Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 1–10 | Cite as

Red queen for a day: models of symmetry and selection in paleoecology

Ideas & Perspectives

Abstract

The Unified Theory of Biodiversity (UNTB), the Red Queen’s Hypothesis (RQH), and the Cascading Extinctions on Graphs hypothesis (CEG) are explored as members of a spectrum describing the ecological partitioning of species richness. All are models of historical biodiversity, but fare differently in explaining observed features of Phanerozoic biodiversity. The models treat species as symmetric, asymmetric, or partially symmetric respectively. Symmetry in the UNTB is broken by the generation and selection of variation of ecological performance, while the robustness and hence longevity of RQ communities are subject to selection. The CEG model reconciles some of the differences, demonstrating the importance of functional partitioning to both species evolution and selection at the community level. It is concluded that the UNTB explains communities partially on the shortest of evolutionary time scales, while RQ communities would be, at best, geologically ephemeral yet conditionally important.

Keywords

Neutral theory Red queen Food webs Phanerozoic diversity Community selection CEG 

References

  1. Allesina S, Alonso D, Pascua M (2008) A general model for food web structure. Science 320:658–661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alroy J (2010) The shifting balance of diversity among major marine animal groups. Science 329:1191–1194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angielczyk KD, Roopnarine PD, Wang SC (2005) Modeling the role of primary productivity disruption in end-Permian extinctions, Karoo Basin, South Africa. In: Lucas SG, Zeigler KE (eds) The nonmarine Permian. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin, Mexico, pp 16–23Google Scholar
  4. Benton MJ, Tverdokhlebov VP, Surkov MV (2004) Ecosystem remodelling among vertebrates at the Permian–Triassic boundary in Russia. Nature 432:97–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohm D (1971) Causality and chance in modern physics. University of Pennsylvania Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  6. Bush AM, Bambach RK (2011) Paleoecologic megatrends in marine metazoa. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 39:241–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carroll L (1871) Through the looking glass. Project GutenbergGoogle Scholar
  8. Cattin M, Bersier L, Banasek-Richter C, Baltensperger R, Gabriel J (2004) Phylogenetic constraints and adaptation explain food-web structure. Nature 427:835–839PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen JE, Briand F (1984) Trophic links of community food webs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 81:4105–4109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dornelas M, Connolly SR, Hughes TP (2006) Coral reef diversity refutes the neutral theory of biodiversity. Nature 440:80–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Etienne RS, Alonsono D, McKane AJ (2007) The zero-sum assumption in neutral biodiversity theory. J Theor Biol 248:522–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Hubbell SP (2001) The unified theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  14. Kauffman S (2000) Investigations. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Maynard Smith J, Szathmary E (1995) The major transitions in evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. McCune AR (1982) On the fallacy of constant extinction rates. Evolution 36:610–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McShea DW, Brandon RN (2010) Biology’s first law. The tendency for diversity and complexity to increase in evolutionary systems. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. Nicolas M, Rubidge BS (2009) Changes in Permo-Triassic terrestrial tetrapod ecological representation in the Beaufort Group (Karoo Supergroup) of South Africa. Lethaia 43:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Norris S (2003) Neutral theory: a new, unified model for ecology. Bioscience 53:124–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roopnarine PD (2006) Extinction cascades and catastrophe in ancient food webs. Paleobiology 32:1–19Google Scholar
  21. Roopnarine PD (2009) Ecological modeling of paleocommunity food webs. In: Dietl GP, Flessa KW (eds) Conservation paleobiology: using the past to manage for the future. Yale University Press, Yale, pp 195–220Google Scholar
  22. Roopnarine PD (2010) Networks, extinction and paleocommunity food webs. In: Alroy J, Hunt G (eds) Quantitative methods in paleobiology. Yale University Press, Yale, pp 143–161Google Scholar
  23. Roopnarine PD, Angielczyk KD, Wang SC, Hertog R (2007) Trophic network models explain instability of Early Triassic terrestrial communities. Proc R Soc B 274:2077–2086PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith RMH, Botha J (2005) The recovery of terrestrial vertebrate diversity in the South African Karoo Basin after the end-Permian extinction. CR Palevol 4:623–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stenseth NC, Maynard Smith J (1984) Coevolution in ecosystems: red queen evolution or stasis? Evolution 38:870–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Van Valen L (1973) A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory 1:1–30Google Scholar
  27. Vermeij GJ (1977) The Mesozoic marine revolution: evidence from snails, predators and grazers. Paleobiology 3:245–258Google Scholar
  28. Vermeij GJ (2004) Nature. An economic history. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  29. Vermeij GJ (2009) Comparative economics: evolution and the modern economy. J Bioecon 11:105–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wootton JT (2005) Field parameterization and experimental test of the neutral theory of biodiversity. Nature 433:309–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Invertebrate Zoology and GeologyCalifornia Academy of SciencesSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations