Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-hxdxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T03:05:57.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Compositional turnover and ecological changes related to the waxing and waning of glaciers during the late Paleozoic ice age in ice-proximal regions (Pennsylvanian, western Argentina)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2016

Diego Balseiro*
Affiliation:
CICTERRA, CONICET and Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Avenida Vélez Sarsfield 1611, Ciudad Universitaria, X5016GCA, Córdoba, Argentina. E-mail: d.balseiro@conicet.gov.ar
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The late Paleozoic ice age (LPIA) had a profound effect on the biota. Despite much research having been focused on paleotropical regions or global-scale analyses, regional ecological changes have seldom been studied in ice-proximal basins. Here, I study the compositional turnover and diversity structure across the main Carboniferous glacial event recorded in western Argentina and the subsequent nonglacial interval. Brachiopod and bivalve data from western Argentina suggest that the transition from glacial to nonglacial climates caused major compositional changes. Turnover, however, was not uniform across the bathymetric gradient, being higher in deep environments. Because extirpation was concentrated in brachiopods, but immigration was similar in both clades, the taxonomic structure of the region was significantly modified. Although regional hierarchical diversity structure and occupancy distributions remained stable, dissecting the analysis in brachiopods and bivalves underscores that both clades had different responses to climate change. Brachiopods, on the one hand, show stability in the diversity structure and a very slight decrease in occupancies of intermediate genera, while bivalves show an important rise in diversity, both at the environment and regional scale, and an increase in genera with intermediate occupancies. The bathymetric diversity gradient was also modified from hump shaped with maximum diversity in the deep subtidal to a linear gradient with maximum values toward the offshore. However, relative compositional differences within environments remained stable, with maximum values at intermediate depths both in glacial and nonglacial intervals. Moreover, local-scale coexistence between brachiopods and bivalves changed in the nonglacial interval, showing significant segregation, which indicates relevant modifications in community assembly dynamics. Results from western Argentina highlight the magnitude of regional-scale ecological changes during the LPIA in ice-proximal regions, suggesting that the waxing and waning of glaciers was able to cause regional taxonomic turnover and medium-scale ecological changes even during intervals of relative macroevolutionary quiescence.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 The Paleontological Society. All rights reserved 

Introduction

The late Paleozoic witnessed one of the most important climatic events in Phanerozoic history known as the late Paleozoic ice age (LPIA; Montañez and Poulsen Reference Montañez and Poulsen2013). Although the classical view envisaged it as a protracted event encompassing one or few glaciations (Veevers and Powell Reference Veevers and Powell1987; Crowell Reference Crowell1999), the current understanding involves a complex climatic history of many different glaciations across Gondwana (Fielding et al. Reference Fielding, Frank and Isbell2008c; Henry et al. Reference Henry, Isbell and Limarino2008; Birgenheier et al. Reference Birgenheier, Fielding, Rygel, Frank and Roberts2009; Isbell et al. Reference Isbell, Henry, Gulbranson, Limarino, Fraiser, Koch, Ciccioli and Dineen2012; Montañez and Poulsen Reference Montañez and Poulsen2013).

Surprisingly, the current view of the LPIA dynamic climate contrasts with the proposed models about its impact on the marine biota. In this regard, authors have argued that the overall effect on the biota has been constant, beginning in the late Carboniferous and ending in the early Permian (Powell Reference Powell2005; Bonelli and Patzkowsky Reference Bonelli and Patzkowsky2011). The onset of major glaciation across Gondwana in the Serpukhovian (late Mississippian), caused a mass extinction of mostly paleotropical taxa with small latitudinal ranges (Powell Reference Powell2005, Reference Powell2007; McGhee et al. Reference McGhee, Sheehan, Bottjer and Droser2012). In turn, the intensity of the latitudinal diversity gradient decreased (Powell Reference Powell2007), and the global biogeographic structure caused a decline in origination and extinction rates leading to a sluggish macroevolutionary dynamic (Stanley and Powell Reference Stanley and Powell2003). Recently, some authors have analyzed the effect of these global dynamics on the ecological structure of paleotropical communities (Bonelli and Patzkowsky Reference Bonelli and Patzkowsky2008, Reference Bonelli and Patzkowsky2011; Heim Reference Heim2009; Badyrka et al. Reference Badyrka, Clapham and López2013). The results argue that regardless of important regional turnover coincident with the Serpukhovian mass extinction (Heim Reference Heim2009), during the LPIA paleotropical communities had low taxonomic turnover (Badyrka et al. Reference Badyrka, Clapham and López2013) and the hierarchical structure of the diversity, relative abundance distributions, and body-size distributions remained stable (Bonelli and Patzkowsky Reference Bonelli and Patzkowsky2008; Heim Reference Heim2009; Badyrka et al. Reference Badyrka, Clapham and López2013). These evidences suggested that the far-field biotic response to the waxing and waning of ice sheets was persistence rather than change (Bonelli and Patzkowsky Reference Bonelli and Patzkowsky2011).

Most of the evidence, however, comes from paleotropical regions, while regional-scale ecological analyses of ice-proximal basins are still scarce. Regional- to large-scale compositional and biogeographic studies of Gondwanan biotas (Kelley and Raymond Reference Kelley and Raymond1991; Shi and Waterhouse Reference Shi and Waterhouse2010; Sterren and Cisterna Reference Sterren and Cisterna2010; Clapham and James Reference Clapham and James2012; Dineen et al. Reference Dineen, Fraiser and Isbell2013; Waterhouse and Shi Reference Waterhouse and Shi2013) did suggest that major changes took place during the LPIA, indicating that regional ecological changes were possibly present. Such biogeographic and compositional changes, however, need not go hand in hand with regional ecological restructuring, and therefore, regional-scale analyses are needed to fully understand the nature of ecological changes facing the LPIA (Heim Reference Heim2009).

Because the Carboniferous successions from western Argentina record diverse marine faunas related to both major glacial intervals (Cisterna and Sterren Reference Cisterna and Sterren2008, Reference Cisterna and Sterren2010) and nonglacial intervals with temperate climates (Cisterna Reference Cisterna2010; Cisterna et al. Reference Cisterna, Sterren and Gutiérrez2011), they represent an ideal place to analyze the regional ecological changes related to the advance and retreat of glaciers during the LPIA. In this contribution I study the compositional turnover and change in the hierarchical structure and bathymetric gradient of diversity in western Argentina (Fig. 1) during the most extensive glaciation registered in the region (López Gamundí and Martínez Reference López Gamundí and Martínez2000; Henry et al. Reference Henry, Isbell and Limarino2008) and after its end (Limarino et al. Reference Limarino, Césari, Spalletti, Taboada, Isbell, Geuna and Gulbranson2014; Gulbranson et al. Reference Gulbranson, Montañez, Tabor and Limarino2015).

Figure 1 Location map of the study area depicting the basin paleogeography. Gray areas indicate positive topography. Sampling localities: RP, Río Blanco Anticlinal; QL, Quebrada Larga; H, Huaco area (Quebrada La Herradura and Quebrada La Delfina); DS, Quebrada del Salto; LC, La Capilla area (Las Cambachas and Las Juntas); ST, Sierra del Tontal. B, Barreal area (Barreal Anticlinal, Leoncito, Quebrada Majaditas, Cordón del Naranjo). CT, Cordillera del Tigre; AJ, Agua de Jagüel; SE, Quebrada Santa Elena.

Geological Setting

The late Paleozoic stratigraphy from western Argentina developed in a retroarc to arc-related basin (López Gamundí et al. Reference López Gamundí, Espejo, Conaghan and Powell1994; Astini et al. Reference Astini, Dávila, López Gamundí, Gómez, Collo, Ezpeleta, Martina and Ortiz2005). The Pennsylvanian–lower Permian stratigraphy is represented by the Paganzo Group and coeval units, which have recently been revised based on sequence stratigraphic (Limarino et al. Reference Limarino, Césari, Net, Marenssi, Gutiérrez and Tripaldi2002, Reference Limarino, Tripaldi, Marenssi and Fauqué2006; López Gamundí and Martínez Reference López Gamundí and Martínez2003; Desjardins et al. Reference Desjardins, Buatois, Limarino and Cisterna2009; Gulbranson et al. Reference Gulbranson, Montañez, Schmitz, Limarino, Isbell, Marenssi and Crowley2010), chronostratigraphic (Gulbranson et al. Reference Gulbranson, Montañez, Schmitz, Limarino, Isbell, Marenssi and Crowley2010; Césari et al. Reference Césari, Limarino and Gulbranson2011), biostratigraphic (Azcuy et al. Reference Azcuy, Beri, Bernardes-de-Oliveira, Carrizo, di Pasquo, Diaz Saravia, González, Iannuzzi, Lemos, Melo, Pagani, Rohn, Amenábar, Sabattini, Souza, Taboada and Vergel2007; Césari et al. Reference Césari, Limarino and Gulbranson2011; Cisterna et al. Reference Cisterna, Sterren and Gutiérrez2011), and paleogeographic (Geuna et al. Reference Geuna, Escosteguy and Limarino2010) aspects.

The Pennsylvanian starts with a major diamictite indicative of the late Serpukhovian–Bashkirian glaciation (Fig. 2), which is immediately followed by the postglacial transgression (Limarino et al. Reference Limarino, Tripaldi, Marenssi and Fauqué2006; López Gamundí Reference López Gamundí2010; Dineen et al. Reference Dineen, Fraiser and Isbell2013). This interval records the fauna from the Levipustula levis Taxon-range Zone (Cisterna and Sterren Reference Cisterna and Sterren2010) and coeval assemblages (Taboada Reference Taboada1997; Simanauskas and Cisterna Reference Simanauskas and Cisterna2001) that flourished in a diverse array of glacially influenced depositional environments. Stratigraphic and sedimentological analyses point out that the glaciomarine successions varied from ice proximal to ice distal, as wet-based tidewater glaciers advanced and retreated within fjords, while depositional environments ranged from deep (below storm wave base) to shallow (above storm wave base) marine (López Gamundí and Martínez Reference López Gamundí and Martínez2000; Henry et al. Reference Henry, Isbell, Limarino, McHenry and Fraiser2010; Alonso-Muruaga et al. Reference Alonso-Muruaga, Buatois and Limarino2013; Dineen et al. Reference Dineen, Fraiser and Isbell2013; Gulbranson et al. Reference Gulbranson, Isbell, Montañez, Limarino, Marenssi, Meyer and Hull2014). According to Limarino et al. (Reference Limarino, Tripaldi, Marenssi and Fauqué2006; see also Alonso Muruaga et al. 2013) the postglacial transgression is part of a third-order sequence (Fig. 2), while most of the glacial sediments belong to a previous sequence (Fig. 2).

Figure 2 Stratigraphic framework, sequence stratigraphy and chronostratigraphy of the studied region. Modified from Limarino et al. (Reference Limarino, Tripaldi, Marenssi and Fauqué2006), Césari et al. (Reference Césari, Limarino and Gulbranson2011), and Cisterna et al. (2010).

Overlying this glacially influenced interval, there is a period of continental to very shallow marine sedimentation that encompasses another third-order stratigraphic sequence (Fig. 2; Limarino et al. Reference Limarino, Tripaldi, Marenssi and Fauqué2006). Above this continental interval, another third-order stratigraphic sequence with an important transgression is present (Limarino et al. Reference Limarino, Tripaldi, Marenssi and Fauqué2006). Different marine intervals are present, interbedded with thin fluvial facies (Fig. 2), and have been related to a single Moscovian–Kasimovian transgression (Fig. 2; Limarino et al. Reference Limarino, Césari, Net, Marenssi, Gutiérrez and Tripaldi2002, Reference Limarino, Tripaldi, Marenssi and Fauqué2006; Desjardins et al. Reference Desjardins, Buatois, Limarino and Cisterna2009; Dineen et al. Reference Dineen, Fraiser and Isbell2013). Abundant evidence points toward a climatic amelioration during this interval (Limarino et al. Reference Limarino, Césari, Spalletti, Taboada, Isbell, Geuna and Gulbranson2014; Gulbranson et al. Reference Gulbranson, Montañez, Tabor and Limarino2015), with the presence of warm to temperate-water marine assemblages with a mixture of paleotropical and cool-water faunas (Cisterna Reference Cisterna2010; Taboada Reference Taboada2010; Cisterna et al. Reference Cisterna, Sterren and Niemeyer2014). This marine interval corresponds to the Tivertonia jachalensis–Streptorhynchus inaequiornatus Zone and related faunas (Sabattini et al. Reference Sabattini, Ottone and Azcuy1990; Cisterna Reference Cisterna2010; Cisterna et al. Reference Cisterna, Sterren and Gutiérrez2011).

Material and Methods

Data

For these analyses I compiled a presence-absence data set based on the literature. Only bed-level samples were used in the analyses, and literature resources related to each sample obtained are listed in the supplemental materials. Only brachiopod and bivalve genera were used in the analyses, with a total of 46 brachiopod genera and 42 bivalve genera. The final data set consists of 99 bed-level samples coming from 15 different localities (Fig. 1), totaling 88 genera and 481 occurrences (supplemental materials). Forty-four genera, summing 261 occurrences distributed in 48 samples come from the Bashkirian, while 51 samples with 60 genera and 245 occurrences are from the Moscovian–Kasimovian. All genera were classified in families, superfamilies, and orders. The Moscovian–Kasimovian part of the whole data set was already studied by Balseiro et al. (Reference Balseiro, Sterren and Cisterna2014).

Following published sedimentological analyses (e.g., López Gamundí Reference López Gamundí2001; Limarino et al. Reference Limarino, Césari, Net, Marenssi, Gutiérrez and Tripaldi2002, Reference Limarino, Isbell, Ciccioli and Taboada2013; Henry et al. Reference Henry, Isbell and Limarino2008, Reference Henry, Isbell, Limarino, McHenry and Fraiser2010; Alonso-Muruaga et al. Reference Alonso-Muruaga, Buatois and Limarino2013; Dineen et al. Reference Dineen, Fraiser and Isbell2013), all samples were classified in three depositional environments, namely shallow subtidal (above fair-weather wave base), deep subtidal (between fair-weather and storm wave bases), and offshore (below storm wave base). Although the number of samples is almost equal between intervals (48 Bashkirian and 51 Moscovian–Kasimovian samples), sampling coverage is clearly uneven between environments (Fig. 3).

Figure 3 Environmental sampling coverage of the studied intervals.

Sequence stratigraphic coverage is also relevant, because different system tracks could bias the nature of fossil beds due to differences in sedimentation rates (Scarponi and Kowalewski Reference Scarponi and Kowalewski2007). Samples from both intervals come from late-transgressive to early-highstand system tracks (Limarino et al. Reference Limarino, Tripaldi, Marenssi and Fauqué2006; Alonso Muruaga et al. 2013; Desjardins et al. Reference Desjardins, Buatois, Limarino and Cisterna2009), and therefore such biases would be minor.

Further taphonomic biases were tested previously by Balseiro et al. (Reference Balseiro, Sterren and Cisterna2014) for the Moscovian–Kasimovian interval, based on the taphonomic analysis carried out by Sterren (Reference Sterren2008) and the analytical framework put forward by Tomašových (Reference Tomašových2006). Balseiro et al. (Reference Balseiro, Sterren and Cisterna2014) showed that neither aragonite dissolution nor selectivity by storm reworking caused a significant bias in sample composition and diversity. Moreover, Balseiro et al. (Reference Balseiro, Sterren and Cisterna2014) also showed that there is no significant compositional turnover within the Moscovian–Kasimovian interval.

Methods

Temporal Turnover

For the analysis of taxonomic turnover, I used the analysis of similarity (ANOSIM; Clarke Reference Clarke1993). ANOSIM measures the difference between within-group mean rank distance and between-group mean rank distance (Legendre and Legendre Reference Legendre and Legendre2012). The analysis indicates this difference with a statistic called R that ranges from −1 to 1. R=1 if all within-group distances are lower than between-group distances, and R=0 if within and between-group distances are similar (Legendre and Legendre Reference Legendre and Legendre2012). R rarely has values lower than 0, because that would mean that between-group distances are lower than within-group distances (Legendre and Legendre Reference Legendre and Legendre2012). Using a simulation approach, Ivany et al. (Reference Ivany, Brett, Wall, Wall and Handley2009) showed that ANOSIM is a good proxy for taxonomic turnover. Warton et al. (Reference Warton, Wright and Wang2012) indicated that ANOSIM is sensitive to differences in multivariate dispersion. Therefore, I tested for homogeneity in multivariate dispersion before conducting the ANOSIM using a permutation test on a measurement of multivariate dispersion in a space defined by principal coordinates (Anderson Reference Anderson2006). To test for selectivity in the extirpation and immigration between brachiopods and bivalves, I used a chi-square test with Yates’s continuity correction.

I further analyzed the temporal turnover along the bathymetric gradient (Tomašových et al. Reference Tomašových, Dominici, Zuschin and Merle2014). I randomly subsampled without replacement eight samples from each environment in each interval and calculated the Bray-Curtis distance between Bashkirian and Moscovian–Kasimovian environments based on the eight pooled samples using both taxa occurrences and presence–absence. I chose eight samples for the resampling technique, because this is the minimum number of samples found in a given environment in a given time interval (Fig. 3). This subsampling was repeated 1000 times.

All analyses were performed in R (R Core Team 2015) with the vegan package (Oksanen et al. Reference Oksanen, Blanchet, Kindt, Legendre, Minchin, O’Hara, Simpson, Solymos, Stevens and Wagner2015). I used the anosim() function for the ANOSIM and betadisper() for the analysis of multivariate dispersion and chisq.test() for the chi-square test.

Ordination Analysis

For the study of biotic gradients, I used a nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS; Legendre and Legendre Reference Legendre and Legendre2012). NMDS is a nonparametric technique that preserves the distance rank order between objects but not the actual distances between them (Legendre and Legendre Reference Legendre and Legendre2012). Furthermore, because it is a numerical approach, it makes no underlying assumption about the data.

Different analyses have shown that NMDS is as good as or better than other ordination techniques in recovering the underlying structure of the data (Minchin Reference Minchin1987; Bush and Brame Reference Bush and Brame2010). Recently, Alroy (Reference Alroy2015) proposed that principal coordinates analysis using a novel modification of the Forbes index was a best solution for paleoecological ordination. Using PCO and the Forbes index, or another common ordination technique such as detrended correspondence analysis, gave virtually identical results.

Bray-Curtis distance was used for the implementation of a two-dimension NMDS, using the metaMDS() function in the vegan package (Oksanen et al. Reference Oksanen, Blanchet, Kindt, Legendre, Minchin, O’Hara, Simpson, Solymos, Stevens and Wagner2015) for R (R Core Team 2015).

Diversity Analysis

I studied the structure of diversity using a hierarchical partition approach (Veech et al. Reference Veech, Summerville, Crist and Gering2002). Whittaker (Reference Whittaker1960, Reference Whittaker1972) was the first to propose that diversity could be partitioned in α, β, and γ components. He proposed that α diversity corresponded to local diversity (e.g., of a sample), while γ diversity corresponded to that of a region, with β diversity being the relationship between both scales. Initially, Whittaker (Reference Whittaker1960, Reference Whittaker1972) proposed a multiplicative relationship between local and regional scales expressed by the function,

(1) $$\gamma \,{\equals}\,\alpha \,{\times}\beta ^{{\times}} $$

where α is the average local diversity.

Later, several authors proposed that the relationship between different scales could be additive rather than multiplicative (MacArthur et al. Reference MacArthur, Recher and Cody1966; Levins Reference Levins1968; Veech et al. Reference Veech, Summerville, Crist and Gering2002). Lande (Reference Lande1996) formalized the additive partitioning of diversity, which is defined as,

(2) $$\gamma \,{\equals}\,\alpha {\plus}\beta ^{{\plus}} $$

The additive partition of diversity has the advantage of measuring all components (γ, α, β+) in the same units, making them easily comparable (Veech et al. Reference Veech, Summerville, Crist and Gering2002; Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland2012). Moreover, additive partitioning allows diversity to be partitioned along a hierarchy of scales (Veech et al. Reference Veech, Summerville, Crist and Gering2002; Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland2007, Reference Patzkowsky and Holland2012), allowing β diversity to be divide into different components.

However, it has been recently shown that additive partition is dependent on α (except for Shannon’s entropy [H']; see Jost Reference Jost2006, Reference Jost2007; Tuomisto Reference Tuomisto2010) and measures absolute compositional differences (Chao et al. Reference Chao, Chiu and Hsieh2012). The main problem related to this issue is that if α changes, then β+ will change regardless of whether the relative differences between samples remain stable. Moreover, if α changes, but β+ remains stable, it implies a change in the relative differences between samples rather than stability in β diversity (for further discussions, see Jost Reference Jost2006, Reference Jost2007; Tuomisto, Reference Tuomisto2010; Chao et al. Reference Chao, Chiu and Hsieh2012). To overcome this problem, I also used the relative turnover rate per community of Harrison et al. (Reference Harrison, Ross and Lawton1992), which can be derived from both multiplicative and additive β diversities and measures relative compositional differences and is not dependent on α (Chao et al. Reference Chao, Chiu and Hsieh2012). The rate is calculated as:

(3) $$Har\,{\equals}\,(\beta ^{{\asterisk}} -1)/(Nn-1)$$

where n is the total number of samples and β* is multiplicative β diversity. This rate measures the mean proportion of taxa that changes from one sample to another, and it ranges from 0, where there is no compositional change between samples, to 1, where all samples are different. I estimated additive β diversity in a sampling hierarchy using depositional environments. I calculated αs as mean sample diversity, αenv as mean environmental diversity, β+we as within-environment additive β diversity, and β+be as between-environment additive β diversity. Note that given this partition scheme, αenvs+we, while γ=αenv+be, which is the same as γ=αs+we+be. I also estimated turnover rates following this scheme.

