Advertisement

Spatial and Temporal Body-Size Changes of Brachiopods in Relation to Varied Palaeogeographic Settings

  • Wei-Hong HeEmail author
  • G. R. Shi
Chapter
Part of the New Records of the Great Dying in South China book series (NRGDSC)

Abstract

The so-called Lilliput effect refers to a macroevolutionary phonemnon where the surviving animals in the aftermath of a mass extinction tend to be smaller on average than their pre-extinction relatives (Urbanek 1993; Fraiser and Bottjer 2004; Payne 2005; Twitchett 2007; Keller and Abramovich 2009; Zhang et al. 2016). This observation clearly highlights the importance of animal body-size changes in the study of mass extinctions. Body size is a key character of any organism and profoundly affects its biology and ecology (Jablonski 1996). Body size is often controlled by environmental factors, including oxygen fluctuations (Savrda and Bottjer 1986; Payne et al. 2008, 2013), food availability (Hallam 1965; Rheault and Rice 1996; Twitchett 2007; He et al. 2010) and temperature changes (Hunt et al. 2010; Sheridan and Bickford 2011; Edeline et al. 2013), as well as substrate conditions. As many of these factors vary with water depth, the relationship between body size and bathymetry (i.e., spatial body-size changes in this book) is crucial for the study on body-size changes (Anderson 1971; Thiel 1975; Peck and Harper 2010; Shi et al. 2016). For example, the study of spatial body-size changes is useful for examining which factor (or factors) played a more important role in controlling the differences of body sizes, thereby providing insights into the evolution of palaeoenvironments through time. Meanwhile, the study of size changes through past extinction times (i.e., temporal body-size changes in this book) is also of particular importance in understanding the biotic responses to global-scale climatic and environmental evolution (Twitchett 2007; He et al. 2010, 2015).

