholar
Martin, R. E., Hippensteel, S. P., Nikitina, D., and Pizzuto, J. E. 2002. Artificial time-averaging of marsh foraminiferal assemblages: linking the temporal scales of ecology and paleoecology. Paleobiology 28:263–277.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurer, B. A., and McGill, B. J. 2004. Neutral and non-neutral macroecology. Basic and Applied Ecology 5:413–422.Google Scholar
McGill, B. J. 2003. Does Mother Nature really prefer rare species or are log-left-skewed SADs a sampling artefact? Ecology Letters 6:766–773.Google Scholar
McGill, B. J., Hadly, E. A., and Maurer, B. A. 2005. Community inertia of Quaternary small mammal assemblages in North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 102:16701–16706.Google Scholar
McGill, B. J., Maurer, B. A., and Weiser, M. D. 2006. Empirical evaluation of neutral theory. Ecology 87:1411–1423.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L., and Allmon, W. D. 1995. Metapopulations and disturbance: from patch dynamics to biodiversity dynamics. Pp. 123–183 in Erwin, D. and Anstey, R., eds. New approaches to speciation in the fossil record. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
McPeek, M. A. 2007. The macroevolutionary consequences of ecological differences among species. Palaeontology 50:111–129.Google Scholar
Méot, A., Legendre, P., and Borcard, D. 1998. Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation: questions and propositions in the linear modelling framework. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 5:1–27.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I. 1988. Spatial resolution in subfossil molluscan remains: implications for paleobiological analyses. Paleobiology 14:91–103.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I., and Connolly, S. R. 2001. Substrate affinities of higher taxa and the Ordovician Radiation. Paleobiology 27:768–778.Google Scholar
Mistri, M., Fano, E. A., and Rossi, R. 2001. Redundancy of macrobenthos from lagoonal habitats in the Adriatic Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 215:289–296.Google Scholar
Moran, M. D. 2003. Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroni in ecological studies. Oikos 100:403–305.Google Scholar
Oksanen, J., and Minchin, P. R. 2002. Continuum theory revisited: what shape are species responses along ecological gradients? Ecological Modelling 157:119–129.Google Scholar
Oksanen, J., Kindt, R., and O'Hara, B. 2005. The vegan package: R language. http://cc.oulu.fi/∼jarioksa/.Google Scholar
Olsgard, F., Somerfield, P. J., and Carr, M. R. 1997. Relationships between taxonomic resolution and data transformations in analyses of a macrobenthic community along an established pollution gradient. Marine Ecology Progress Series 149:173–181.Google Scholar
Olszewski, T. 1999. Taking advantage of time-averaging. Paleobiology 25:226–238.Google Scholar
Olszewski, T. D., and Kidwell, S. M. 2007. The preservational fidelity of evenness in molluscan death assemblages. Paleobiology 33:1–23.Google Scholar
Olszewski, T. D., and Patzkowsky, M. E. 2001. Measuring recurrence of marine biotic gradients: a case study from the Pennsylvanian-Permian Midcontinent. Palaios 16:444–460.Google Scholar
Overpeck, J. T., Webb, T. III, and Prentice, I. C. 1985. Quantitative interpretation of fossil pollen spectra: dissimilarity coefficients and the method of modern analogs. Quaternary Research 23:87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pandolfi, J. M. 2001. Numerical and taxonomic scale of analysis in paleoecological data sets: examples from Neo-tropical Pleistocene reef coral communities. Journal of Paleontology 75:546–563.Google Scholar
Pandolfi, J. M., and Minchin, P. R. 1995. A comparison of taxonomic composition and diversity between reef coral life and death assemblages in Madang Lagoon, Papua New Guinea. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 119:321–341.Google Scholar
Peres-Neto, P. R., Legendre, P., Dray, S., and Borcard, D. 2006. Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87:2614–2625.Google Scholar
Peterson, C. H. 1976. Relative abundances of living and death molluscs in two Californian lagoons. Lethaia 9:137–148.Google Scholar
Pither, J., and Aarssen, L. W. 2005. Environmental specialists: their prevalence and their influence on community-similarity analyses. Ecology Letters 8:261–271.Google Scholar
Powell, E. N., Callender, W. R., Staff, G. M., Parsons-Hubbard, K. M., Brett, C. E., Walker, S. E., Raymond, A., and Ashton-Alcox, K. A. 2008. Molluscan shell condition after eight years on the sea floor—taphonomy in the Gulf of Mexico and Bahamas. Journal of Shellfish Research 27:191–225.Google Scholar
Rahel, F. J. 1990. The hierarchical nature of community persistence: a problem of scale. American Naturalist 136:328–344.Google Scholar
Rothfus, T. A., and Kidwell, S. M. 2006. The living, the dead, and the expected dead: mortality bias in bivalve death assemblages. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 38:441.Google Scholar
Sale, P. F. 1998. Appropriate spatial scales for studies of reef-fish ecology. Australian Journal of Ecology 23:202–208.Google Scholar