Because sampling differed between environments and time intervals (Fig. 3), I standardized the number of samples using a resampling method. I subsampled eight samples per environment without replacement, for a total of 24 samples, and calculated additive diversity partition and turnover rates. This subsampling was repeated 1000 times to obtain mean values and confidence intervals based on the 2.5 and 97.5% percentiles.

Taxon Occupancy Curves

To understand the structure of taxon occurrences, I constructed ranked taxon occupancy curves (Fall and Olszewski Reference Fall and Olszewski2010; Jenkins Reference Jenkins2011). Occupancy has shown to be a very useful proxy for abundance both in recent (Holt et al. Reference Holt, Gaston and He2002) and fossil taxa (Ivany et al. Reference Ivany, Brett, Wall, Wall and Handley2009). Ranked taxon occupancy curves are analogous to rank order plots (also known as Whittaker plots or relative abundance curves) but differ in that the former plot occupancies and the latter relative abundance. In addition, ranked taxon occupancy curves are necessarily restricted to a set of samples or communities and therefore to regional or metacommunity scales. Hence, patterns in ranked occupancy curves help to identify underlying processes at such a scale (Fall and Olszewski Reference Fall and Olszewski2010; Jenkins Reference Jenkins2011).

Results

Temporal Turnover

Compositional differences at genus scale between Bashkirian and Moscovian–Kasimovian assemblages are observed in the NMDS, where samples from each interval are segregated in the ordination space (Fig. 4A). This pattern is confirmed by the ANOSIM, which shows significant turnover between Bashkirian and Moscovian–Kasimovian assemblages (R=0.289, p=2×10−4, homogeneity of dispersion p=0.662).

Figure 4 NMDS (non-metric multidimensional scaling) of the entire data set. A, Based on genera. B, Families. C, Superfamilies. D, Orders.

Compositional differences were also observed at higher taxonomic levels (Fig. 4B,C). Compositional differences at the familial (R=0.236, p<2×10−4, homogeneity of dispersion p=0.357), the superfamilial (R=0.194, p<2×10−4, homogeneity of dispersion p=0.662), and even the ordinal (R=0.101, p<2×10−4, homogeneity of dispersion p=0.077) levels were significant.

Further analyses show, however, that turnover is not uniform among brachiopods and bivalves, underscoring different turnover intensity between clades. A chi-square test of selectivity of extinction indicates that brachiopod genera suffer higher regional extinction than bivalves (Table 1, χ2=8.8072, df=1, p=0.003). Immigration (and/or origination), however, does not differ between clades, as both record similar numbers of new genera in the Moscovian–Kasimovian (Table 2, χ2=2.25, df=1, p=0.133).

Table 1 Number of Bashkirian brachiopods and bivalves extirpated or surviving to the Moscovian–Kasimovian

Table 2 Number of holdover or immigrants Moscovian–Kasimovian brachiopods and bivalves

Temporal turnover shows a clear trend along the bathymetric gradient. Figure 5B shows that the compositional differences between the Bashkirian and Moscovian–Kasimovian are clearly higher in the offshore than in shallower environments. The Bray-Curtis distance between intervals in all three environments is higher when dissimilarities are calculated using genera occupancies in each environment (Fig. 5B), but in this case, compositional differences in the offshore are even higher than in other environments (Fig. 5B).

Figure 5 A, NMDS of the entire data set showing the mean environmental position in the ordination space. B, Environment-scale temporal turnover measured as Bray-Curtis distance. Points are the means of 1000 subsamples, and error bars indicate 0.025 and 0.975 percentiles. ss, shallow subtidal; ds, deep subtidal; os, offshore.

Gradient Analysis

As mentioned above, the analysis of the whole data set shows that there is little overlap of Bashkirian and Moscovian–Kasimovian data sets in the ordination space (Fig. 4A). In addition, Bashkirian environmental centroids are more separated from one another than Moscovian–Kasimovian ones, suggesting that Bashkirian environments are a little more differentiated in the ordination space than Moscovian–Kasimovian environments (Fig. 5A). Interestingly, the Bashkirian shallow-subtidal centroid is located very close to the Moscovian–Kasimovian sample cluster, indicating that the highest compositional differences among intervals appear to be concentrated in the offshore and deep subtidal samples (Fig. 5A). This is confirmed by the analysis of compositional differences in each environment between intervals (Fig. 5B).

In the analysis of the Bashkirian data set, samples from all three environments overlap in the ordination space (Fig. 6A). The inability to cleanly segregate samples coming from different environments along the ordination space points to low compositional differentiation between environments (Fig. 6A). Nevertheless, there are some compositional differences that are confirmed by an ANOSIM (R=0.28, p=4×10−4). Samples coming from the deep subtidal tend to be placed toward higher values of axis 1, while offshore samples trend toward lower values (Fig. 6B). There is a large overlap between bivalves and brachiopods in the ordination space, and the nonsignificant segregation is confirmed by an ANOSIM (R=0.02, p=0.196).

Figure 6 A, B, NMDS of the Bashkirian data set. A, Ordination showing compositional differences between depositional environments. B, Ordination showing segregation of brachiopod and bivalves. C, D, NMDS of the Moscovian–Kasimovian data set. D, Ordination showing compositional differences between depositional environments. C, Ordination showing segregation of brachiopod and bivalves. Note that samples and taxa are plotted in the same ordination space.

Results of the ordination analysis of the Moscovian–Kasimovian data set show an interesting change in the structure of biotic gradients compared with the Bashkirian, namely, (1) there is a higher overlap of samples coming from different environments in the ordination space (Fig. 6C), indicating compositional similarities between environments (ANOSIM, R=−0.007, p=0.545); and more obviously (2) bivalves and brachiopods do segregate cleanly in the ordination space (Fig. 6D), underscoring the low co-occurrence of bivalves and brachiopods at sample scale (ANOSIM, R=0.18, p=2×10−4; homogeneity of dispersion, p=0.355; see also Balseiro et al. Reference Balseiro, Sterren and Cisterna2014).

Regional Diversity Partition

Gamma diversity shows a slight increase between the Bashkirian and Moscovian–Kasimovian (Fig. 7A). Interestingly, this small rise in γ diversity is not mirrored by αs diversity, which remains stable thought the studied intervals, but by αenv diversity. The driver of this pattern is, therefore, β diversity. The increase in αenv is clearly observed in Figure 7A. Although both β+we and β+be rise toward the Moscovian–Kasimovian, indicating an increase in absolute compositional differentiation within and between environments, Har we indicates that the main rise in relative compositional differentiation is concentrated within environments (Fig. 8A), while Har be remains stable, indicating a similar between-environment relative compositional differentiation (Fig. 8A).

Figure 7 Additive diversity partition of each time interval. From bottom to top (dark to light gray) partitions are αs, β+we, and β+be (see Methods for further explanation). Note that the total height of αs (dark gray bar) + β+we (medium-gray bar) equals αenv. Error bars are the 0.025 and 0.975 percentiles based on 1000 subsamples. A, Partition using all taxa. B, Bivalve partition. C, Brachiopod partition.

Figure 8 Relative turnover rate per community (Har) within environments and between environments in both intervals. Filled dots indicate mean, and error bars indicate the 0.025 and 0.975 percentiles based on 1000 subsamples. A, Har calculated using all taxa. B, Bivalve Har. C, Brachiopod Har.

In addition, β+we is much higher than αs both in the Bashkirian and the Moscovian–Kasimovian, indicating that αenv diversity is mostly explained by absolute compositional differences between samples.

When regional diversity patterns are dissected in brachiopods and bivalves, it is clear that these clades do not share a common pattern. Brachiopods show a rather stable pattern with a slight decrease in γ diversity toward the Moscovian–Kasimovian that is mirrored by αs but not by αenv diversity (Fig. 7C); consequently, Har we rises, indicating that within-environment community differentiation increased in the Moscovian–Kasimovian (Fig. 8C). Finally, the stability between Bashkirian and Moscovian–Kasimovian environmental diversity (αenv) causes both β+be and Har be to decrease (Figs. 6C and 7C), indicating that environments became compositionally more similar toward the Moscovian–Kasimovian.

On the other hand, bivalves show an increase in all αs, αenv, and γ diversities (Fig. 7B). This increment is also mirrored by a rise in both β+we and Har we (Figs. 6B and 7B), underscoring that similarly to brachiopods, bivalves demonstrated an increase in within-environment community differentiation in the Moscovian–Kasimovian. Bivalves’ β+be also rose toward the Moscovian–Kasimovian, but Har be remained stable (Figs. 6B and 7B). This latter incongruity is caused by the joint rise in αenv and γ and indicates that proportional compositional difference between environments remained stable, although the absolute number of genera that differed increased.

Bathymetric Diversity Gradient

The regional pattern can also be dissected along the environmental gradient, as shown in Figure 9. There is an interesting change in the structure of the bathymetric diversity gradient between the Bashkirian and Moscovian–Kasimovian, and brachiopods and bivalves share rather similar diversity gradients in each interval. In the Bashkirian, the environmental γ-diversity gradient is clearly hump shaped, with the deep subtidal being the most diverse environment and the shallow subtidal being slightly more diverse than the offshore (Fig. 9A). The latter is more clearly observed in bivalves than brachiopods (Fig. 9C,E). In contrast to γ diversity, αs is similar for the shallow and deep subtidal but decreases toward the offshore, although this is not significant given the confidence interval (Fig. 9A). Regarding β diversity, the regional pattern indicates that the deep subtidal has the highest β+ and Har along the environmental gradient (Figs. 9A and 10A). Although bivalves also record a clear difference in β+ and Har between the deep subtidal and the other two environments (Figs. 9C and 10C), brachiopods only show this pattern for β+, while Har for the offshore almost equals that of the deep subtidal (Figs. 9E and 10E). As in previous cases, this difference indicates that although absolute compositional differences were higher in the deep subtidal brachiopod communities, relative differences were similar in both environments.

Figure 9 Additive diversity partition along the bathymetric gradient in each interval. Partitions are αs (dark gray) and β+we (light gray); see Methods for further explanation. A, Bashkirian partition using all taxa. B, Moscovian–Kasimovian partition using all taxa. C, Bivalve Bashkirian partition. D, Bivalve Moscovian–Kasimovian partition. E, Brachiopod Bashkirian partition. F, Brachiopod Moscovian–Kasimovian partition.

Figure 10 Relative turnover rate per community (Har) within environments along the bathymetric gradient in both intervals. A, Bashkirian Har values using all taxa. B, Moscovian–Kasimovian Har values using all taxa. C, Bivalve Bashkirian Har values. D, Bivalve Moscovian–Kasimovian Har values. E, Brachiopod Bashkirian Har values. F, Brachiopod Moscovian–Kasimovian Har values.

During the Moscovian–Kasimovian, on the other hand, the bathymetric diversity gradient had a linear shape, reaching its maximum toward the deepest environments (Fig. 9B), although I should note that the deep subtidal shows large variability in the subsampled γ diversity, reaching higher maximum diversity than the offshore. Regardless of this last issue, it is worth noting that the offshore is definitely more diverse that the shallow subtidal. The higher offshore γ diversity is clearly observable in bivalves (Fig. 9D), while in brachiopods shallow-subtidal γ diversity is not so evidently lower than offshore γ diversity (Fig. 9F).

The trend in αs within each environment is also linear with higher values in the offshore (Fig. 9B), and both bivalves and brachiopods mirror this pattern (Fig. 9D,F). Interestingly, while β+ also follows a linear gradient with higher values in the offshore (Fig. 9), Har shows a humped trend with the highest values in the deep subtidal (Fig. 10B). Bivalves and brachiopods share the pattern in β+ (Fig. 9D,F) but differ in Har. Brachiopods have similar Har values in the shallow subtidal and deep subtidal, while the offshore records the lowest values (Fig. 10F). Bivalves, on the other hand, have a humped pattern with higher values of Har in the deep subtidal (Fig. 10B). This discrepancy between the environmental gradient of β+ and Har again underscores the differences between absolute and relative compositional differences along the bathymetric gradient and among clades.

Besides the pattern in environmental diversity within each interval, there is an interesting shift in the actual values from the Bashkirian toward the Moscovian–Kasimovian. While αs decreases in the Moscovian, both in the shallow subtidal and deep subtidal, in the offshore αs is clearly higher during this interval. Regarding environmental γ diversity, the shallow subtidal again seems to be more diverse during the Bashkirian; the deep subtidal, however, shows virtually no difference between intervals. The offshore, on the other hand, is definitely more diverse during the Moscovian–Kasimovian, almost doubling in richness the Bashkirian deepest environment.

Brachiopods have slightly higher shallow- and deep-subtidal γ diversity during the Bashkirian, but much higher offshore diversity during the Moscovian–Kasimovian. Bivalves, meanwhile, have almost identical shallow-subtidal diversity in both intervals and show a small rise in deep subtidal diversity during the Moscovian–Kasimovian. Bivalves, again, record an increase in offshore γ diversity, but this time the shift is almost a threefold rise in the Moscovian–Kasimovian.

Regarding β diversity, there is a common pattern for both brachiopods and bivalves, with a virtual stability in shallow-subtidal and deep-subtidal β+ diversity and a rise in offshore β+. The increase in offshore β+ differs in magnitude between clades, being much higher in bivalves, again having a threefold increment. Temporal trends in Har, however, indicate a different pattern for relative compositional differentiation within environments. While brachiopods show a rise in shallow- and deep-subtidal Har and stability in offshore Har, bivalves record a small rise in all three environments. The regional pattern is, therefore, a rather clear rise in shallow- and deep-subtidal Har, and a smaller rise in offshore Har.

All in all, environmental diversity patterns underscore that although all three environments show differences between the Bashkirian and Moscovian–Kasimovian, the most important changes are recorded in the offshore. Here, there was an important rise in inventory diversities that made the environmental diversity gradient shift from a humped pattern in the Bashkirian to a linear pattern in the Moscovian–Kasimovian. Interestingly, shallow- and deep-subtidal settings recorded the most important shifts in within-environment relative compositional differentiation (Har), while the offshore exhibited the highest absolute differentiation (β+).

Taxa Occupancy Patterns

To further understand which taxa were involved in the diversity changes, I analyzed taxon occupancy curves for both clades together and separately during the Bashkirian and Moscovian–Kasimovian. The occupancy curves for all taxa are very similar between intervals (Fig. 11A), which indicates that there is no shift in the commonness of taxa and highlights that the increase in γ diversity is mostly caused by the gain of rare taxa in the Moscovian–Kasimovian. Interestingly, brachiopods and bivalves do not share a similar pattern. While brachiopods show a decrease in the occupancy of intermediately frequent genera toward the Moscovian–Kasimovian (Fig. 11C), bivalves have the opposite trend, with a rise in occupancies of intermediate genera (Fig. 11B). The fact that both clades have opposite patterns causes the regional picture to remain stable.

Figure 11 Ranked taxon occupancy curves. Shaded areas are 95% confidence intervals based on 1000 bootstraps. A, Curves for all taxa. B, Bivalve curve, C, Brachiopod curve.

Further analyses shows that despite the regional stability in the occupancy distribution, there are changes in each taxon occupancy between the Bashkirian and the Moscovian–Kasimovian. Occupancy changes of surviving genera are small and positively correlated between intervals (Kendal’s correlation τ=0.401, p=0.033). Shifts in occupancies, however, are present at higher taxonomic levels. Both families (Kendal’s correlation τ=0.2, p=0.856) and superfamilies (Kendal’s correlation τ=0.191, p=0.124) occupancies are not significantly correlated between intervals. The number of genera per family and superfamily also lack correlation between intervals (Kendal’s correlation τ=−0.18 and −0.022, p=0.155 and 0.875, respectively) indicating that not only occupancies changed but also richness within (super)families.

Furthermore, brachiopod and bivalve occurrences at sample scale reinforce the change in segregation patterns observed in the ordination analyses between Bashkirian and Moscovian–Kasimovian assemblages. Figure 12 shows that the distribution of the proportion of brachiopod occurrences is bimodal during the Moscovian–Kasimovian. Many samples have a proportion of brachiopod occurrences higher than 0.9, while a second large group of samples have a proportion lower than 0.1. There are a much lower number of samples with proportional occurrences of brachiopods ranging from 0.3 to 0.7. This pattern underscores that most samples were either exclusively dominated by brachiopods or bivalves. During the Bashkirian, on the other hand, many samples had intermediate (0.3–0.7) values of proportional occurrences of brachiopods, and there is no evidence of a bimodal distribution. This pattern suggests that brachiopods and bivalves tend to co-occur at sample scale during the Bashkirian. There are many samples with proportional occurrences of brachiopods higher than 0.9, but this is probably caused by higher occupancies of brachiopods compared with bivalves during this interval.

Discussion

Stability or Change?

Different authors have analyzed the effect of the LPIA in the ecological structure of paleotropical ecosystems (Bonelli and Patzkowsky Reference Bonelli and Patzkowsky2008, Reference Bonelli and Patzkowsky2011; Powell Reference Powell2008; Heim Reference Heim2009; Badyrka et al. Reference Badyrka, Clapham and López2013). The current understanding of the marine biotic consequences of the LPIA is a constant protracted response of the benthic communities, starting with a mass extinction coinciding with the major development of the ice caps at the Serpukhovian (Raymond et al. Reference Raymond, Kelley and Lutken1990; Powell Reference Powell2008; McGhee et al. Reference McGhee, Sheehan, Bottjer and Droser2012). Despite important regional taxonomic turnover registered at the onset of the major glaciation (Powell Reference Powell2008; Heim Reference Heim2009), evidence indicates that during the LPIA: (1) regional biotic gradients were short and recurred with high fidelity between depositional sequences (Bonelli and Patzkowsky Reference Bonelli and Patzkowsky2008), (2) diversity and relative abundance distributions remained somewhat stable both at the beginning and throughout the LPIA (Bonelli and Patzkowsky Reference Bonelli and Patzkowsky2008, Reference Bonelli and Patzkowsky2011; Heim Reference Heim2009; Badyrka et al. Reference Badyrka, Clapham and López2013, but see Powell Reference Powell2008), and (3) faunal turnover was low (Olszewski and Patzkowsky Reference Olszewski and Patzkowsky2001a; Heim Reference Heim2009; Bonelli and Patzkowsky Reference Bonelli and Patzkowsky2011; Badyrka et al. Reference Badyrka, Clapham and López2013). These patterns led Bonelli and Patzkowsky (Reference Bonelli and Patzkowsky2011) to suggest that the biotic response to the late Paleozoic icehouse was taxonomic and ecological persistence.

In this scenario, one could expect similar patterns at higher latitudes or even greater stability and lower turnover, given that the extinction at beginning of the LPIA was concentrated in paleotropical regions (Powell Reference Powell2005, Reference Powell2007). The present results, however, point to a very different pattern, as glacially influenced regions record significant turnover even at intermediate latitudes (Table 1). In any case, new (immigrants) and extirpated genera are mainly range-through taxa (Cisterna Reference Cisterna2010), indicating that although important, turnover was only a regional-scale process.

It has to be stressed, however, that there are substantial differences in the temporal resolution between this contribution and some paleotropical studies and even among paleotropical studies (Olszewski and Patzkowsky Reference Olszewski and Patzkowsky2001a,Reference Olszewski and Patzkowskyb; Powell Reference Powell2008; Heim Reference Heim2009; Bonelli and Patzkowsky Reference Bonelli and Patzkowsky2011; Badyrka et al. Reference Badyrka, Clapham and López2013). In particular, the current study differs in temporal scale with Bonelli and Patzkowsky (Reference Bonelli and Patzkowsky2011), which spans 11 intervals within 3 Myr, and Olszewski and Patzkowsky (Reference Olszewski and Patzkowsky2001a,Reference Olszewski and Patzkowskyb), which spans 31 intervals within 12.5 Myr. Such variability in temporal resolution could be the reason for the observed differences in turnover between regions. However, other paleotropical studies do encompass larger time intervals. For example, Heim (Reference Heim2009) compared Chesterian (Mississippian) with Morrowan (Pennsylvanian) assemblages spanning ~21 Myr; while Badyrka et al. (Reference Badyrka, Clapham and López2013) studied three intervals Moscovian (Pennsylvanian) and Asselian and Sakmarian (lower Permian) encompassing ~21 Myr. Given the similarities in temporal resolution between this contribution and Heim (Reference Heim2009) and Badyrka et al. Reference Badyrka, Clapham and López2013), differences between paleotropical and ice-proximal regions are difficult to explain based on temporal resolution alone.

The observed compositional turnover, however, should not necessarily generate large ecological changes (McGhee Reference McGhee1981; Droser et al. Reference Droser, Bottjer, Sheehan and McGhee2000; Christie et al. Reference Christie, Holland and Bush2013), since it is possible that newly arrived taxa were phylogenetically, and hence ecologically (Burns and Strauss Reference Burns and Strauss2011), related to those extirpated. This seems not to be the case in western Argentina. On the one hand, while extirpation was much more intense in brachiopods than bivalves, immigration was similar in both clades, leading to a change in the brachiopods:bivalves ratio and causing a major change in the taxonomic structure of the metacommunities. During the Bashkirian the brachiopods:bivalves ratio was 20:17 for genera and 131:85 for occurrences, while toward the Moscovian–Kasimovian these ratios decrease to 19:26 for genera and 118:127 for occurrences, which means an important reduction in the number of brachiopod genera and occurrences relative to bivalves. Although the taxon occupancy curve remains stable, each clade presents an opposite response, namely an increase in the occupancies of intermediate taxa in bivalves and a decline in brachiopods.

