Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T02:33:51.184Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Biotic invasion, niche stability, and the assembly of regional biotas in deep time: comparison between faunal provinces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2016

Mark E. Patzkowsky
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802-2714, U.S.A. E-mail: mep12@psu.edu.
Steven M. Holland
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-2501, U.S.A.

Abstract

Biotic invasions in the fossil record provide natural experiments for testing hypotheses of niche stability, speciation, and the assembly and diversity of regional biotas. We compare ecological parameters (preferred environment, occupancy, median abundance, rank abundance) of genera shared between faunal provinces during the Richmondian Invasion in the Late Ordovician on the Laurentian continent. Genera that spread from one faunal province to the other during the invasion (invading shared genera) have high Spearman rank correlations (>0.5) in three of four ecological parameters, suggesting a high level of niche stability among invaders. Genera that existed in both regions prior to and following the invasion (noninvading shared genera) have low correlations (<0.3) and suggest niche shift between lineages that diverged at least 8 Myr earlier. Niche shift did not accumulate gradually over this time interval but appears to have occurred in a pulse associated with the onset of the Taconic orogeny and the switch from warm-water to cool-water carbonates in southern Laurentia.

Type
Featured Article
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 The Paleontological Society. All rights reserved 

Introduction

The assembly and evolution of regional biotas is a product of speciation, extinction, and migration. These processes operate over a wide range of spatial and temporal scales, so studies of modern and fossil ecosystems are required to understand their relative roles (Ricklefs and Jenkins Reference Ricklefs and Jenkins2011; Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland2012). Most studies of regional biotas in the fossil record have focused on patterns of turnover, lumping speciation and immigration (invasion) into a single origination term (Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1997; Jackson and Johnson Reference Jackson and Johnson2000; Johnson and Curry Reference Johnson and Curry2001; Olszewski and Patzkowsky Reference Olszewski and Patzkowsky2001; Ivany et al. Reference Ivany, Brett, Wall, Wall and Handley2009). Of the few studies of invasions in the fossil record, all point to an important role for invasion in driving taxonomic turnover and change in diversity of regional biotas (Vermeij Reference Vermeij1991; Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland2007; Stigall Reference Stigall2010).

Invasions can affect the diversity and composition of regional biotas and the similarity between regions in three ways (Sax and Gaines Reference Sax and Gaines2003). First, invading taxa extend their ranges, thus increasing diversity in the recipient region but also decreasing the distinctness (beta diversity) between the donor and recipient regions. Second, invasions can further decrease the distinctness between regions if invading taxa drive endemic taxa to extinction in the recipient region. Finally, invasions can increase diversity in the donor region and increase the distinctness between regions if the invading population diverges to form a new species as it adapts to new environmental conditions.

Modern studies of invasion document their short-term effects, but questions remain whether the short-term effects are long lasting or merely transient with unforeseen long-term consequences such as a time lag to extinction of natives following invasion of exotic taxa (e.g., Rosenzweig Reference Rosenzweig2001; Strayer et al. Reference Strayer, Eviner, Jeschke and Pace2006; Sax and Gaines Reference Sax and Gaines2008; Gilbert and Levine Reference Gilbert and Levine2013). Studies of the fossil record usually cannot resolve the short-term effects of invasions seen in modern studies, but with the advantage of deep time it is possible to observe the state of an ecosystem before and after the invasion to determine the long-term consequences of invasion (Marshall et al. Reference Marshall, Webb, Sepkoski and Raup1982; Vermeij Reference Vermeij1991; Valentine and Jablonski Reference Valentine and Jablonski1993; Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2007; Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland2007; Stigall Reference Stigall2010, Reference Stigall2012; Myers et al. Reference Myers, MacKenzie and Lieberman2013).

The fossil record has enormous potential for studies that compare taxonomic composition and diversity between regions, although few studies have done this explicitly (Kowalewski et al. Reference Kowalewski, Gurs, Nebelsick, Oschmann, Piller and Hoffmeister2002; Krug and Patzkowsky Reference Krug and Patzkowsky2007; Jablonski Reference Jablonski2008, Reference Jablonski2009), and there are challenges posed by the fossil record in the sampling of spatial structure (Smith Reference Smith2001; Valentine et al. Reference Valentine, Jablonski, Krug and Berke2013; Vilhena and Smith Reference Vilhena and Smith2013). Tectonic deformation, erosion, and burial by younger sediments limit the spatial distribution of fossiliferous rock available for sampling in any single time interval. Nonetheless, with a well-designed sampling strategy based on a high-resolution stratigraphic framework, it is often possible to compare the taxonomic composition and abundance relationships for similar environments in the same time interval between widely spaced outcrop areas (Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland2012).

Here, we compare ecological parameters of invading and noninvading genera shared between a warm-water region of Laurentia (Wyoming, U.S.A.) representative of warm-water donor environments on Laurentia and a recipient region (Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, U.S.A.) for a well-known Late Ordovician marine invasion in North America (Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1993, Reference Patzkowsky and Holland2007; Holland Reference Holland1997; Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2007). Specifically, we compare metrics of preferred environment, distribution, and abundance of taxa along a shallow-subtidal to deep-subtidal gradient between regions for the same time interval represented by the C5 depositional sequence. In particular, we compare how well ecological parameters are correlated for genera that participated in the biotic invasion and those genera that did not. We discuss the implications of our study for niche stability, speciation, long-term effects of invasion, and the long-term dynamics of regional biotas.

The Richmondian Invasion

The Richmondian Invasion (Holland Reference Holland1997) is marked by an influx of taxa to the eastern United States during the late Katian (Late Ordovician). The invasion is well known on the Cincinnati Arch, where it spans the C4 through C6 depositional sequences (Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky1996), with the majority of taxa invading in the C5 depositional sequence (Holland Reference Holland1997; Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2007, Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2009a; Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland2007; Lam and Stigall Reference Lam and Stigall2015). Invading taxa are defined as those taxa present in C4–C6 strata but are not known from earlier strata (C1–C3) on the Cincinnati Arch. Invaders come from all major taxonomic groups that comprise Late Ordovician marine assemblages, including algae, sponges, rugosan (solitary and colonial) and tabulate corals, bryozoans, brachiopods, gastropods, cephalopods, bivalves, trilobites, ostracodes, and crinoids (Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2009a). Many of the invading taxa exist outside the eastern United States in older strata, and some of these taxa are recurrent, because they are known from older Sandbian strata in the eastern United States, were eliminated in a regional extinction event, and then returned in the late Katian (Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1993, Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1996, Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1997, Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1999; Holland Reference Holland1997). The invasion coincides with changes in carbonate lithologies that record a switch from cool-water carbonates to warm-water carbonates (Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1993; Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky1996, Reference Holland and Patzkowsky1997). In Katian strata older than the C4 depositional sequence on the Cincinnati Arch and Nashville Dome, carbonates are characterized by beds of phosphatic skeletal grainstone and calcisiltite interbedded with siliciclastic mudstone, indicating cool, nutrient-rich water. In C4 and younger strata, carbonates contain abundant micrite and peloids and little phosphate, indicative of a switch to warmer, nutrient-poor water.

The Richmondian Invasion had several effects on the regional ecosystem (Holland Reference Holland1997; Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1999, Reference Patzkowsky and Holland2007; Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2007). The invasion began in the C4 sequence with incursions of brachiopods (Leptaena, Rhynchotrema, Retrorsirostra) and solitary rugose corals (Streptelasma, Grewingkia) in single beds, in which these taxa are common or abundant. These incursions also coincide with a breakdown of the depth-related gradient structure of the preceding time interval (Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2007). The invasion was in full force by the C5 sequence, and the abundance relationships of the dominant taxa at the regional scale changed markedly from the C4 to the C5 depositional sequence. The C4 sequence is dominated by the brachiopods Zygospira and Rafinesquina followed by ramose trepostome, thin ramose trepostome, and bifoliate trepostome bryozoans. The C5 sequence is dominated by ramose trepostome, thin ramose trepostome, and cryptostome bryozoans followed by the brachiopods Rafinesquina and Hebertella (Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland2007). Regional richness of genera increased by nearly 40% as a result of the invasion. Partitioning of diversity shows that the increase in richness can be explained by two turnover (or beta) components: an increase in within-habitat turnover and a lesser increase in between-habitat turnover. This broad sweep of changes indicates that the regional ecosystem was not saturated with species and that the effects of the invasion were not ephemeral but long lasting.

The Richmondian Invasion was preceded by a regional extinction in the late Sandbian about 8–7 Myr earlier. Recurrent taxa, those eliminated from the eastern United States in the late Sandbian only to return in the late Katian (Richmondian) invasion, help identify the potential source area for the invasion. Corals, sponges, calcareous algae, and several genera of brachiopods that were eliminated in the eastern United States all found refuge in the warm, tropical water of Laurentia, now found in the western United States and across Canada (Foerste Reference Foerste1924; Roy Reference Roy1941; Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1993, Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1996; Jin et al. Reference Jin, Harper, Rasmussen and Sheehan2012).

These recurrent taxa responded to oceanographic changes triggered by the Taconic orogeny, which eliminated warm-water conditions in the eastern United States (Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1993; Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky1996, Reference Holland and Patzkowsky1997; Pope and Read Reference Pope and Read1998) and Canada (Lavoie Reference Lavoie1995) and replaced them with cool, nutrient-rich water masses. In the late Katian, warm-water conditions returned to the eastern United States, as oceanographic barriers to warm currents were breached (Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1993; Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky1996) or as a result of short-lived global warming prior to the Late Ordovician glaciation (Pope and Read Reference Pope and Read1998; Fortey and Cocks Reference Fortey and Cocks2005). Recurrent assemblages in the eastern United States originally hampered correlation between the eastern United States and the western United States and Canada based on macrofossils (Miller et al. Reference Miller, Youngquist and Collinson1954; Mitchell and Sweet Reference Mitchell and Sweet1989). More recent graphic correlation of conodonts shows that many recurrent taxa existed in the western United States and Canada during times when they were absent from the eastern United States (Mitchell and Sweet Reference Mitchell and Sweet1989), which establishes the warm-water carbonate environments of Laurentia as a refuge from the late Sandbian regional extinction and a potential source of the late Katian (Richmondian) Invasion.