References

  1. Anderson EJ. 1971. Environmental models for Paleozoic communities. Lethaia, 4: 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen ZQ, Tong JN, Zhang KX, Yang H, Liao ZT, Song HJ, Chen J. 2009. Environmental and biotic turnover across the Permian–Triassic boundary on a shallow carbonate platform in western Zhejiang, South China. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 56: 775–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chu DL, Tong JN, Song HJ, Benton MJ, Song HY, Yu JX, Qiu XC, Huang YF, Tian L. 2016. Lilliput effect in freshwater ostracods during the Permian–Triassic extinction. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 435: 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Edeline E, Lacroix G, Delire C, Poulet N, Legendre S. 2013. Ecological emergence of thermal clines in body size. Global Change Biology, 19: 3062–3068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fraiser ML, Bottjer DJ. 2004. The Non-Actualistic Early Triassic Gastropod Fauna: A Case Study of the Lower Triassic SinbadLimestone Member. Palaios, 19: 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hallam A. 1965. Environmental causes of stunting in living and fossil marine benthonic invertebrates. Palaeontology, 8: 132–155.Google Scholar
  7. He WH, Shi GR, Feng QL, Campi MJ, Gu SZ, Bu JJ, Peng YQ, Meng YY. 2007. Brachiopod miniaturization and its possible causes during the Permian–Triassic crisis in deep water environments, South China. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 252: 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. He WH, Twitchett RJ, Zhang Y, Shi GR, Feng QL, Yu JX, Wu SB, Peng XF. 2010. Controls on body size during the Late Permian mass extinction event. Geobiology, 8: 391–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. He WH, Shi GR, Twitchett RJ, Zhang Y, Zhang KX, Song HJ, Yue ML, Wu SB, Wu HT, Yang TL, Xiao YF. 2015. Late Permian marine ecosystem collapse began in deeper waters: evidence from brachiopod diversity and body size changes. Geobiology, 13: 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. He WH, Shi GR, Yang TL, Zhang KX, Yue ML, Xiao YF, Wu HT, Chen B, Wu SB. 2016. Patterns of brachiopod faunal and body-size changes across the Permian–Triassic boundary: evidence from the Daoduishan section in Meishan area, South China. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 448: 72–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. He WH, Shi GR, Xiao YF, Zhang KX, Yang TL, Wu HT, Zhang Y, Chen B, Yue ML, Shen J, Wang YB, Yang H, Wu SB. 2017. Body-size changes of latest Permian brachiopods in varied palaeogeographic settings in South China and implications for controls on animal miniaturization in a highly stressed marine ecosystem. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecolog, 486: 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hunt G, Wicaksono SA, Brown JE, Macleod KG. 2010. Climate-driven body-size trends in the Ostracod fauna of the deep Indian Ocean. Palaeontology, 53: 1255–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jablonski D. 1996. Body size and macroevolution, p. 256–289. In: Jablonski D, Erwin DH, Lipps JH. (Eds), Evolutionary Paleobiology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.Google Scholar
  14. Keller G, Abramovich S. 2009. Lilliput effect in late Maastrichtian planktic foraminifera: Response to environmental stress. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 284: 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liu GC, Feng QL, Shen J, Yu JX, He WH, Algeo T. 2013. Decline of siliceous sponges and spicule miniaturization induced by marine productivity collapse and expanding anoxia during the Permian–Triassic crisis in South China. Palaios, 28: 664–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Luo GM, Lai XL, Shi GR, Jiang HS, Yin HF, Xie SC, Tong JN, Zhang KX, He WH, Wignall PB. 2008. Size variation of conodont elements of the HindeodusIsarcicella clade during the Permian–Triassic transition in South China and its implication for mass extinction. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 264: 176–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Payne JL. 2005. Evolutionary dynamics of gastropod size across the end-Permian extinction and through the Triassic recovery interval. Paleobiology, 31: 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Payne JL, Boyer AG, Brown JH, Finnegan S, Kowalewski M, Krause Jr RA, Lyons SK, McClain CR, McShea DW, Novack-Gottshall PM, Smith FA, Stempien JA, Wang SC. 2008. Two-phase increase in the maximum size of life over 3.5 billion years reflects biological innovation and environmental opportunity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106: 24–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Payne JL, Jost AB, Wang SC, Skotheim JM. 2013. A shift in the long-term mode of foraminiferan size evolution caused by the end-Permian mass extinction. Evolution, 67: 816–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peck LS, Harper EM. 2010. Variation in size of living articulated brachiopods with latitude and depth. Marine Biology, 157: 2205–2213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peng YQ, Shi GR, Gao YQ, He WH, Shen SZ. 2007. How and why did the Lingulidae (Brachiopoda) not only survive the end-Permian mass extinction but also thrive in its aftermath? Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 252: 118–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rheault RB, Rice MA. 1996. Food-limited growth and condition index in the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin 1791), and the bay scallop, Argopecten irradians irradians (Lamarck 1819). Journal of Shellfish Research, 15: 271–283.Google Scholar
  23. Savrda CE, Bottjer DJ. 1986. Trace fossil model for reconstruction of Paleo-oxygenation in bottom waters. Geology, 14: 3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shen SZ, Crowley JL, Wang Y, Bowring SA, Erwin DH, Sadler PM, Cao CQ, Rothman DH, Henderson CM, Ramezani J, Zhang H, Shen YA, Wang XD, WangW, Mu L, Li WZ, Tang YG, Liu XL, Liu LJ, Zeng Y, Jiang YF, Jin YG. 2011. Calibrating the End-Permian Mass Extinction. Science, 334: 1367–1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sheridan JA, Bickford D. 2011. Shrinking body size as an ecological response to climate change. Nature Climate Change, 1: 401–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shi GR, Zhang YC, Shen SZ, He WH. 2016. Nearshore–offshore–basin species diversity and body size variation patterns in Late Permian (Changhsingian) brachiopods. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 448: 96–107.Google Scholar
  27. Song HJ, Tong JN, Chen ZQ. 2011. Evolutionary dynamics of the Permian–Triassic foraminifer size: Evidence for Lilliput effect in the end-Permian mass extinction and its aftermath. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 308: 98–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Takahashi S, Yamakita S, Suzuki N, Kaiho K, Ehiro M. 2009. High organic carbon content and a decrease in radiolarians at the end of the Permian in a newly discovered continuous pelagic section: A coincidence? Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 271: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thiel H. 1975. The size structure of the deep-sea benthos. Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie und Hydrographie, 60: 575–606.Google Scholar
  30. Twitchett RJ. 2007. The Lilliput effect in the aftermath of the end-Permian extinction event. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 252: 132–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Urbanek A. 1993. Biotic crises in the history of upper Silurian graptoloids: a palaeobiological model. Historical Biology, 7: 29–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wu HT, Shi GR, He WH. 2017. A quantitative taxonomic review of Fusichonetes and Tethyochonetes (Chonetidina, Brachiopoda). Journal of Paleontology, 91: 1296–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang Y, Shi GR, He WH, Wu HT, Lei Y, Zhang KX, Du CC, Yang TL, Yue ML, Xiao YF. 2016. Significant pre-mass extinction animal body-size changes: evidence from the Permian–Triassic boundary brachiopod faunas of South China. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 448: 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Biogeology and Environmental Geology, School of Earth SciencesChina University of GeosciencesWuhanChina
  2. 2.School of Life and Environmental SciencesBurwoodAustralia
  3. 3.Deakin UniversityGeelongAustralia

Personalised recommendations