Marine Biology

, Volume 157, Issue 10, pp 2205–2213

Variation in size of living articulated brachiopods with latitude and depth

Original Paper

Abstract

Geographical variations in animal characters are one of the main subjects for study in macroecology. Variation with latitude has received special interest. Articulated brachiopods are possibly the commonest macrofossil with large variations in size of taxa through the fossil record. Here, we investigate trends in size of the 3 main orders of articulated brachiopod with latitude and depth. Data were insufficient to identify patterns in Thecideida (a micromorph taxon only recorded from low latitudes). Rhynchonellida had no clear trends in size with latitude or depth. Terebratulida exhibited hemispheric differences in size relations, with increasing length of species towards the pole in the south and no significant trend in the north. Tropical species were small (<20 mm length between 10°N and 10°S), and the largest species were found between 30° and 60° latitude in both hemispheres. There were no articulated brachiopods recorded from the high arctic, and support for a continuous trend in size with latitude was small or absent. In Terebratulida, there was a significant decrease in species length with depth of 1.7 mm per 100 m depth increase. These trends could be explained by competition for space and reduced availability of habitat with progressive depth beyond the continental shelf.

Supplementary material

227_2010_1486_MOESM1_ESM.doc (624 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 624 kb)

References

  1. Angilletta MJ Jr (2004) Temperature, growth rate, and body size in ectotherms: fitting pieces of a life-history puzzle. Integr Comp Biol 44:498–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asgaard U, Bromley RG (1991) Colonisation by micromorph brachiopods in the shallow subtidal of the eastern Mediterranean Sea. In: MacKinnon DI, Lee DE, Campbell JD (eds) Brachiopods through time. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 261–264Google Scholar
  3. Asgaard U, Stentoft N (1984) Micromorph brachiopods from Barbados: palaeoecological and evolutionary implications. Geobios Memoire Special 8:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashton KG (2004) Sensitivity of intraspecific latitudinal clines of body size for tetrapods to sampling, latitude and body size. Integr Comp Biol 44:403–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker PG (2006) Thecideida. In: Kaesler RL (ed) Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part H Brachiopoda, Revised, vol 5. The Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas, Boulder & Lawrence, pp 1938–1964Google Scholar
  6. Bergmann C (1847) Über die Verhältnisse der Wärmeökonomie der Thiere zu ihrer Grösse. Göttinger Studien 3(1):595–708Google Scholar
  7. Berrigan D, Charnov EL (1994) Reaction norms for age and size at maturity in response to temperature: a puzzle for life historians. Oikos 70:474–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown JH, Gillooly JF, Allen AP, Savage V, West GB (2004) Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85:1771–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapelle G, Peck LS (1999) Polar gigantism dictated by oxygen availability. Nature 399:114–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapelle G, Peck LS (2004) Amphipod crustacean size spectra: new insights in the relationship between size and oxygen. Oikos 106:167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chown SL, Gaston KJ (2009) Body size variation in insects: a macroecological perspective. Biol Rev. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00097.x
  12. Chown SL, Sinclair BJ, Leinaas HP, Gaston KJ (2004) Hemispheric Asymmetries in Biodiversity—A Serious Matter for Ecology. PLoS Biol 2(11):e406. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020406
  13. Cooper GA (1973) New Brachiopoda from the Indian Ocean. Smithson Contrib Paleobiol 17:1–51Google Scholar
  14. Cooper GA (1981) Brachiopoda from the Southern Indian Ocean (recent). Smithson Contrib Paleobiol 43:1–93Google Scholar
  15. Curry GB, Peck LS, Ansell AD, James M (1989) Physiological constraints on living and fossil brachiopods. Trans R Soc Edinb Earth Sci 80:255–262Google Scholar
  16. Forsterra G, Hausserman V, Lüter C (2008) Mass occurrence of the recent brachiopod Magellania venosa (Terebratellidae) in the fiords Comau and Renihue, Northern Patagonia, Chile. Mar Ecol Evol Perspect 29:342–347Google Scholar
  17. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM (2000) Pattern and process in macroecology. Blackwell Science, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geist V (1987) Bergmann’s rule is invalid. Can J Zool 65(4):1035–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hedley C (1899) Mollusca of Funafuti, part 2, Pelecypoda and Brachiopoda. Memoirs Austr Museum 3:508–510Google Scholar
  20. Ho CK, Pennings SC, Carefoot TH (2010) Is diet quality an overlooked mechanism for Bergmann’s rule? Am Nat 175:269–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Jablonski D (1996) Body size and macroevolution. In: Jablonski D, Erwin DH, Lipps J (eds) Evolutionary paleobiology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 256–289Google Scholar
  22. James MA, Ansell AD, Collins MJ, Curry GB, Peck LS, Rhodes MC (1992) Recent advances in the study of living brachiopods. Adv Mar Biol Rev 28:175–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Körner C (1998) A re-assessment of high elevation treeline positions and their explanation. Oecologia 115:445–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Körner C, Paulsen J (2004) A world-wide study of high altitude treeline temperatures. J Biogeog 31:713–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. La Perna R (2005) A gigantic deep-sea Nucinellidae from the tropical West Pacific (Bivalvia : Protobranchia). Zootaxa 881:1–10Google Scholar
  26. Laurin B (1997) Brachiopodes récoltées dans les eaux de la Nouvelle-Calédonie et des îles Loyauté, Matthew et Chesterfield. In: Crosnier A (ed) Résultats des campagnes MUSORSTOM, vol 18. Mémoires Museum Natl Hist Nat 176:411–471Google Scholar
  27. Lee DE, Smirnova TN, Dong-Li S (2006) Terebratulida. In: Kaesler RL (ed) Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part H Brachiopoda, Revised, Volume 5. The Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas, Boulder & Lawrence, pp 1965–2250Google Scholar