On the other hand, although—as expected—environmental change struck with varying degrees at different taxonomic hierarchies, consequences are visible even at the suprafamilial level, causing changes in generic occupancies and identity of diverse and frequent (i.e., high-occupancy) families (Sterren and Cisterna Reference Sterren and Cisterna2010). Diversity and occupancy rank order of families is uncorrelated between intervals, underscoring that the most important families in Moscovian–Kasimovian communities were rare or directly absent during the Bashkirian.

Interestingly, Clapham and James (Reference Clapham and James2008) also found relevant turnover during the LPIA in glaciated eastern Gondwana (lower–middle Permian, Australia) across different glacial–nonglacial transitions (Fielding et al. Reference Fielding, Frank, Birgenheier, Rygel, Jones and Roberts2008b; Birgenheier et al. Reference Birgenheier, Fielding, Rygel, Frank and Roberts2009). Heim (Reference Heim2009) also described a pattern of turnover and ecological change similar to the results presented here but at low-latitude Laurasia, namely: (1) high regional turnover of mostly global range-through taxa, and (2) stability in relative abundance distribution but change in the identity of abundant and rare taxa. Heim’s (Reference Heim2009) findings, however, were related to the mass extinction at the beginning of the LPIA. Badyrka et al. (Reference Badyrka, Clapham and López2013), on the other hand, did not find large compositional changes during the LPIA in low-latitude western Gondwana (Pennsylvanian–lower Permian, Bolivia), although their studied interval did span several glaciations elsewhere in Gondwana (López Gamundí Reference López Gamundí1997; Fielding et al. Reference Fielding, Frank, Birgenheier, Rygel, Jones and Roberts2008a; Isbell et al. Reference Isbell, Fraiser and Henry2008; Montañez and Poulsen Reference Montañez and Poulsen2013). Hence, paleoequatorial communities might have suffered little during ice-cap advance and retreat at high latitudes (Bonelli and Patzkowsky Reference Bonelli and Patzkowsky2011; Badyrka et al. Reference Badyrka, Clapham and López2013), while in glaciated regions those passages caused significant changes in the biota. These differences could be explained if, while high-latitude oceans had important temperature fluctuations, the surface temperature of tropical oceans remained stable along the LPIA with, albeit, a reduction of the low-latitude warm belt (Angiolini et al. Reference Angiolini, Jadoul, Leng, Stephenson, Rushton, Chenery and Crippa2009; Montañez and Poulsen Reference Montañez and Poulsen2013). Another possibility could be that high-latitude faunas were not culled of glacial-sensitive taxa such as the tropical fauna by the Serpukhovian mass extinction and therefore did not witness a change in their turnover dynamics through the LPIA. Unfortunately, more analyses and comparisons are needed to test this last possibility.

Where Did Change Concentrate?

The slight increase in β diversity, both in absolute (β+) and relative (Har) values, can be interpreted as an increase in patchiness or in dispersal limitation during the Moscovian–Kasimovian. Such a change occurred strictly among local communities, because β diversity between environments did not change in either absolute or relative values. As dispersal limitation should have also affected the between-environment differentiation and modified the occupancy distribution (Fall and Olszewski Reference Fall and Olszewski2010), the results support a change in patchiness rather than in dispersal limitation. Heim (Reference Heim2009) also found lower between-local communities differentiation after the onset of the major mid-Carboniferous glaciations in paleotropical Laurussia, suggesting that the loss of local patchiness was a common environmental response at the face of glacial advance at both high- and low-latitude regions.

Nevertheless, the consequences of environmental change are much more complicated. The environmental diversity gradient changed dramatically from a humped gradient toward a linear gradient as the glaciers declined in western Argentina. As mentioned before, shallow- and deep-subtidal γ diversity remained rather stable between intervals, while offshore diversity rose. The fact that the Har environmental gradient remains humped in both intervals, despite the environmental changes in inventory diversities, sheds light on the underlying dynamics of the ecological change caused by the waning of glaciers. The increase in offshore γ diversity during the Moscovian–Kasimovian was most probably not caused by an increase in within-environment variability (i.e., patchiness), because offshore Har remained stable, indicating that relative differences among offshore samples did not change between intervals. The rise in offshore γ diversity was therefore driven almost exclusively by the gain in offshore αs. An increase in αs diversity could be caused by different factors, such as a change in a limiting factor like salinity or oxygen (Shi et al. Reference Shi, Zhang, Shen and He2015). Independent evidence from trace fossils suggests that intervals differed in salinity, caused by higher meltwater discharge during the Bashkirian, but not in oxygenation (Desjardins et al. Reference Desjardins, Buatois, Mángano and Limarino2010). Such a change in salinity should have triggered a rise in shallow-subtidal αs rather than in offshore αs, and therefore does not seem to have controlled changes in the bathymetric diversity gradient. The rise in offshore αs could have also been driven by an increase in local resource availability (Kaspari et al. Reference Kaspari, O’Donnell and Kercher2000; Hurlbert Reference Hurlbert2004) or a more efficient resource partitioning (i.e., higher evenness) (Tokeshi Reference Tokeshi1999). Unfortunately, the lack of relative abundance data limits a proper analysis of the relative importance of these two last possibilities. Nevertheless, the fact that bivalves, which have a higher energetic demand compared with brachiopods (Payne et al. Reference Payne, Heim, Knope and McClain2014), showed a more pronounced diversity and occupancy rise suggests that resource availability (i.e., food) could have had more relevance. Moreover, αs almost doubled from the Bashkirian (αs=4) to the Moscovian (αs=7.16), and such an increment is difficult to explain by a rise in evenness alone (i.e., higher resource partitioning). Therefore, although both variables were possibly acting together, an increase in resources might have had more relevance in the observed rise of offshore αs.

Because a reduction in food availability toward shallow environments seems unlikely, the decline in αs toward the shallow and deep subtidal is most probably related to the humped relationship between diversity and productivity (Rosenzweig Reference Rosenzweig1995) and therefore to an even higher increase in resource availability in these environments. Despite this decrease in αs, shallow- and deep-subtidal γ diversity remained stable due to the rise in Har, indicating a parallel rise in patchiness and resource availability.

It is extremely interesting that both brachiopods and bivalves show a similar change in the shape of the gradient, indicating that the factor that generated such a shift affected both clades alike. However, because the magnitude of some changes differ between clades it is also remarkable that there were idiosyncratic responses. Bivalves show a more pronounced rise in offshore αs diversity (Fig. 8C,D), while brachiopods show a more pronounced decrease in shallow- and deep-subtidal αs (Fig. 9E,F). In addition, brachiopods also seem to have been more affected by the increase in patchiness in the shallow and deep subtidal, as evidenced by the rise in Har (Fig. 9E,F), suggesting that they were probably more affected by subtle environmental differences.

Both the environmental turnover gradient (Fig. 5B) and the changes in the diversity gradient (Fig. 9A,B) suggest that the largest changes occurred toward the offshore. Interestingly, Clapham and James (Reference Clapham and James2008) also found that the compositional change started in deep environments during the fade of the LPIA in high latitudes of eastern Gondwana. This is surprising, because one might expect major changes to occur in shallow environments, which face the harshest conditions during glacial intervals and suffer the greatest changes in postglacial intervals, either through meltwater discharge (Buatois et al. Reference Buatois, Netto and Mángano2010, Reference Buatois, Netto, Gabriela Mángano and Carmona2013; Alonso-Muruaga et al. Reference Alonso-Muruaga, Buatois and Limarino2013) or temperature fluctuations. Indeed, extinction at the beginning of the LPIA seems to have preferentially targeted shallow taxa in the Appalachian Basin (Powell Reference Powell2008). Moreover, different evidence suggests that at macroevolutionary scales, shallow environments record major compositional changes compared with deep environments (Tomašových et al. Reference Tomašových, Dominici, Zuschin and Merle2014). These results, therefore, highlight that high-latitude communities responded very differently to the fade of major glaciations than did low-latitude communities to their onset, and probably even nonglacial communities in general.