Bighorn Dolomite

The Bighorn Dolomite in Wyoming was deposited on a tropical carbonate platform (Fig. 1) in the Late Ordovician (Katian; Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2009b, Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2012) and consists of three stratigraphic sequences correlated to the C2, C3, and C5 sequences in Cincinnati (Fig. 2) based on conodont graphic correlation (Sweet Reference Sweet1979, Reference Sweet1984). The uppermost member of the Bighorn Dolomite, the Horseshoe Mountain Member, comprises the C5 sequence. The Horseshoe Mountain Member consists of six parasequences, which are generally characterized by shallow-subtidal massive-bedded, pervasively burrowed dolomitic skeletal wackestone to mudstone overlain by peritidal laminated dolostone (Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2009b, Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2012). One of these parasequences contains a basal shallow-subtidal facies that grades upward into fossiliferous deep subtidal, thin- to thick-bedded skeletal packstone, and thin-bedded argillaceous skeletal packstone (Rock Creek Beds, Fig. 2), which are in turn overlain by shallow-subtidal and peritidal facies.

Figure 1 Late Ordovician paleogeographic map of Laurentia showing positions of the Bighorn Mountains and the Cincinnati Arch. Map based on Northern Arizona University paleogeography website (Blakey Reference Blakey2015). White, land area; light gray, shallow shelf; medium gray, deep-shelf margins; dark gray, open ocean.

Figure 2 Stratigraphic column of the Bighorn Dolomite. Study interval is in the Horseshoe Mountain Member, correlative with the C5 depositional sequence on the Cincinnati Arch (Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky1996).

The paleoecology of the Bighorn Dolomite assemblages is not well known. Darton (Reference Darton1906) published the first and only synoptic list of taxa from the Bighorn Dolomite prior to this study. Subsequent studies focused on taxonomic treatments of individual taxa from the Horseshoe Mountain Member, with the exception of Miller and Carrier (Reference Miller and Carrier1942), who reported on the cephalopod fauna from the Steamboat Point Member. Studies of the Horseshoe Mountain Member, and in particular the Rock Creek Beds, include corals (Elias Reference Elias1983; Gierlowski and Langenheim Reference Gierlowski and Langenheim1985), crinoids (Kolata Reference Kolata1976), brachiopods (Macomber Reference Macomber1970), and a calcareous alga (Boyd Reference Boyd2007; Rendall and Husinec Reference Rendall and Husinec2012). Formal systematic study of the cephalopods, bryozoans, and trilobites are needed. A general description of biofacies and their relation to stratigraphic architecture through both the Steamboat Point and Horseshoe Mountain Members (C2 and C5 sequences) was based on estimates of taxon abundance on mostly vertical faces at a few stratigraphic sections in the northern Bighorn Mountains (Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2009b). In the current paper, we present a more detailed analysis of the biotic gradients in the Horseshoe Mountain Member based on specimen counts from multiple sections.

The Bighorn Dolomite in the Bighorn Mountains is part of an extensive, shallow, warm-water, tropical carbonate platform on Laurentia (Jin et al. Reference Jin, Harper, Rasmussen and Sheehan2012). Shallow-subtidal facies characterized by pervasive Thalassinoides burrows and an associated diverse assemblage of corals, nautiloids, gastropods, brachiopods, and calcareous algae are known to span from the Great Basin (Nevada and Utah) through the Williston Basin (Wyoming and Manitoba) to North Greenland (Jin et al. Reference Jin, Harper, Rasmussen and Sheehan2012, Reference Jin, Harper, Cocks, McCausland, Rasmussen and Sheehan2013). Although it is not possible to say that the invasion was sourced specifically from the Bighorn Mountains region (see Wright and Stigall Reference Wright and Stigall2013; Bauer and Stigall Reference Bauer and Stigall2014), the Bighorn Dolomite (Horseshoe Mountain Member) environments are representative of warm-water environments that sourced the invasion (Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1993, Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1996), and the ecological parameters of taxa in the Horseshoe Mountain Member are assumed to be representative of the tropical carbonate platform as a whole. Biogeographic relationships between regions based on parsimony analysis of endemicity (Lam and Stigall Reference Lam and Stigall2015) suggest that during the C5 interval, taxa invading the Cincinnati Arch were from the Upper Mississippi Valley and areas north of the Transcontinental Arch, which include the Bighorn Mountains and the localities included in this study. Because the Richmondian Invasion is linked to evidence of warming, it is reasonable to assume that invading taxa came from the widespread warm-water regions on Laurentia. For example, Plaesiomys subquadratus is a Richmondian invader derived from P. anticostiensis on Anticosti Island, Canada (Wright and Stigall Reference Wright and Stigall2013), which is another part of the extensive warm-water carbonate platform that includes the Bighorn Dolomite (Finnegan et al. Reference Finnegan, Bergmann, Eiler, Jones, Fike, Eisenman, Hughes, Tripati and Fischer2011; Jin et al. Reference Jin, Harper, Cocks, McCausland, Rasmussen and Sheehan2013).

The Environmental Niche of Fossil Taxa

Our concept of environmental niche follows closely that of Hutchinson (Reference Hutchinson1957) and Valentine (Reference Valentine1969) with some modification based on current use (e.g., Pearman et al. Reference Pearman, Guisan, Broennimann and Randin2008). The fundamental niche is defined as the combined suite of physical environmental variables, for which the intrinsic growth rate of the population is positive (Pearman et al. Reference Pearman, Guisan, Broennimann and Randin2008). The realized niche is the portion of the fundamental niche that is occupied by a species, and it includes modification of niche occupancy by biologic interactions, such as competition or predation.

Determining species’ response to environmental variables of the fundamental niche is exceedingly difficult in modern species, because it requires careful manipulative experiments (Pearman et al. Reference Pearman, Guisan, Broennimann and Randin2008), and it should therefore be essentially impossible in fossil taxa, but new approaches hold promise (Saupe et al. Reference Saupe, Hendricks, Portell, Dowsett, Haywood, Hunter and Lieberman2014; Myers et al. Reference Myers, Stigall and Lieberman2015). Here, we use the distribution and abundance of fossil taxa as a proxy for the realized niche (Hadly et al. Reference Hadly, Spaeth and Li2009; Holland and Zaffos Reference Holland and Zaffos2011; Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland2012; see also Ludvigsen et al. Reference Ludvigsen, Westrop, Pratt, Tuffnell and Young1986; Hopkins Reference Hopkins2014). We model distribution and abundance with a normal distribution (Holland Reference Holland1995), and we call the parameters that describe this distribution ecological parameters. Two of these parameters (preferred environment, environmental tolerance) are considered niche parameters that define the realized niche of a taxon. The other four parameters (peak abundance, occupancy, median abundance, rank abundance) describe the abundance of the taxon within its realized niche.

Describing the realized ecological niche of fossil taxa requires collecting and counting individual specimens from measured sections described in sufficient detail to infer proxy environmental information, such as water depth (Holland et al. Reference Holland, Miller, Meyer and Dattilo2001; Holland and Zaffos Reference Holland and Zaffos2011). Because of the time-intensive nature of these studies, the complete geographic range of fossil taxa usually cannot be studied, so estimates are made for smaller regions.

Niche stability (or stasis) is the tendency for a taxon to maintain its niche requirements over time (Pearman et al. Reference Pearman, Guisan, Broennimann and Randin2008; Stigall Reference Stigall2012; Saupe et al. Reference Saupe, Hendricks, Portell, Dowsett, Haywood, Hunter and Lieberman2014). Studies of niche stability typically investigate niches of individual species, but studies of niche stability in higher taxa (Hadly et al. Reference Hadly, Spaeth and Li2009) and broader ecological units (Crisp et al. Reference Crisp, Arroyo, Cook, Gandolfo, Jordan, McGlone, Weston, Westoby, Wilf and Linder2009) demonstrate that ecological stability can occur at many taxonomic levels. We compare ecological parameters of genera, and in some cases higher taxa, between regions to study niche stability. We use genera instead of species because genera are more easily identified in field samples than species, so their distributions and abundances are well known. In the absence of well-supported phylogenetic relationships of species within genera for most lower Paleozoic marine invertebrates, we assume that species within genera are phylogenetically related and, therefore, that congeneric species will have similar niche requirements. This basic assumption is well supported by decades of paleoecological research showing that genera occupy relatively discrete environmental zones (Elias Reference Elias1937; Ziegler Reference Ziegler1965; Johnson Reference Johnson1972) and persist with these same environmental characteristics for millions, even tens of millions of years (Boucot Reference Boucot1975, Reference Boucot1983; Patzkowsky Reference Patzkowsky1995; Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1999; Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2007; Holland and Zaffos Reference Holland and Zaffos2011). Even higher taxa can have ecological distributions that change little for tens to 100 million years or more (Walker and Laporte Reference Walker and Laporte1970; Sepkoski and Miller Reference Sepkoski and Miller1985).

The ecological conservatism of fossil genera is also consistent with modern data and theory that suggest that closely related species share similar ecological traits, although there are many counterexamples (Pearman et al. Reference Pearman, Guisan, Broennimann and Randin2008). Thus, niche stability in fossil taxa is an appropriate null hypothesis to test across space and through time. Evidence for niche stability of fossil genera implies niche stability of the constituent species, whereas evidence for a lack of niche stability of fossil genera (niche shift) implies variation in ecological parameters of the constituent species.

Data and Methods

Fossil collections from the Horseshoe Mountain Member (C5 sequence) are tied to measured sections from nine localities (Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2012). Bedding surfaces were examined and macrofossils tallied for all identifiable fragments greater than 2 mm, for a total of 63 collections and 3396 individual specimens from 86 taxa. Taxonomic identifications are based on Miller and Carrier (Reference Miller and Carrier1942), Elias (Reference Elias1983), Gierlowski and Langenheim (Reference Gierlowski and Langenheim1985), Kolata (Reference Kolata1976), Macomber (Reference Macomber1970), and Boyd (Reference Boyd2007). Counting protocols are the same as in previous studies of the Cincinnati region (Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2007), allowing a direct comparison of results. For example, brachiopod and bivalve counts are determined as the total number of articulated specimens plus the number of dorsal or ventral valves (left or right valves in bivalves), whichever is greater, plus one-half the number of unidentified valves. Trilobite counts include the number of complete specimens plus the number of cranidia or pygydia, whichever is greater. Colonial corals were counted as individual colonies, but diameters of colonies were also recorded. Bryozoans were counted in 1 cm parcels, so that a specimen 5 cm long would count as 5. Crinoid genera and morphotypes were identified based on columnals (Meyer et al. Reference Meyer, Miller, Holland and Dattilo2002), and their presence in the sample was noted by assigning a count of 1. Some taxonomic standardization was required for comparison between the Wyoming and Cincinnati region data, which tended to decrease differences between regions. For example, Labechia in the Bighorn data was changed to the more general term “stromatoporoid,” which was used in the Cincinnati data because more detailed identifications were often difficult to make. Data files for analyses in this study can be accessed at Dryad: doi:10.5061/dryad.r0j3s.

Cluster analysis of the Bighorn data was used to identify groups of samples characterized by associations of taxa with similar relative abundance relationships, called biofacies. Cluster analysis was performed using the agnes( ) function in the cluster package of R (R Development Core Team 2010). Clustering of samples was performed using Ward’s method on a Bray-Curtis distance matrix following standardization by row totals to correct for differences in sample size. Biofacies were defined by examining samples within clusters to determine their taxonomic composition and relative abundances of taxa. Environmental significance of biofacies was determined by assigning samples to depositional environments (shallow subtidal or deep subtidal) based on a combination of their lithologic composition, bedding characteristics, and sedimentary structures (Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2012). The shallow-subtidal facies is characterized by massive-bedded skeletal wackestone and packstone with local thin (1–10 cm) beds of skeletal grainstone and pervasive Thalassinoides bioturbation. This facies contains abundant fossil taxa (corals, sponges, calcareous algae, brachiopods, cephalopods, and gastropods), and it is interpreted as an open-marine environment to several meters water depth. The deep-subtidal facies is characterized by thin-bedded (3–10 cm) to thick-bedded (30–100 cm) skeletal packstone with thin-bedded argillaceous skeletal packstone. This facies contains a diverse biota of solitary rugose corals, articulate brachiopods, trilobites, trepostome and cryptostome bryozoans, gastropods, bivalves, and echinoderms, and it is interpreted as being deposited between normal wave base and average storm-wave base. The deep-subtidal environment was subdivided to include a transition environment interpreted to be at the shallow end of the deep subtidal where beds become more thickly bedded in the gradation to the shallow-subtidal setting.

Detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) was performed with the decorana( ) function in the vegan package of R to determine the gradient structure of the Bighorn biofacies. DCA was performed on a samples-taxa matrix that was standardized by row total. DCA was also performed on a similar matrix of shallow- and deep-subtidal samples from the C5 Cincinnati data (Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2007). The DCA analyses were used to compare gradient structure and taxonomic composition between Wyoming and the type Cincinnatian region. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling produced ordinations with overall structure similar to DCA, but DCA produced better-defined faunal gradients that agreed with field observations.

We tested for niche stability by comparing six ecological parameters (preferred environment, environmental tolerance, peak abundance, occupancy, median abundance, rank abundance) for taxa that are shared between the Wyoming and Cincinnati region data sets. Preferred environment (PE), environmental tolerance (ET), and peak abundance (PA) describe the shape and position of taxon response curves along an environmental gradient (Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2004; Holland and Zaffos Reference Holland and Zaffos2011; Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland2012). These three parameters are based on the weighted-averaging algorithm that underlies DCA. Simulations show that weighted averaging is more accurate than logistic regression for estimating these three parameters (Holland and Zaffos Reference Holland and Zaffos2011). PE is simply the taxon scores on DCA axis 1, and it is calculated as the weighted average of the sample scores that contain the taxon. ET is calculated as the standard deviation of DCA axis 1 sample scores in which the taxon occurs and is an unbiased estimate of environmental tolerance. PA is calculated as the percent of sample scores within one ET of the PE that contains the taxon, and it measures the probability that a species will occur in a sample collected from that species’ PE. Occupancy is calculated as the proportion of all samples in which the taxon occurs, and it is a measure of habitat breadth and overall abundance. Median abundance is the middle proportional abundance value of the samples in which the taxon occurs, and it estimates local importance. Regional abundance is determined as a proportion of all individuals in all samples represented by the taxon, and it measures the dominance of the taxon in the ecosystem as a whole.

Our approach is to test for niche stability of assemblages of taxa rather than individual taxa by comparing rank correlations of ecological parameters of shared taxa between the two regions (Holland and Zaffos Reference Holland and Zaffos2011). High rank correlations of ecological parameters suggest strong niche stability across all taxa. If ecological parameters for individual taxa are not conserved, they will stand out as departures from the overall trend. Because genera may have species in Laurentia that do not occur in either the Bighorn region or on the Cincinnati Arch, comparison between the two areas may not include sister species but only more distantly related congeneric species (e.g., Wright and Stigall Reference Wright and Stigall2013). Nonetheless, high Spearman rank correlations for invading genera provide support for niche stability for the shared genera collectively. The approach used here avoids testing stability for each genus separately; instead, it assesses gradient structure, which reflects the environmental niches of all taxa taken together.

We performed three different correlation analyses. We compared ecological parameters between regions by calculating the correlation of all shared taxa. We also calculated the correlation coefficient for taxa present in both regions before and after the invasion (i.e., noninvading taxa) and for taxa that are shared yet were absent in the Cincinnati area prior to the invasion (i.e., invading taxa).

We are interested in determining whether shared taxa hold similar relative values in their ecological parameters in the Wyoming and Cincinnati regions, rather than assessing the linear relationship between the ecological parameters between the two regions. For this reason, we use the Spearman rank correlation coefficient (r s). Spearman’s r s assesses the relative rank of variates between two variables (in this case, the relative rank of a ecological parameter for taxa shared between regions), and it measures the monotonic relationship between variables rather than their linear relationship, which is measured by the Pearson correlation coefficient (Sokal and Rohlf Reference Sokal and Rohlf1995). We also calculate the Pearson correlation coefficient to compare our results with previous studies (Holland and Zaffos Reference Holland and Zaffos2011). We use the same numerical criterion (r = 0.5) as Holland and Zaffos (Reference Holland and Zaffos2011) to determine whether or not a parameter is stable. Although a correlation of 0.5 is arbitrary, it provides a cutoff for strong correlations above 0.5 that suggest niche stability and weak correlations below 0.5 that suggest niche shift.

For interpreting results, we emphasize the strength of the correlations rather than statistical significance of the correlations, which only reflects the certainty that correlations are not zero (Yoccoz Reference Yoccoz1991; Holland and Zaffos Reference Holland and Zaffos2011). However, because we subdivided the data to compare correlations between invaders and noninvaders, we evaluated the likelihood of the strength of the correlation coefficients of the subsets if the data points were drawn at random. We performed randomization tests (bootstraps) by resampling the original data 1000 times with replacement and calculating correlation coefficients.

Comparing ecological parameters of distribution and abundance between regions assumes a similar sampling of two gradients of similar length. We have attempted to control for gradient length by sampling from the same range of environments (shallow and deep subtidal). Using proportional measures of distribution and abundance controls for differences in sample size. Finally, emphasizing rank comparisons between regions emphasizes the relation of parameters among taxa rather than absolute changes in ecological parameters. Uneven sampling of gradients in the two regions is likely to decrease similarities between regions, making it difficult to find evidence for niche stability, thus any positive relationships that suggest niche stability are considered robust.

Results

Bighorn Biofacies

Cluster analysis revealed four clusters of samples that represent different positions along a depth gradient (Fig. 3).

Figure 3 Cluster analysis of Bighorn Dolomite fossil counts. Four main clusters were identified. Facies is encoded as third character in count name: S, shallow subtidal; T, transition between shallow subtidal and deep subtidal; D, deep subtidal.

Tabulate Coral–Sponge–Calcareous Algae Biofacies

Colonial tabulate corals (Paleofavosites, Calapoecia, Palaeophyllum, Catenipora), stromatoporoids (Aulacera), and calcareous green algae (Dimorphosiphon) dominate this biofacies (Fig. 3). Corals and sponges dominate individual collections and are widespread occurring in most collections. Although Dimorphosiphon occurs in only two of our samples, it was observed throughout the shallow-subtidal exposures. The rhynchonellid brachiopods Rhynchotrema and Lepidocyclus are also common, as are gastropods (e.g., Lophospira, Salpingostoma). Rare taxa include ramose trepostome bryozoans, orthoconic nautiloids, and colonial tabulates such as Cyathophylloides and Foerstephyllum. Crinoid columnals (Ectenocrinus, Glyptocrinus, Iocrinus) occur in most samples.

Diceromyonia–Gastropod–Streptelasma Biofacies

The dalmanellid brachiopod Diceromyonia, gastropods (e.g., Hormotoma, Lophospira), and the solitary rugose coral Streptelasma dominate this biofacies (Fig. 3). These taxa are abundant in individual collections but also are widespread through most collections in the biofacies. A suite of brachiopods are intermediate in abundance and presence in collections of this biofacies, including the strophomenids Oepikina, Thaerodonta, Megamyonia, and Strophomena; two species of the orthid Plaesiomys (P. occidentalis, P. rockymontana); and the rhynchonellids Lepidocyclus and Rhynchotrema. Rare taxa come from a wide range of groups including thin ramose trepostome bryozoans (Batostoma, Rhombotrypa) and bifoliate cryptostome bryozoans (Pachydictya), orthoconic nautiloids, gastropods, and a diverse array of trilobites (asaphids, Ceraurinus, Borealaspis, Achatella, Ceraurus, Isotelus). Crinoid columnals (Ectenocrinus, Dendrocrinus, Iocrinus) occur in most collections in this biofacies.

Streptelasma–Gastropod Biofacies

The solitary rugose coral Streptelasma and gastropods (e.g., Hormotoma and Lophospira) dominate this biofacies (Fig. 3). These taxa dominate individual collections and are also widespread through most collections in the biofacies. Taxa intermediate in abundance include the orthid brachiopod Diceromyonia, the strophomenid brachiopod Megamyonia, the solitary rugose coral Bighornia, and the gastropod Raphistoma. Rare taxa comprise a wide variety of higher taxa including gastropods (Liospira, Trochonema, Cyclonema, Fusispira, Salpingostoma, Maclurites), strophomenid brachiopods (Oepikina, Thaerodonta), orthid brachiopods (P. occidentalis, P. rockymontana), rhynchonellid brachiopods (Lepidocyclus, Rhynchotrema), atrypid brachiopods (Anazyga), colonial tabulates (Paleofavosites), solitary rugosans (Lobocorallium, Grewingkia), trilobites (asaphids, calymenids, illaenids, Sphaerocoryphe, Ceraurinus), orthoconic nautiloids, bivalves (Cyrtostropha), bryozoans, (Batostoma), inarticulate brachiopods (Petrocrania), and sponges. Crinoid columnals of Iocrinus, Dendrocrinus, and Ectenocrinus occur in many collections, but are not as widespread as in the previously described biofacies. Although the taxonomic composition and relative abundance of taxa in this biofacies is similar to the Diceromyonia–gastropod–Streptelasma biofacies, it differs primarily by the codominance of solitary rugosans (Streptelasma, Bighornia) and gastropods (Hormotoma, Lophospira) and the relative lack of dominant and intermediate-abundance brachiopods that characterize the Diceromyonia–gastropod–Streptelasma biofacies.

Megamyonia–Diceromyonia Biofacies

The strophomenid brachiopod Megamyonia and the orthid brachiopod Diceromyonia dominate this biofacies (Fig. 3). These two brachiopod genera dominate individual collections and also occur in every collection in the biofacies. Intermediate abundance taxa include the solitary rugosan Streptelasma, the orthid P. occidentalis, bryozoans (Batostoma, Rhombotrypa), and gastropods. Rare taxa in this biofacies include strophomenid brachiopods (Oepikina, Thaerodonta, Strophomena), rhynchonellid brachiopods (Lepidocyclus, Rhynchotrema, Hypsiptycha), orthid brachiopods (P. rockymontana, Vinlandostrophia), solitary rugosans (Bighornia, Grewingkia), gastropods (Lophospira, Hormotoma, Liospira, Raphistoma, Tropidodiscus), trilobites (asaphids, calymenids, Ceraurinus, Ceraurus), bryozoans (Cuffeyella, encrusting trepostomes, Batostoma), and colonial corals (Paleofavosites). Crinoid columnals occur in about half of the collections from this biofacies.

We determined the relative water depth of each biofacies by the proportion of samples classified as shallow subtidal, transition, or deep subtidal in the biofacies. The tabulate coral–sponge–calcareous algae biofacies contains only shallow-subtidal samples and is interpreted to be the shallowest of the four biofacies. The Diceromyonia–gastropod–Streptelasma biofacies contains 2 shallow, 15 transition, and 4 deep-subtidal samples, suggesting it is on the shallow end of the deep subtidal. The Streptelasma–gastropod biofacies contains two shallow, six transition, and seven deep-subtidal samples, suggesting it is slightly deeper than the Diceromyonia–gastropod–Streptelasma biofacies. The MegamyoniaDiceromyonia biofacies contains only two transition and nine deep-subtidal samples, suggesting it is the deepest of the four biofacies. The latter three deep-subtidal biofacies form a compact group, suggesting they share many taxa in common. The tabulate coral–sponge–calcareous algae biofacies links to this group at a high level (Fig. 3), suggesting it shares fewer taxa in common.

Ordination of Horseshoe Mountain Samples and Biofacies

DCA ordination of Horseshoe Mountain samples suggests that axis 1 can be interpreted primarily as a shallow- to deep-subtidal gradient (Fig. 4). Most shallow-subtidal (S) samples have relatively high axis 1 scores and are separated from the group of deep-subtidal (D) and transitional (T) samples with low axis 1 scores. Four shallow-subtidal samples plot with the deep subtidal–transitional group.

Figure 4 DCA ordination of Bighorn samples, coded by environment: S, shallow subtidal; T, transition; D, deep subtidal. Note the gap between transition and deep-subtidal samples on the left and shallow-subtidal samples on the right.

When coded by biofacies, the DCA ordination of samples (Fig. 5) shows a pattern consistent with the dendrogram (Fig. 3). The tabulate coral–sponge–calcareous green algae biofacies characterizes shallow-subtidal environments on the right side of the ordination and is dominated by colonial corals, algae, and stromatoporoids, which all have narrow environmental tolerances. Because these taxa never occur in deep-subtidal samples, a gap occurs that separates the shallow-subtidal biofacies from the three deep-subtidal biofacies. The three biofacies that dominate deep-subtidal environments are characterized by assemblages of gastropods, brachiopods, and solitary corals with broadly overlapping taxonomic compositions suggested by their close arrangement in ordination space. DCA axis 2 primarily reflects variation between the Diceromyonia–gastropod–Streptelasma biofacies and the Streptelasma–gastropod biofacies in the transitional samples.

Figure 5 DCA ordination of Bighorn samples coded by biofacies identified in the cluster analysis (Fig. 3). The close association of deep-subtidal assemblages suggests a patchy distribution of taxa characterized by three assemblages with broadly overlapping distributions of taxa.

Ordination of Cincinnati Samples

Ordination of shallow- and deep-subtidal samples from correlative strata (C5 sequence) in the Cincinnati area (Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2007) shows broad overlap among shallow- and deep-subtidal samples, which reflects similarly broad overlap of taxa among samples (Fig. 6). The Cincinnati gradient is characterized by subtidal environments containing abundant trepostome bryozoans and the brachiopods Hebertella, Rafinesquina, and Vinlandostrophia. Deep-subtidal environments are also dominated by trepostome bryozoans and the strophomenid brachiopods Strophomena and Eochonetes, and to a lesser degree by the brachiopods Rafinesquina, Hebertella, Vinlandostrophia, Hiscobeccus, and Plaesiomys. The broadly overlapping shallow- and deep-subtidal samples contrast with the gap in the DCA ordination between shallow- and deep-subtidal samples from the Horseshoe Mountain Member in Wyoming (Fig. 5).

Figure 6 DCA ordination of C5 shallow- and deep-subtidal assemblages from Cincinnati Arch (data from Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2007). Note the broadly overlapping distribution of shallow- and deep-subtidal assemblages compared with the Bighorn assemblages (Figs. 4 and 5).

Comparison of Ecological Parameters

Plots compare the ecological parameters of the 37 taxa (Table 1) that occur in both the Horseshoe Mountain Member and the type Cincinnatian region C5 (Figs. 710). Environmental tolerance (r s=−0.407) and peak abundance (r s=0.004) are not conserved between regions. Because calculating these parameters requires a minimum of two occurrences, taxa that are rare in at least one region had to be removed from the analyses. This step eliminated nearly half of the shared taxa and did not permit comparisons between invading and noninvading taxa. For these reasons, we do not consider environmental tolerance and peak abundance further.

Figure 7 Bivariate plot of (preferred environment;DCA Axis 1 taxon scores) for species of shared genera between the C5 Bighorn Dolomite (Horseshoe Mountain Member) and the C5 Cincinnati Arch collections. DCA taxon scores are based on DCA analysis of each region separately (Figs. 5 and 6), so the bivariate plot of DCA axis 1 scores represents a comparison of gradient position of species of shared genera between regions.

Figure 8 Bivariate plot of log of median abundance for each taxon shared between the Bighorn Dolomite and the Cincinnati Arch. Median abundance is defined as the median relative abundance of taxa in samples in which they occur.

Figure 9 Bivariate plot of occupancy for taxa shared between the Bighorn Dolomite and Cincinnati Arch. Occupancy is defined as the proportion of total samples in which the taxon occurs.

Figure 10 Bivariate plot of overall rank abundance for species of shared genera between the Bighorn Dolomite and the Cincinnati Arch. Rank abundance represents the ranks determined for all taxa in all samples for each region separately.

Table 1 Taxa shared between the C5 Horseshoe Mountain Member and the C5 Cincinnatian. N, non-invader; I, invader.

Of the four remaining parameters (preferred environment, median abundance, occupancy, rank abundance), none are conserved across all shared taxa (Table 2), as judged by the 0.5 criterion of Holland and Zaffos (Reference Holland and Zaffos2011). Preferred environment has the highest correlations (r p=0.433; r s=0.374), while the other parameters have correlations less than 0.223.

Table 2 Correlation coefficients for niche parameters of taxa shared between the C5 Horseshoe Mountain Member and the C5 Cincinnatian. Correlations greater than 0.5 are in bold. Significance levels determined by bootstrap analysis. See text for details. *, significant at 0.1; **, significant at 0.05; ***, significant at 0.01.

The results differ when invaders and noninvaders are treated separately. For preferred environment, occupancy, and rank abundance, invading taxa have higher correlations than noninvaders, and all are conserved relative to the 0.5 criterion (Table 2). Differences in the Spearman rank correlation coefficients are large between invader and noninvader taxa (preferred environment r s=0.746 vs. 0.228; occupancy r s=0.695 vs. 0.093; rank abundance r s=0.597 vs. 0.088). Bootstrap analyses indicate that the high correlations are unlikely to occur by drawing data points or data pairs randomly (Table 2). Median abundance is not conserved, nor do invading taxa have higher correlations than noninvading taxa.

Discussion

Gradient Comparison of Horseshoe Mountain Member and Type Cincinnatian Region

Nearly all studies of ecological gradients in marine fossil assemblages have identified water depth or onshore–offshore variation as the primary source of variation in taxonomic composition (Ziegler Reference Ziegler1965; Cisne and Rabe Reference Cisne and Rabe1978; Springer and Bambach Reference Springer and Bambach1985; Brett et al. Reference Brett, Boucot and Jones1993; Patzkowsky Reference Patzkowsky1995; Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1999, Reference Patzkowsky and Holland2012; Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2007). All of these studies are limited to a single depositional basin, and at that scale, water depth is the primary environmental variable that changes across the basin and through time. Nearly unknown is how ecological gradients vary over larger spatial scales within and among depositional basins. Investigating spatial variability in ecological gradients at this larger scale can reveal additional environmental variables controlling the distribution of taxa, and it can identify additional sources of beta diversity (Sepkoski Reference Sepkoski1988; Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland2012).