Scheffer, M., and van Nes, E. H. 2006. Self-organized similarity, the evolutionary emergence of groups of similar species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103:6230–6235.Google Scholar
Somerfield, P. J., Clarke, K. R., and Olsgard, F. 2002. A comparison of the power of categorical and correlational tests applied to community ecology data from gradient studies. Journal of Animal Ecology 71:581–593.Google Scholar
Stanton, R. J. Jr. 1976. Relationship of fossil communities to original communities of living organisms. Pp. 107–142 in Scott, R. W. and West, R. R., eds. Structure and classification of paleocommunities. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, Penn. Google Scholar
ter Braak, C. J. F., and Prentice, I. C. 1988. A theory of gradient analysis. Advances in Ecological Research 18:271–313.Google Scholar
ter Braak, C. J. F., and Verdonschot, P. F. M. 1995. Canonical correspondence analysis and related multivariate methods in aquatic ecology. Aquatic Sciences 57:255–289.Google Scholar
Thioulouse, J., and Chessel, D. 1992. A method for reciprocal scaling of species tolerance and sample diversity. Ecology 73:670–680.Google Scholar
Thrush, S. F., Hewitt, J. E., Herman, P. M. J., and Ysebaert, T. 2005. Multi-scale analysis of species-environment relationship. Marine Ecology Progress Series 302:13–26.Google Scholar
Thuiller, W., Lavorel, S., Midgley, G., Lavergne, S., and Rebelo, T. 2004. Relating plant traits and species distributions along bioclimatic gradients for 88 Leucadendron taxa. Ecology 85:1688–1699.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 2004. Niche tradeoffs, neutrality, and community structure: a stochastic theory of resource competition, invasion, and community assembly. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101:10854–10861.Google Scholar
Tsuchi, R. 1959. Molluscs and shell remains from the coast of Chihama in the Sea of Enshu, the Pacific side of central Japan. Reports of Liberal Arts and Science Faculty, Shizuoka University (Natural Science) 2:143–152.Google Scholar
Tomašových, A., and Kidwell, S. M. 2009. Fidelity of between-site variation in species composition: time-averaging transfers diversity from beta to alpha levels. Paleobiology [this issue].Google Scholar
Tuomisto, H., and Ruokolainen, K. 2006. Analyzing or explaining beta diversity? Understanding the targets of different methods of analysis. Ecology 87:2697–2708.Google Scholar
Ulrich, W., and Gotelli, N. J. 2007. Disentangling community patterns of nestedness and species co-occurrence. Oikos 116:2053–2061.Google Scholar
Underwood, A. J. 1978. The detection of non-random patterns of distribution of species along a gradient. Oecologia 36:317–326.Google Scholar
Vanschoenwinkel, B., De Vries, C., Seaman, M., and Brendonck, L. 2007. The role of metacommunity processes in shaping invertebrate rock pool communities along a dispersal gradient. Oikos 116:1255–1266.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1964. Relative abundance of species in some fossil mammal faunas. American Naturalist 98:109–116.Google Scholar
Warme, J. E. 1971. Paleoecological aspects of a modern coastal lagoon. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences 87:1–110.Google Scholar
Warme, J. E., Ekdale, A. A., Ekdale, S. F., Peterson, C. H. 1976. Raw material of the fossil record. Pp. 143–169 in Scott, R. W. and West, R. R., eds. Structure and classification of paleocommunities. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, Penn. Google Scholar
Warwick, R. M. 1988. Analysis of community attributes of the macrobenthos of Frierfjord/Langesundfjord at taxonomic levels higher than species. Marine Ecology Progress Series 46:167–170.Google Scholar
Webber, A. J. 2002. High-resolution faunal gradient analysis and an assessment of the causes of meter-scale cyclicity in the type Cincinnatian series (Upper Ordovician). Palaios 17:545–555.Google Scholar
White, W. A., Calnan, T. R., Morton, R. A., Kimble, R. S., Littleton, T. G., McGowen, J. H., and Nance, H. S. 1983. Submerged lands of Texas, Corpus Christi area: sediments, geochemistry, benthic macroinvertebrates, and associated wetlands. Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R. H. 1967. Gradient analysis of vegetation. Biological Reviews 42:207–264.Google Scholar
Wolda, H. 1981. Similarity indices, sample size and diversity. Oecologia 50:296–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yee, T. W., and Mitchell, N. D. 1991. Generalized additive models in plant ecology. Journal of Vegetation Science 2:587–602.Google Scholar
Zuschin, M., Hohenegger, J., and Steininger, F. F. 2000. A comparison of living and dead molluscs on coral reef associated hard substrata in the northern Red Sea—implications for the fossil record. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 159:169–190.Google Scholar
Zuschin, M., and Oliver, P. G. 2003. Fidelity of molluscan life and death assemblages on sublittoral hard substrata around granitic islands of the Seychelles. Lethaia 36:133–149.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Tomašových and Kidwell supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Download Tomašových and Kidwell supplementary material(File)
File 393.2 KB