It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Palaeontologists have long sought to explain the diversification of individual clades to whole biotas at global scales. Advances in our understanding of the spatial distribution of the fossil record through geological time, however, has demonstrated that global trends in biodiversity were a mosaic of regionally heterogeneous diversification processes. Drivers of diversification must presumably have also displayed regional variation to produce the spatial disparities observed in past taxonomic richness. Here, we analyse the fossil record of ammonoids, pelagic shelled cephalopods, through the Late Cretaceous, characterised by some palaeontologists as an interval of biotic decline prior to their total extinction at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary. We regionally subdivide this record to eliminate the impacts of spatial sampling biases and infer regional origination and extinction rates corrected for temporal sampling biases using Bayesian methods. We then model these rates using biotic and abiotic drivers commonly inferred to influence diversification. Ammonoid diversification dynamics and responses to this common set of diversity drivers were regionally heterogeneous, do not support ecological decline, and demonstrate that their global diversification signal is influenced by spatial disparities in sampling effort. These results call into question the feasibility of seeking drivers of diversity at global scales in the fossil record.
Global trends in biodiversity are subject to regionally heterogeneous diversification processes. Here, the authors examine Late Cretaceous ammonoids, modelling the impact of sampling bias and potential biotic and abiotic drivers on our understanding of their biodiversity trends towards the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details



1 University of Birmingham, School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Science, Birmingham, UK (GRID:grid.6572.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7486); University of Bristol, Palaeobiology Research Group, School of Earth Sciences, Bristol, UK (GRID:grid.5337.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7603)
2 University of Bristol, Palaeobiology Research Group, School of Earth Sciences, Bristol, UK (GRID:grid.5337.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7603)
3 University of New Mexico, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Albuquerque, USA (GRID:grid.266832.b) (ISNI:0000 0001 2188 8502)
4 Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, USA (GRID:grid.243983.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 2302 4724)
5 American Museum of Natural History, Division of Paleontology (Invertebrates), New York, USA (GRID:grid.241963.b) (ISNI:0000 0001 2152 1081)
6 University of Bristol, Palaeobiology Research Group, School of Earth Sciences, Bristol, UK (GRID:grid.5337.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7603); Natural History Museum, Department of Earth Sciences, London, UK (GRID:grid.35937.3b) (ISNI:0000 0001 2270 9879)