Lithologic variation of Late Ordovician rocks defines an environmental gradient from a carbonate platform in the western United States and Canada (Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2012; Rendall and Husinec Reference Rendall and Husinec2012) to a mixed carbonate–siliciclastic ramp in the midwest United States (Holland Reference Holland1993; Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky1997) to a siliciclastic foreland basin in the east adjacent to the Taconic highlands (Lehmann et al. Reference Lehmann, Brett, Cole and Baird1995). Other environmental variables, such as temperature, water clarity, nutrients, likely also varied across Laurentia (Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1993; Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky1997; Patzkowsky et al. Reference Patzkowsky, Slupik, Arthur, Pancost and Freeman1997). Fossil assemblages change across Laurentia as well, likely reflecting adaptation to this lithologic gradient and the effects of distance and limited dispersal capabilities. Bryozoan and coral assemblages vary enough to define three provinces from west to east that correspond to regions dominated by carbonate (Red River–Stony Mountain Province, which includes the Bighorn Mountains), mixed carbonate–siliciclastic (Cincinnati Province), and siliciclastic (Reedsville–Lorraine Province) deposition (Anstey and Chase Reference Anstey and Chase1974; Anstey Reference Anstey1986). These provincial-scale differences are seen in the Horseshoe Mountain and Cincinnati faunas of this study. Of the 113 taxa recognized in this study, only 37 are shared, that is, occur in the C5 sequence of both the Horseshoe Mountain Member and the type Cincinnatian region. These two regions also differ at higher taxonomic levels (Tables 3 and 4). Horseshoe Mountain faunas are dominated by corals and gastropods, which are less abundant in the Cincinnati region. Nautiloid cephalopods are also more common in the Horseshoe Mountain Member than in Cincinnati, despite their taxonomic importance in the Richmondian Invasion. Bryozoans dominate local assemblages in the Cincinnati region but are much less diverse and abundant in the Horseshoe Mountain assemblages.

Table 3 Shallow subtidal taxa by rank.

Table 4 Deep subtidal taxa by rank.

Basic structural differences in the faunal gradients of the Horseshoe Mountain Member and the Cincinnati region are evident in the DCA ordinations (Figs. 4 and 6): the Horseshoe Mountain Member shows a distinct gap between shallow- and deep-subtidal samples, whereas the Cincinnati ordination has broad overlap between shallow- and deep-subtidal samples. The gradient structure of these ordinations is understood better by comparing the dominant taxa in the shallow and deep subtidal (Tables 3 and 4). The Horseshoe Mountain gradient is characterized by a dominance of corals, algae, and stromatoporoids in shallow-subtidal environments, with gastropods and brachiopods being less important. Deep-subtidal environments of the Horseshoe Mountain are dominated by gastropods, brachiopods, and solitary corals. Little overlap occurs among the most abundant taxa in shallow- and deep-subtidal environments in the Horseshoe Mountain Member (Tables 3 and 4), with the exception of the solitary coral Streptelasma. Colonial corals, algae, and stromatoporoids have narrow environmental tolerances and do not occur in deep-subtidal samples, which explains the gap between the shallow- and deep-subtidal samples in the DCA ordination (Fig. 4).

The C5 Cincinnati gradient is characterized by shallow-subtidal environments containing abundant trepostome bryozoans and the brachiopods Hebertella, Rafinesquina, and Vinlandostrophia. Deep-subtidal environments are also dominated by trepostome bryozoans and the strophomenide brachiopods Strophomena and Eochonetes with the brachiopods Rafinesquina, Hebertella, Vinlandostrophia, Hiscobeccus, and Plaesiomys. The most abundant Cincinnatian taxa occur in both shallow- and deep-subtidal environments (Tables 3 and 4), suggesting broad taxonomic overlap between environments.

The C5 faunal gradient in Cincinnati is dominated by ramose trepostome and cryptostome bryozoans (Tables 3 and 4), which are more abundant and widespread than in earlier sequences (Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2007). The dominance of widespread ramose trepostomes and cryptostomes in the C5 of Cincinnati results in poorly separated environments in the DCA ordination (Fig. 6). Removing bryozoans from the analysis improves the separation somewhat (Holland and Patzkowsky Reference Holland and Patzkowsky2007), but there is still large overlap among shallow- and deep-subtidal samples, suggesting that the gradient in Cincinnati contains more taxa with broadly overlapping taxon response curves compared with the Horseshoe Mountain Member.

The separation of shallow- and deep-subtidal samples in the Horseshoe Mountain Member compared with the broadly overlapping shallow- and deep-subtidal samples of the Cincinnatian reflects differences in how some species respond to environmental gradients on warm-water carbonate platforms compared with mixed siliciclastic-carbonate ramps. Incomplete sampling could produce such a gap, but exposures of the Horseshoe Mountain Member were often continuous through deep- and shallow-subtidal environments, so a sampling problem seems unlikely. The gap in the ordination, which reflects a sharp break in the number of species shared between environments, most likely reflects the narrow environmental tolerances of the corals and stromatoporoids that dominate shallow-subtidal environments. It could also signal a sharp environmental break on the carbonate platform between shallow- and deep-subtidal environments, which occurs commonly on carbonate platforms (e. g., Rankey et al. Reference Rankey, Guidry, Reeder and Guarin2009).

Geographic Persistence of Ecological Parameters

Ecological parameters of shared taxa are at best weakly similar between the Horseshoe Mountain Member and the type Cincinnatian region. Preferred environment, median abundance, occupancy, and rank abundance all have weakly positive Spearman rank correlations ranging between 0.17 and 0.37 (Table 2). Peak abundance is not correlated between regions (r s=0.004). Depth tolerance has a weak negative correlation between regions (r s=−0.41), although depth tolerance is the most difficult of these parameters to recover in simulations (Holland and Zaffos Reference Holland and Zaffos2011). The lack of any strong positive correlations indicates that as a whole the ecological parameters for taxa shared between areas are different, which is consistent with the differences in gradient ecology of the two regions. The differences in ecological characteristics between regions likely reflect the large-scale environmental differences between the two areas (Anstey and Chase Reference Anstey and Chase1974; Anstey Reference Anstey1986; Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1993).

Of the few studies of niche stability in the marine fossil record, all have focused on how ecological parameters change through time. Holland and Zaffos (Reference Holland and Zaffos2011) compared ecological parameters between time intervals defined by depositional sequences over approximately 9 Myr in the Late Ordovician onshore–offshore gradient of the Cincinnati Arch in the eastern United States. Based on correlation of ecological parameters between time intervals, they found high correlations for peak abundance, intermediate correlations for preferred environment, and low correlations for environmental tolerance. Malizia and Stigall (Reference Malizia and Stigall2011; see also Stigall Reference Stigall2012) used environmental-niche modeling to study ecological change in articulate brachiopods, also for the Late Ordovician of the Cincinnati Arch. They found high levels of niche stability during intervals of gradual environmental change, but that niche shift occurred during intervals of rapid environmental change, especially during the Richmondian Invasion. Niche shift was characterized mostly by a decrease in variance of ecological parameters rather than a shift to new ecospace. Hadly et al. (Reference Hadly, Spaeth and Li2009) compared geographic range size for mammal genera and families between the Late Pleistocene and the late Holocene. Despite range shifts and extinction within clades, geographic range size is nearly constant over this interval of time. All of these studies suggest that within a region, at least some ecological parameters are generally stable, even in the face of considerable environmental change.

Our study differs from these previous studies by comparing ecological parameters between regions for the same time interval rather than within the same region through time. The spatial comparison of ecological parameters can help determine the processes underlying beta diversity at large spatial scales such as climatic gradients, dispersal, and ecological drift. Overall, we do not find strong evidence for niche stability among taxa shared between the Horseshoe Mountain Member and the type Cincinnatian region, suggesting that at these spatial scales, climatic gradients and other barriers to dispersal result in much greater variation of ecological parameters for taxa between regions than over periods of several million years within a region. However, the lack of niche stability of shared taxa does not hold when invaders are separated from noninvaders.

Strong Niche Stability of Invading Taxa

Within the shared taxa, the niches of those that are invaders are generally stable, suggesting that invaders are most successful when they can occupy similar niches in the donor and recipient regions. Many of the invaders are colonial corals, which have narrow niche requirements (Fig. 4 and “Discussion” above). Because these taxa make up a large proportion of the invaders, they increase the strength of the correlations of ecological parameters. In this study, the switch from cool-water to warm-water carbonates associated with the Richmondian Invasion may have favored the successful introduction of shallow, warm-water taxa with narrow niche requirements into the recipient Cincinnati region.

Our result is consistent with many modern studies that support niche stability of invading species, although there are also many counterexamples (e.g., Broennimann et al. Reference Broennimann, Treier, Müller-Schärer, Peterson and Guisan2007; Pearman et al. Reference Pearman, Guisan, Broennimann and Randin2008). For example, climatic niche shift, measured as a shift to new climate conditions in a multivariate niche space, is rare for 50 terrestrial plant species between Eurasia, North America, and Australia (Petitpierre et al. Reference Petitpierre, Kueffer, Broennimann, Randin, Daehler and Guisan2012). Only 15% of species shifted their distributions in the invaded region so that more than 10% of their distribution is outside the climate niche in the invaded area. Similarly, abundance changes little between the native and invaded range of grass and forb species from many sites around the globe (Firn et al. Reference Firn, Moore, MacDougall, Borer, Seabloom, HilleRisLambers, Harpole, Cleland, Brown, Knops, Prober, Pyke, Farrell, Bakker, O’Halloran, Adler, Collins, D’Antonio, Crawley, Wolkovich, La Pierre, Melbourne, Hautier, Morgan, Leakey, Kay, McCulley, Davies, Stevens, Chu, Holl, Klein, Fay, Hagenah, Kirkman and Buckley2011). What is interesting about our study is that given the scale of resolution within the C5 depositional sequence, niche stability may exist for up to 1 Myr after invasion (Holland and Zaffos Reference Holland and Zaffos2011).

Why Noninvaders Show Weak Niche Stability

Within the shared taxa, the ecological parameters of those that are not invaders have low correlations (r<0.3), suggesting niche shift of noninvading shared taxa between the Horseshoe Mountain Member and the type Cincinnatian region. One explanation for the low correlation may be that the noninvaders include taxonomic categories above the level of genus. Ten of the 27 shared noninvader taxa are low-resolution categories such as stromatoporoid or gastropod indet. (Table 1). Because higher-level taxa might contain a range of species and genera with widely varying ecological parameters, these higher taxa could cause the low correlations. If this explanation were true, we would expect that removing the higher taxonomic categories would improve the correlation of the remaining genera, suggesting niche stability for these taxa. Removing the higher-level taxa does not improve the correlations of remaining genera, which hover near zero (preferred environment, r s=−0.185; rank abundance, r s=−0.116; occupancy, r s=−0.13; median abundance, r s=−0.03). Thus, the shared noninvader genera have strongly differing ecological parameters between the two regions, suggesting niche shift for these taxa.

A second possible explanation for the low correlation is the phylogenetic distance between shared noninvader genera. Prior to the Richmondian Invasion, the warm-water regions of Laurentia and the Cincinnati region exchanged relatively few taxa for nearly 8 Myr (e.g., Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1993; Wright and Stigall Reference Wright and Stigall2013; Lam and Stigall Reference Lam and Stigall2015), beginning with the onset of the Taconic orogeny and the shift from warm-water to cool-water carbonates. As argued above, if genera contain phylogenetically related species, this 8 Myr interval sets a minimum time on the separation of congeneric species shared between the two regions during which adaptation to local environments in the region could have led to niche drift between lineages. Such niche drift reflects the local adaptation of congeneric species in these regions, resulting in the gradual divergence of their ecological parameters.

A prediction of niche drift is that the correlation of ecological parameters will become progressively weaker as the time interval of comparison increases. The available evidence does not support this prediction. Over a 9 Myr interval in the Cincinnati area, both peak abundance and preferred environment were generally conserved (Holland and Zaffos Reference Holland and Zaffos2011). The strength of the correlations in these parameters remains relatively constant, even over progressively longer intervals of time, supporting niche stability for at least 9 Myr. If the poor correlation in ecological parameters of noninvading taxa seen in the present study cannot be explained by progressive niche drift over time in the type Cincinnatian series, and if this pattern applies in the warm-water regions of Laurentia, then it suggests that the observed niche shift must have occurred quickly. The most likely interval of this change would have been during the strong environmental changes associated with the onset of the Taconic orogeny, prior to the type Cincinnatian region.

Phylogenetic analyses of the brachiopod genera Glyptorthis, Plaesiomys, and Hebertella are generally consistent with this scenario (Wright and Stigall Reference Wright and Stigall2013). Prior to the onset of the Taconic orogeny, speciation events in southern Laurentia were dominated by vicariance events, but after the Taconic orogeny, speciation events are dominated by dispersal events and are concentrated in the late Katian during the Richmondian Invasion. However, Hebertella does show a burst of speciation on the Cincinnati Arch just after the switch from warm-water to cool-water carbonates (Wright and Stigall Reference Wright and Stigall2013). Confirmation or rejection of this hypothesis awaits additional paleoecological studies of ecological parameters of genera and detailed phylogenetic analyses of their evolutionary relationships.

Implications for the Assembly and Biodiversity of Regional Biotas

Most recent studies of long-term change in regional biotas have focused on describing patterns of turnover and measuring their rate of change (Bretsky and Bretsky Reference Bretsky and Bretsky1976; Brett and Baird Reference Brett and Baird1995; Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland1997; Olszewski and Patzkowsky Reference Olszewski and Patzkowsky2001; Ivany et al. Reference Ivany, Brett, Wall, Wall and Handley2009). Studies that place regional biotas in a larger spatial context to understand processes that generate and maintain diversity are few, but they all point to the important role of biotic invasion in shaping regional biotas (Vermeij Reference Vermeij1991; Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland2007; Dudei and Stigall Reference Dudei and Stigall2010; Stigall Reference Stigall2010; Myers et al. Reference Myers, MacKenzie and Lieberman2013).

The results of this study and previous work on the Richmondian Invasion suggest a specific role for biotic invasion that may apply to other invasions at other times. In the Cincinnati region, regional diversity increased by nearly 40% by increased packing of species along the depth gradient (Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland2007). Successful invaders from warm-water carbonate environments on Laurentia maintained their source-area ecological parameters even after invasion into the Cincinnati region. Divergence of the invading populations to form a new species upon arrival in the donor region added to the beta diversity between the donor and source areas and thus increased continental diversity (Vermeij Reference Vermeij1991; Briggs Reference Briggs2010; Wright and Stigall Reference Wright and Stigall2013). The weak spatial correlation of ecological parameters of noninvading shared taxa, coupled with the stronger correlation through time of the ecological parameters on the Cincinnati Arch (Holland and Zaffos Reference Holland and Zaffos2011), suggests that niche shift must have occurred rapidly during environmental changes associated with the Taconic orogeny (See also Wright and Stigall Reference Wright and Stigall2013), followed by near-stasis in niche characteristics. This suggests that most of the environmental differentiation among regions in the Ordovician of Laurentia arose during relatively brief windows of speciation and niche evolution. In contrast, the Richmondian Invasion witnessed the invasion of taxa from warm-water regions into the Cincinnati region with little niche shift in those invading taxa.

Conclusions

(1) Shallow-marine assemblages from the Bighorn Dolomite characterize equatorial warm-water carbonate platform environments during the Ordovician of Laurentia, and they are dominated by solitary and rugose corals, stromatoporoids, gastropods, nautiloid cephalopods, and brachiopods. Assemblages from the Cincinnati region characterize subtropical mixed carbonate–siliciclastic ramp environments and are dominated by trepostome and cryptostome bryozoans and brachiopods. Of the combined 113 taxa in these two areas, only 37 are shared, indicating substantial differentiation between the equatorial carbonate platform and the mixed carbonate–siliciclastic ramp adjacent to the Taconic foreland basin. Faunal gradients in both regions reflect differentiation of assemblages along a shallow- to deep-subtidal gradient, but the structure of this gradient differs in the two areas. In the Horseshoe Mountain Member, shallow-subtidal environments contain many narrowly distributed taxa (corals and stromatoporoids) and are distinct from deep-subtidal environments, as reflected in cluster analysis and ordinations. In the Cincinnati region, taxa are more broadly distributed, as reflected in the broad overlap of shallow- and deep-subtidal assemblages in ordinations.

(2) Ecological parameters of genera shared between these two regions are only weakly correlated. This weak conservatism of ecological niches contrasts with previous work indicating strong niche stability through time in the Cincinnati area. The spatial differences in ecological parameters suggest local adaptation to regional environmental conditions.

(3) Although shared taxa as a whole show weak niche stability, the subset of taxa that arrived in the Cincinnati area during the Richmondian Invasion shows strong niche stability, suggesting that invaders are most successful when they occupy similar niches in the donor and recipient regions. The noninvading subset of shared taxa represent lineages that diverged nearly 8 Myr before the Richmondian Invasion and have low correlations of ecological parameters. Niche stability within the Cincinnati region for the 8 Myr interval since separation of the regions suggests that niche shift may have occurred in a pulse associated with the onset of the Taconic orogeny and a switch from warm-water to cool-water carbonates in southern Laurentia.

Acknowledgments

We thank D. Jones, M. Aberhan, M. Kowalewski, and S. Marcus for their editorial efforts; C. Myers, G. Vermeij, and an anonymous reviewer for comments that improved the final manuscript; and NASA Exobiology and the Scientific Research Grant 8650-09 from the National Geographic Society.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental material deposited at Dryad: doi: 10.5061/dryad.r0j3s

References

Literature Cited

Anstey, R. L. 1986. Bryozoan provinces and patterns of generic evolution and extinction in the Late Ordovician of North America. Lethaia 19:3351.Google Scholar
Anstey, R. L., and Chase, T. L.. 1974. Geographic diversity of Late Ordovician corals and bryozoans in North America. Journal of Paleontology 48:11411148.Google Scholar
Bauer, J. E., and Stigall, A. L.. 2014. Phylogenetic paleobiogeography of Late Ordovician Laurentian brachiopods. Estonian Journal of Earth Sciences 63:189194.Google Scholar
Blakey, R. 2015. Northern Arizona University Paleogeography website. http://www2.nau.edu/rcb7.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J. 1975. Evolution and extinction rate controls. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J. 1983. Does evolution take place in an ecological vacuum? II. Journal of Paleontology 57:130.Google Scholar
Boyd, D. W. 2007. Morphology and diagenesis of Dimorphosiphon talbotorum n. sp., an Ordovician skeleton-building alga (Chlorophyta: Dimorphosiphonaceae). Journal of Paleontology 81:18.Google Scholar
Bretsky, P. W., and Bretsky, S. S.. 1976. The maintenance of evolutionary equilibrium in Late Ordovician benthic marine invertebrate faunas. Lethaia 9:223233.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., and Baird, G. C.. 1995. Coordinated stasis and evolutionary ecology of Silurian to Middle Devonian faunas in the Appalachian Basin. Pp. 285315 in D. H. Erwin, and R. L. Anstey, eds. New approaches to speciation in the fossil record. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., Boucot, A. J., and Jones, B.. 1993. Absolute depths of Silurian benthic assemblages. Lethaia 26:2540.Google Scholar
Briggs, J. C. 2010. Marine biology: the role of accommodation in shaping marine biodiversity. Marine Biology 157:21172126.Google Scholar
Broennimann, O., Treier, U. A., Müller-Schärer, H., Peterson, A. T., and Guisan, A.. 2007. Evidence of climatic niche shift during biological invasion. Ecology Letters 10:701709.Google Scholar
Cisne, J. L., and Rabe, B. D.. 1978. Coenocorrelation: gradient analysis of fossil communities and its applications stratigraphy. Lethaia 11:341364.Google Scholar
Crisp, M. D., Arroyo, M. T. K., Cook, L. G., Gandolfo, M. A., Jordan, G. J., McGlone, M. S., Weston, P. H., Westoby, M., Wilf, P., and Linder, H. P.. 2009. Phylogenetic biome conservatism on a global scale. Nature 458:754756.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darton, N. H. 1906. Geology of the Bighorn Mountains. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 51:1129.Google Scholar
Dudei, N. L., and Stigall, A. L.. 2010. Using ecological niche modeling to assess biogeographic and niche response of brachiopod species to the Richmondian Invasion (Late Ordovician) in the Cincinnati Arch. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 296:2847.Google Scholar
Elias, M. K. 1937. Depth of deposition of the Big Blue (Late Paleozoic) sediments in Kansas. Geological Society of America Bulletin 48:403432.Google Scholar
Elias, R. J. 1983. Late Ordovician solitary rugose corals of the Stony Mountain Formation, southern Manitoba, and its equivalents. Journal of Paleontology 57:924956.Google Scholar
Finnegan, S., Bergmann, K., Eiler, J. M., Jones, D. S., Fike, D. A., Eisenman, I., Hughes, N. C., Tripati, A. K., and Fischer, W. W.. 2011. The magnitude and duration of the Late Ordovician–Early Silurian glaciation. Science 331:903906.Google Scholar
Firn, J., Moore, J. L., MacDougall, A. S., Borer, E. T., Seabloom, E. W., HilleRisLambers, J., Harpole, W. S., Cleland, E. E., Brown, C. S., Knops, J. M. H., Prober, S. M., Pyke, D. A., Farrell, K. A., Bakker, J. D., O’Halloran, L. R., Adler, P. B., Collins, S. L., D’Antonio, C. M., Crawley, M. J., Wolkovich, E. M., La Pierre, K. J., Melbourne, B. A., Hautier, Y., Morgan, J. W., Leakey, A. D. B., Kay, A., McCulley, R., Davies, K. F., Stevens, C. J., Chu, C.-J., Holl, K. D., Klein, J. A., Fay, P. A., Hagenah, N., Kirkman, K. P., and Buckley, Y. M.. 2011. Abundance of introduced species at home predicts abundance away in herbaceous communities. Ecology Letters 14:274281.Google Scholar
Foerste, A. F. 1924. Upper Ordovician faunas of Ontario and Quebec. Geological Survey of Canada Memoir 138:1255.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A., and Cocks, L. R. M.. 2005. Late Ordovician global warming—the Boda event. Geology 33:405408.Google Scholar
Gierlowski, T. C., and Langenheim, R. L. Jr. 1985. Corals form the Late Ordovician Horseshoe Mountain Member, Bighorn Dolomite, Bighorn Mountains, Sheridan County, Wyoming. Earth Science Bulletin 18:121.Google Scholar
Gilbert, B., and Levine, J. M.. 2013. Plant invasions and extinction debts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110:17441749.Google Scholar
Hadly, E. A., Spaeth, P. A., and Li, C.. 2009. Niche conservatism above the species level. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106:1970719714.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M. 1993. Sequence stratigraphy of a carbonate-clastic ramp: the Cincinnatian Series (Upper Ordovician) in its type area. Geological Society of America Bulletin 105:306322.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M. 1995. The stratigraphic distribution of fossils. Paleobiology 21:92109.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M. 1997. Using time-environment analysis to recognize faunal events in the Upper Ordovician of the Cincinnati Arch. Pp. 309334 in C. E. Brett, and G. C. Baird, eds. Paleontological events: stratigraphic, ecological, and evolutionary implications. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., and Patzkowsky, M. E.. 1996. Sequence stratigraphy and long-term oceanographic change in the Middle and Upper Ordovician of the eastern United States. In B. J. Witzke, G. A. Ludvigson, and J. E. Day, eds. Paleozoic sequence stratigraphy: views from the North American craton. Geological Society of America Special Paper 306:117–129.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., and Patzkowsky, M. E.. 1997. Distal orogenic effects on peripheral bulge sedimentation: Middle and Upper Ordovician of the Nashville Dome. Journal of Sedimentary Research 67:250263.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., and Patzkowsky, M. E.. 2004. Ecosystem structure and stability: Middle Upper Ordovician of central Kentucky, USA. Palaios 19:316331.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., and Patzkowsky, M. E.. 2007. Gradient ecology of a biotic invasion: biofacies of the type Cincinnatian Series (Upper Ordovician), Cincinnati, Ohio Region, USA. Palaios 22:392407.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., and Patzkowsky, M. E.. 2009a. The Richmondian Invasion: understanding the faunal response to climate change through stratigraphic paleobiology. North American Paleontological Convention Field Trip Guidebook. Cincinnati, Ohio.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., and Patzkowsky, M. E.. 2009b. The stratigraphic distribution of fossils in a tropical carbonate succession: Ordovician Bighorn Dolomite, Wyoming, USA. Palaios 24:303317.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., and Patzkowsky, M. E.. 2012. Sequence architecture of the Bighorn Dolomite, Wyoming, USA: transition to the Late Ordovician icehouse. Journal of Sedimentary Research 82:599615.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., and Zaffos, A.. 2011. Niche conservatism along an onshore–offshore gradient. Paleobiology 37:270286.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., Miller, A. I., Meyer, D. L., and Dattilo, B. F.. 2001. The detection and importance of subtle biofacies within a single lithofacies: the Upper Ordovician Kope Formation of the Cincinnati, Ohio region. Palaios 16:205217.Google Scholar
Hopkins, M. J. 2014. The environmental structure of trilobite morphological disparity. Paleobiology 40:352373.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. E. 1957. Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology 22:415427.Google Scholar
Ivany, L. C., Brett, C. E., Wall, H. L. B., Wall, P. D., and Handley, J. C.. 2009. Relative taxonomic and ecologic stability in Devonian marine faunas of New York State: a test of coordinated stasis. Paleobiology 35:499524.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 2008. Extinction and the spatial dynamics of biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105:1152811535.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 2009. Paleontology in the twenty-first century. Pp. 471517 in D. Sepkoski, and M. Ruse, eds. The paleobiological revolution: essays on the growth of modern paleontology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C., and Johnson, K. G.. 2000. Life in the last few million years. Paleobiology 26(Suppl. to No. 4): 221235.Google Scholar
Jin, J., Harper, D. A. T., Rasmussen, J. A., and Sheehan, P. M.. 2012. Late Ordovician massive-bedded Thalassinoides ichnofacies along the palaeoequator of Laurentia. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 367–368:7388.Google Scholar
Jin, J., Harper, D. A. T., Cocks, L. R. M., McCausland, P. J. A., Rasmussen, C. M. O., and Sheehan, P. M.. 2013. Precisely locating the Ordovician equator in Laurentia. Geology 41:107110.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. G., and Curry, G. B.. 2001. Regional biotic turnover dynamics in the Plio-Pleistocene molluscan fauna of the Wanganui Basin, New Zealand. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 172:3951.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. G. 1972. Conceptual models of benthic marine communities. Pp. 148159 in T. J. M. Schopf, ed. Models in paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Kolata, D. R. 1976. Crinoids from the Upper Ordovician Bighorn Formation of Wyoming. Journal of Paleontology 50:444453.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M., Gurs, K., Nebelsick, J., Oschmann, W., Piller, W. E., and Hoffmeister, A. P.. 2002. Multivariate hierarchical analyses of Miocene mollusk assemblages of Europe: paleogeographic, paleoecological, and biostratigraphic implications. Geological Society of America Bulletin 114:239256.Google Scholar
Krug, A. Z., and Patzkowsky, M. E.. 2007. Geographic variation in turnover and recovery from the Late Ordovician mass extinction. Paleobiology 33:435454.Google Scholar
Lam, A. R., and Stigall, A. L.. 2015. Pathways and mechanisms of Late Ordovician (Katian) faunal migrations of Laurentia and Baltica. Estonian Journal of Earth Sciences 64:6267.Google Scholar
Lavoie, D. 1995. A Late Ordovician high-energy temperate-water carbonate ramp, southern Quebec, Canada: implications for Late Ordovician oceanography. Sedimentology 42:95116.Google Scholar
Lehmann, D., Brett, C. E., Cole, R., and Baird, G.. 1995. Distal sedimentation in a peripheral foreland basin—Ordovician black shales and associated flysch of the western Taconic foreland, New York State and Ontario. Geological Society of America Bulletin 107:708724.Google Scholar
Ludvigsen, R., Westrop, S. R., Pratt, B. R., Tuffnell, P. A., and Young, G. A.. 1986. Dual biostratigraphy: zones and biofacies. Geoscience Canada 13:139154.Google Scholar
Macomber, R. W. 1970. Articulate brachiopods from the upper Bighorn Formation (Late Ordovician) of Wyoming. Journal of Paleontology 44:416450.Google Scholar
Malizia, R. W., and Stigall, A. L.. 2011. Niche stability in Late Ordovician articulated brachiopod species before, during, and after the Richmondian Invasion. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 311:154170.Google Scholar
Marshall, L. G., Webb, S. D., Sepkoski, J. J. Jr., and Raup, D. M.. 1982. Mammalian evolution and the Great American Biotic Interchange. Science 215:13511357.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L., Miller, A. I., Holland, S. M., and Dattilo, B. F.. 2002. Crinoid distribution and feeding morphology through a depositional sequence: Kope and Fairview formations, Upper Ordovician, Cincinnati Arch region. Journal of Paleontology 76:725732.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K., and Carrier, J. B.. 1942. Ordovician cephalopods from the Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming. Journal of Paleontology 16:531548.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K., Youngquist, W. L., and Collinson, C. W.. 1954. Ordovician cephalopod fauna of Baffin Island. Geological Society of America Memoir 62.Google Scholar
Mitchell, C. E., and Sweet, W. C.. 1989. Upper Ordovician conodonts, brachiopods, and chronostratigraphy of the Whittaker Formation, southwestern District of Mackenzie, N.W.T., Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 26:7487.Google Scholar
Myers, C. E., MacKenzie, R. A. III., and Lieberman, B. S.. 2013. Greenhouse biogeography: the relationship of geographic range to invasion and extinction in the Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway. Paleobiology 39:135148.Google Scholar
Myers, C. E., Stigall, A. L., and Lieberman, B. S.. 2015. PaleoENM: applying ecological niche modeling to the fossil record. Paleobiology 41:226244.Google Scholar
Olszewski, T. D., and Patzkowsky, M. E.. 2001. Evaluating taxonomic turnover: Pennsylvanian–Permian brachiopods and bivalves of the North American midcontinent. Paleobiology 27:646668.Google Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. E. 1995. Gradient analysis of Middle Ordovician brachiopod biofacies: biostratigraphic, biogeographic, and macroevolutionary implications. Palaios 10:154179.Google Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. E., and Holland, S. M.. 1993. Biotic response to a Middle Ordovician paleoceanographic event in eastern North America. Geology 21:619622.Google Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. E., and Holland, S. M.. 1996. Extinction, invasion, and sequence stratigraphy: patterns of faunal change in the Middle and Upper Ordovician of the eastern United States. In B. J. Witzke, G. A. Ludvigson, and J. E. Day, eds. Paleozoic sequence stratigraphy: views from the North American craton. Geological Society of America Special Paper 306:131–142.Google Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. E., and Holland, S. M.. 1997. Patterns of turnover in Middle and Upper Ordovician brachiopods of the eastern United States: a test of coordinated stasis. Paleobiology 23:420443.Google Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. E., and Holland, S. M.. 1999. Biofacies replacement in a sequence stratigraphic framework: Middle and Upper Ordovician of the Nashville Dome, Tennessee, USA. Palaios 14:301323.Google Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. E., and Holland, S. M.. 2007. Diversity partitioning of a Late Ordovician marine biotic invasion: controls on the diversity of regional ecosystems. Paleobiology 33:295309.Google Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. E., and Holland, S. M.. 2012. Stratigraphic paleobiology: understanding the distribution of fossil taxa in time and space. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. E., Slupik, L. M., Arthur, M. A., Pancost, R. D., and Freeman, K. H.. 1997. Late Middle Ordovician environmental change and extinction: harbinger of the Late Ordovician or continuation of Cambrian patterns? Geology 25:911914.Google Scholar
Pearman, P. B., Guisan, A., Broennimann, O., and Randin, C. F.. 2008. Niche dynamics in space and time. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23:149158.Google Scholar
Petitpierre, B., Kueffer, C., Broennimann, O., Randin, C., Daehler, C., and Guisan, A.. 2012. Climatic niche shifts are rare among terrestrial plant invaders. Science 335:13441348.Google Scholar
Pope, M., and Read, J. F.. 1998. Ordovician metre-scale cycles: implications for climate and eustatic fluctuations in the central Appalachians during a global greenhouse, non-glacial to glacial transition. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 138:2742.Google Scholar
Rankey, E. C., Guidry, S. A., Reeder, S. L., and Guarin, H.. 2009. Geomorphic and sedimentologic heterogeneity along a Holocene shelf margin: Caicos Platform. Journal of Sedimentary Research 79:440456.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2010. R: a language and environment for statistical computing, Version 2.11.1. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.Google Scholar
Rendall, B., and Husinec, A.. 2012. Importance of Dimorphosiphon (Chlorophyta, Bryopsidales) for facies and paleobiogeographic studies of the Upper Ordovician Richmondian Red River Formation, Williston Basin. Palaios 27:713725.Google Scholar
Ricklefs, R. E., and Jenkins, D. G.. 2011. Biogeography and ecology: towards the integration of two disciplines. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 366:24382448.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. L. 2001. The four questions: what does the introduction of exotic species do to diversity? Evolutionary Ecology Research 3:361367.Google Scholar
Roy, S. K. 1941. The Upper Ordovician fauna of Frobisher Bay, Baffin Land. Field Museum of Natural History Geology Memoirs 2:1179.Google Scholar
Saupe, E. E., Hendricks, J. R., Portell, R. W., Dowsett, H. J., Haywood, A., Hunter, S. J., and Lieberman, B. S.. 2014. Macroevolutionary consequences of profound climate change on niche evolution in marine molluscs over the past three million years. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 281:20141995.Google Scholar
Sax, D. F., and Gaines, S. D.. 2003. Species diversity: from global decreases to local increases. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:561566.Google Scholar
Sax, D. F., and Gaines, S. D.. 2008. Species invasions and extinction: the future of native biodiversity on islands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105:1149011497.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1988. Alpha, beta, or gamma: where does all the diversity go? Paleobiology 14:221234.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr., and Miller, A. I.. 1985. Evolutionary faunas and the distribution of Paleozoic benthic communities in space and time. Pp. 153190 in J. W. Valentine, ed. Phanerozoic diversity patterns. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B. 2001. Large-scale heterogeneity of the fossil record: implications for Phanerozoic biodiversity studies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 356:351368.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J.. 1995. Biometry, 3rd ed. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
Springer, D. A., and Bambach, R. K.. 1985. Gradient versus cluster analysis of fossil assemblages: a comparison from the Ordovician of southwestern Virginia. Lethaia 18:181198.Google Scholar
Stigall, A. L. 2010. Invasive species and biodiversity crises: testing the link in the Late Devonian. PLoS ONE 5:e15584.Google Scholar
Stigall, A. L. 2012. Using ecological niche modelling to evaluate niche stability in deep time. Journal of Biogeography 39:772781.Google Scholar
Strayer, D. L., Eviner, V. T., Jeschke, J. M., and Pace, M. L.. 2006. Understanding the long-term effects of species invasions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21:645651.Google Scholar
Sweet, W. C. 1979. Conodonts and conodont biostratigraphy of post-Tyrone Ordovician rocks of the Cincinnati region. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1066–G:126.Google Scholar
Sweet, W. C. 1984. Graphic correlation of upper Middle and Upper Ordovician rocks, North American Midcontinent Province, U.S.A. Pp. 2335 in D. L. Bruton, ed. Aspects of the Ordovician System. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W. 1969. Niche diversity and niche size patterns in marine fossils. Journal of Paleontology 43:905915.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W., and Jablonski, D.. 1993. Fossil communities: compositional variation at many time scales. Pp. 341349 in R. E. Ricklefs, and D. Schluter, eds. Species diversity in ecological communities: historical and geographical perspectives. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W., Jablonski, D., Krug, A. Z., and Berke, S. K.. 2013. The sampling and estimation of marine paleodiversity patterns: implications of a Pliocene model. Paleobiology 39:120.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. 1991. When biotas meet: understanding biotic interchange. Science 253:10991104.Google Scholar
Vilhena, D. A., and Smith, A. B.. 2013. Spatial bias in the marine fossil record. PLoS ONE 8:e74470.Google Scholar
Walker, K. R., and Laporte, L. F.. 1970. Congruent fossils communities from Ordovician and Devonian carbonates of New York. Journal of Paleontology 44:928944.Google Scholar
Wright, D. F., and Stigall, A. L.. 2013. Geologic drivers of Late Ordovician faunal change in Laurentia: investigating links between tectonics, speciation, and biotic invasions. PLoS ONE 8:e68353.Google Scholar
Yoccoz, N. G. 1991. Use, overuse, and misuse of significance tests in evolutionary biology and ecology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 72:106111.Google Scholar
Ziegler, A. M. 1965. Silurian marine communities and their environmental significance. Nature 207:270272.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1 Late Ordovician paleogeographic map of Laurentia showing positions of the Bighorn Mountains and the Cincinnati Arch. Map based on Northern Arizona University paleogeography website (Blakey 2015). White, land area; light gray, shallow shelf; medium gray, deep-shelf margins; dark gray, open ocean.

Figure 1

Figure 2 Stratigraphic column of the Bighorn Dolomite. Study interval is in the Horseshoe Mountain Member, correlative with the C5 depositional sequence on the Cincinnati Arch (Holland and Patzkowsky 1996).

Figure 2

Figure 3 Cluster analysis of Bighorn Dolomite fossil counts. Four main clusters were identified. Facies is encoded as third character in count name: S, shallow subtidal; T, transition between shallow subtidal and deep subtidal; D, deep subtidal.

Figure 3

Figure 4 DCA ordination of Bighorn samples, coded by environment: S, shallow subtidal; T, transition; D, deep subtidal. Note the gap between transition and deep-subtidal samples on the left and shallow-subtidal samples on the right.

Figure 4

Figure 5 DCA ordination of Bighorn samples coded by biofacies identified in the cluster analysis (Fig. 3). The close association of deep-subtidal assemblages suggests a patchy distribution of taxa characterized by three assemblages with broadly overlapping distributions of taxa.

Figure 5

Figure 6 DCA ordination of C5 shallow- and deep-subtidal assemblages from Cincinnati Arch (data from Holland and Patzkowsky 2007). Note the broadly overlapping distribution of shallow- and deep-subtidal assemblages compared with the Bighorn assemblages (Figs. 4 and 5).

Figure 6

Figure 7 Bivariate plot of (preferred environment;DCA Axis 1 taxon scores) for species of shared genera between the C5 Bighorn Dolomite (Horseshoe Mountain Member) and the C5 Cincinnati Arch collections. DCA taxon scores are based on DCA analysis of each region separately (Figs. 5 and 6), so the bivariate plot of DCA axis 1 scores represents a comparison of gradient position of species of shared genera between regions.

Figure 7

Figure 8 Bivariate plot of log of median abundance for each taxon shared between the Bighorn Dolomite and the Cincinnati Arch. Median abundance is defined as the median relative abundance of taxa in samples in which they occur.

Figure 8

Figure 9 Bivariate plot of occupancy for taxa shared between the Bighorn Dolomite and Cincinnati Arch. Occupancy is defined as the proportion of total samples in which the taxon occurs.

Figure 9

Figure 10 Bivariate plot of overall rank abundance for species of shared genera between the Bighorn Dolomite and the Cincinnati Arch. Rank abundance represents the ranks determined for all taxa in all samples for each region separately.

Figure 10

Table 1 Taxa shared between the C5 Horseshoe Mountain Member and the C5 Cincinnatian. N, non-invader; I, invader.

Figure 11

Table 2 Correlation coefficients for niche parameters of taxa shared between the C5 Horseshoe Mountain Member and the C5 Cincinnatian. Correlations greater than 0.5 are in bold. Significance levels determined by bootstrap analysis. See text for details. *, significant at 0.1; **, significant at 0.05; ***, significant at 0.01.

Figure 12

Table 3 Shallow subtidal taxa by rank.

Figure 13

Table 4 Deep subtidal taxa by rank.