  28. Ma X, Lu X, Meril J (2009) Altitudinal decline of body size in a Tibetan frog. J Zool 279:364–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mahon AR, Amsler CD, McClintock JB, Amsler AO, Baker BJ (2003) Tissue-specific palatability and chemical defenses against macropredators and pathogens in the common articulate brachiopod Liothyrella uva from the Antarctic Peninsula. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 290:197–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McClain CR, Rex MA (2001) The relationship between dissolved oxygen concentration and maximum size in deep-sea turrid gastropods: an application of quantile regression. Mar Biol 139:681–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McClain CR, Boyer AG, Rosenberg G (2006) The island rule and the evolution of body size in the deep sea. J Biogeog 33:1578–1584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McClintock JB, Slattery M, Thayer CW (1993) Energy content and chemical defence of the articulate brachiopod Liothyrella uva (Jackson, 1912) from the Antarctic Peninsula. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 169:103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Novack-Gottshall PM (2008) Ecosystem-wide body-size trends in Cambrian-Devonian marine invertebrate lineages. Paleobiology 34:210–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nylin S, Svärd L (1991) Latitudinal patterns in the size of European butterflies. Holarctic Ecology 14:192–202Google Scholar
  35. Partridge L, French V (1996) Thermal evolution of ectotherm body size: why get big in the cold? In: Johnston IA, Bennet AF (eds) Animals and temperature: phenotypic and evolutionary adaptation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 265–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peck LS (1993) The tissues of articulate brachiopods and their value to predators. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 339:17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peck LS (1996) Feeding and metabolism in the Antarctic brachiopod Liothyrella uva: a low energy lifestyle species with restricted metabolic scope. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:223–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peck LS (2001) Ecology. Chapter 11. In: Carlson S, Sandy M (eds) Brachiopods ancient and modern: a tribute to G. Arthur Cooper. The Paleontology Society of the USA & the University of Kansas, USA, pp 171–183Google Scholar
  39. Peck LS (2008) Brachiopods and climate change. Earth Environ Sci Trans R Soc Edinburgh 98:451–456Google Scholar
  40. Peck LS, Chapelle G (2003) Reduced oxygen at high altitude limits maximum size. Proc R Soc Lond BL 270:S166–S167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peck LS, Maddrell SHP (2005) The limitation of size by oxygen in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. J Exp Zool 303A:968–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peck LS, Robinson K (1994) Pelagic larval development in the brooding Antarctic brachiopod Liothyrella uva. Mar Biol 120:279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peck LS, Brockington S, Brey T (1997) Growth and metabolism in the Antarctic brachiopod Liothyrella uva. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B 352:851–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peck LS, Meidlinger K, Tyler PA (2001) Developmental and settlement characteristics of the Antarctic brachiopod Liothyrella uva (Broderip 1833). In: Brunton CHC, Cocks LR, Long SL (eds) Brachiopods past and present. The systematic association special volume series 63, London, pp 80–90Google Scholar
  45. Peck LS, Convey P, Barnes DKA (2006) Environmental constraints on life histories in Antarctic ecosystems: tempos, timings and predictability. Biol Rev 81:75–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Rex MA, Etter RJ (2009) Deep-sea biodiversity: pattern and scale. Harvard University Press, London, 332 ppGoogle Scholar
  47. Rex MA, Etter RJ, Clain AJ, Hill MS (1999) Bathymetric patterns of body size in deep-sea gastropods. Evolution 53:1298–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rudwick MJ (1970) Living and fossil brachiopods. Hutchinson University Library, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Savage NM, Manceñido MO, Owen EF, Carlson SJ, Grant RE, Dagys AS, Sun DL (2002) Rhynchonellida, 1027–1376. In: Kaesler RL (ed) Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Part H. Brachiopoda 4 (revised). Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, KS, 753 ppGoogle Scholar
  50. Schutze MK, Clarke AR (2008) Converse Bergmann cline in a Eucalyptus herbivore, Paropsis atomaria Olivier (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae): phenotypic plasticity or local adaptation? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:424–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sinclair BJ, Addo-Bediako A, Chown SL (2003) Climatic variability and the evolution of insect freeze tolerance. Biol Rev 78:181–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  53. Thayer CW, Allmon RA (1991) Unpalatable thecideid brachiopods from Palau—ecological and evolutionary implications. In: MacKinnon DI, Lee DE, Campbell JD (eds) Brachiopods through time. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 253–260Google Scholar
  54. Tietjen JH (1989) Ecology of deep-sea nematodes from the Puerto Rico Trench area and Hatteras Abyssal Plain. Deep- Sea Res 36:1579–1594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van der Have TM, de Jong G (1996) Adult size in ectotherms: temperature effects on growth and differentiation. J Theor Biol 183:329–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. White EP, Ernest SKM, Kerkhoff AJ, Enquist BJ (2007) Relationships between body size and abundance in ecology. TREE 22:323–330PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Wiencke C, Bartsch I, Bischoff B, Peters AF, Breeman AM (1994) Temperature requirements and biogeography of Antarctic, Arctic and Amphiequatorial seaweeds. Bot Mar 37:247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Woods HA (1999) Egg-mass size and cell size: effects of temperature on oxygen distribution. Am Zool 39:244–252Google Scholar
  59. Woodward FI (1987) Climate and plant distribution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 174 pGoogle Scholar
  60. Zezina ON (2008) Biogeography of the Recent Brachiopods. Paleontol J 42:830–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.British Antarctic SurveyNatural Environment Research CouncilCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Department of Earth SciencesUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations