1 / 17

Testing the Quality of the Fossil Record through Geological Time

This study examines the biases and problems associated with the fossil record, such as sampling proxies and their correlations to paleodiversity. The research highlights the limitations of using singular sampling proxies to correct for bias and suggests the use of multivariate models for better predicting paleodiversity.

minermichael
Download Presentation

Testing the Quality of the Fossil Record through Geological Time

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TESTING THE QUALITY OF THE FOSSIL RECORD THROUGH GEOLOGICAL TIME ALEXANDER M. DUNHILL [alex.dunhill@bristol.ac.uk] SCHOOL OF EARTH SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL, U.K.

  2. THE INCOMPLETENESS OF THE FOSSIL RECORD Sepkoski (1984) Is our knowledge of the fossil record good enough to tackle macroevolutionary questions?

  3. A BIASED FOSSIL RECORD... • Biodiversity in the fossil record is significantly influenced by sampling bias. • Most research focusing on geologically driven biases and subsequent collecting biases. Raup (1976) Raup (1972)

  4. ...OR COMMON CAUSE & REDUNDANCY COMMON-CAUSE: geological and fossil records covary as both driven simultaneously by a common environmental agent. Hannisdal (2011) Peters & Heim (2011) REDUNDANCY: sampling and paleodiversity correlate as they are not independent signals. Benton et al. (2011) from Fröbisch (2008)

  5. SAMPLING PROXIES “...metric that represents collecting effort in some way... should represent some or all of the geological and human factors that can introduce error into interpretations of data from the fossil record.” Benton et al. (2011). Peters & Foote (2001) Wall et al. (2009) Outcrop area e.g. Smith & McGowan (2005, 2007), Wall et al. (2009, 2011), Marx (2009), Uhen & Pyenson (2007) etc. Formation Counts e.g. Peters & Foote (2001, 2002), Butler et al. (2009), Barrett et al. (2009), Benson et al. (2010, 2011) etc.

  6. SAMPLING PROXY PROBLEMS Sampling proxies are largely untested. Global or continental scale studies. Arguably vague sampling proxies (e.g. global geological maps) and crude estimations of paleodiversity. Wall et al. (2009)

  7. GIS & REMOTE SENSING PRECISE SMALL-SCALE CASE STUDIES

  8. POSTER T163. Geologic Timescale (Posters) Hall B, Poster booth no. 280 Wednesday 7th November, 2-4pm, 4.30-6pm

  9. TESTING SAMPLING PROXIES OUTCROP vs EXPOSURE Dunhill (2011, 2012) OUTCROP AREA = rock area that is displayed on a geological map. EXPOSURE AREA = rock area that is visible at the Earth’s surface.

  10. TESTING SAMPLING PROXIES OUTCROP vs EXPOSURE CALIFORNIA NEW YORK AUSTRALIA UK Dunhill (2011, 2012)

  11. TESTING SAMPLING PROXIES DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF SAMPLING DO NOT CORRELATE Proxies for different aspects of sampling DO NOT consistently correlate. Sampling proxy precision deteriorates when scaling up data. Singular sampling proxies should NOT be used to correct diversity curves. Triassic-Jurassic UK; Dunhill et al. in review

  12. SAMPLING PROXIES & PALEODIVERSITY INCONSISTENT CORRELATIONS Sampling proxies and paleodiversity show limited to no correlation in small-scale studies. Lower Jurassic SW UK; Dunhill et al. (2012)

  13. SAMPLING PROXIES & PALEODIVERSITY INCONSISTENT CORRELATIONS Triassic-Jurassic UK; Dunhill et al. in review Sampling proxies and paleodiversity correlate in marine systems, but not in terrestrial systems.

  14. ACCURACY OF SAMPLING PROXIES FACIES DEPENDENCE Facies and lithology effects are more pronounced than rock volume effects (Triassic-Jurassic UK; Dunhill et al., in review)

  15. VALIDITY OF SAMPLING PROXIES NON-INDEPENDENCE & MULTIVARIATE MODELLING Sampling proxies can predict paleodiversity when included in multivariate models. Sampling and facies effects are non-independent in their influence on paleodiversity. Complexity of biasing factors confirms that singular sampling proxies (i.e. outcrop area) should not be used to correct the fossil record. Triassic-Jurassic UK; Dunhill et al., in review

  16. CONCLUSIONS 1. Sampling proxies representing rock volume are not good representations of amount of rock available for sampling. 2. Proxies for different aspects of sampling do not share a common pattern. 3. Sampling proxies and paleodiversity do not consistently correlate across: (i) Different geographical and stratigraphical scales. (ii) Different facies. (iii) Different lithologies. 4. Multivariate models better predict paleodiversity – complex. The use of a singular sampling proxy to identify and correct for bias in the fossil record is poorly supported.

  17. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Michael Benton (Bristol) Richard Twitchett (Plymouth) Andrew Newell (BGS) Bjarte Hannisdal (Bergen) Manabu Sakamoto (Bristol) Graeme Lloyd (Oxford) Felix Marx (Otago) Phil Donoghue (Bristol) Emily Rayfield (Bristol) Marcello Ruta (Bristol) Alistair McGowan (Glasgow) alex.dunhill@bristol.ac.uk @AlexDunhill

More Related