Changes in Bivalve–Brachiopod Coexistence

The fact that analyzing both clades together shows certain stability in the diversity structure could suggest that the metacommunities responded to neutral dynamics (Heim Reference Heim2009), wherein all taxa were nearly ecological equivalents and compositional changes were caused mainly by stochastic processes such as ecological drift and dispersal (Hubbell Reference Hubbell2001, Reference Hubbell2006). Then, the differential extirpation and migration of brachiopods and bivalves were casual processes that did not affect the regional ecological structure. Analyzing regional patterns is, however, only one side of the coin, and the analyses of local coexistence indicate a very different pattern of nonneutral dynamics (Balseiro et al. Reference Balseiro, Sterren and Cisterna2014). While brachiopods and bivalves coexisted at the local scale during the Bashkirian, coexistence did not occur in Moscovian–Kasimovian communities (Fig. 12; Balseiro et al. Reference Balseiro, Sterren and Cisterna2014).

Figure 12 Histograms showing the proportion of brachiopod genera per sample. Note the different distributions between the Bashkirian (unimodal) and Moscovian–Kasimovian (bimodal).

Lack of coexistence at the local scale could be caused by different factors. Balseiro et al. (Reference Balseiro, Sterren and Cisterna2014) already analyzed whether this pattern was caused by taphonomic biases such as aragonite dissolution or storm reworking and showed that neither possibility could explain it. One explanation could be that higher within-environment variability (i.e., patchiness) during the Moscovian–Kasimovian caused an environmental checkerboard that segregated brachiopods and bivalves at sample but not larger scales (i.e., environmental). However, in such a scenario one should expect to find some sort of segregation during the Bashkirian, because it is difficult to believe that Moscovian–Kasimovian within-environment variability exerted stronger segregation than Bashkirian between-environment variability. In other words, it could be possible that during one interval brachiopods and bivalves were segregated at the environmental scale and later such segregation was only visible at the sample but not at a larger scale due to lower between-environment but higher within-environment variability (i.e., an environmental checkerboard). However, western Argentina did not witness a shift in scale at which brachiopods and bivalves segregate. A related possibility to explain changes in coexistence is a difference in preserved environmental variability caused by a time-averaging bias. If time averaging was higher during the Bashkirian, then brachiopods and bivalves would appear to coexist at the sample scale even though they were actually segregated, because time averaging transfers diversity from β to alpha levels (Tomašových and Kidwell Reference Tomašových and Kidwell2009). However, time averaging should have been lower, not higher, during glacial intervals (i.e., Bashkirian) due to higher sedimentation rates caused by glacial erosion (Montgomery Reference Montgomery2002). Moreover, if differences in coexistence were caused only by higher time averaging during the Bashkirian, then both brachiopods and bivalves should share the same pattern of change in α and β diversity from the Bashkirian to the Moscovian–Kasimovian (Tomašových and Kidwell Reference Tomašových and Kidwell2009), but that is not the case in western Argentina (Fig. 7).

Previously, Balseiro et al. (Reference Balseiro, Sterren and Cisterna2014) suggested that low or absent bivalve–brachiopod coexistence during the Moscovian–Kasimovian was not caused by taphonomic biases or by geographic, temporal, or environmental factors. Moreover, as low coexistence was also not explained by neutral dynamics, they showed that it was probably related to competition (Balseiro et al. Reference Balseiro, Sterren and Cisterna2014). This implies that brachiopods and bivalves were able to coexist during the Bashkirian but were later segregated by competitive interaction. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to assert why competition became stronger during the Moscovian–Kasimovian. The waxing and waning of glaciers during the LPIA, therefore, not only caused major taxonomic turnover and modified the shape of the bathymetric diversity gradient but also caused major changes in community assembly dynamics by strengthening the effect of competition on the composition of local communities. This change indicates a shift from a system in which community assembly is not regulated by interactions to a system in which local dynamics are dominated by competition (DiMichele et al. Reference DiMichele, Behrensmeyer, Olszewski, Labandeira, Pandolfi, Wing and Bobe2004). Moreover, such a shift indicates that the dynamics underlying local community assembly can be modified at the temporal scale used in this study. The fact that much research has shown that communities in the fossil record respond to either dynamic (DiMichele et al. Reference DiMichele, Pfefferkorn and Gastaldo2001; Olszewski and Patzkowsky Reference Olszewski and Patzkowsky2001b; Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland2003; DiMichele et al. Reference DiMichele, Behrensmeyer, Olszewski, Labandeira, Pandolfi, Wing and Bobe2004; Ivany et al. Reference Ivany, Brett, Wall, Wall and Handley2009; Balseiro and Waisfeld Reference Balseiro and Waisfeld2013) could indicate that such shifts are more common than previously thought. More research, however, needs to be conducted to determine the actual temporal and geographical patterns of these possible changes in community assembly dynamics.

Conclusions

Although the relationship is not perfect, it is generally assumed that the higher the turnover rates, the higher the ecological consequences (McGhee et al. Reference McGhee, Clapham, Sheehan, Bottjer and Droser2013). Indeed, many studies have analyzed how mass extinctions caused significant ecological changes within biota (e.g., Tomašových and Siblík Reference Tomašových and Siblík2007; Heim Reference Heim2009; Danise et al. Reference Danise, Twitchett, Little and Clémence2013; McGhee et al. Reference McGhee, Clapham, Sheehan, Bottjer and Droser2013; Aberhan and Kiessling Reference Aberhan and Kiessling2015), while less effort has been focused on intervals of background extinction rates (e.g., Tang and Bottjer Reference Tang and Bottjer1996; Olszewski and Patzkowsky Reference Olszewski and Patzkowsky2001b; Patzkowsky and Holland Reference Patzkowsky and Holland2007; Fall and Olszewski Reference Fall and Olszewski2010). In fact, because the LPIA was an interval of sluggish macroevolutionary dynamics dominated by large-range taxa, Bonelli and Patzkowsky (Reference Bonelli and Patzkowsky2011) suggested that the LPIA was an interval of ecological persistence. However, results from western Argentina underscore that regional-scale ecological changes during the LPIA in high-latitude regions included: (1) high extirpation of brachiopods causing significant changes in the structure of the metacommunities, (2) modifications of the bivalve hierarchical diversity structure, (3) remodeling of the bathymetric diversity gradient, and (4) changes in the bivalve–brachiopod local-scale coexistence indicating shifts in communities assembly dynamics. Such ecological modifications were of similar magnitude to those observed at the Serpukhovian mass extinction in paleotropical basins (Bonelli and Patzkowsky Reference Bonelli and Patzkowsky2008, Reference Bonelli and Patzkowsky2011; Heim Reference Heim2009), suggesting that the waxing and waning of glaciers was able to cause regional taxonomic turnover and medium-scale ecological changes even during intervals of relative macroevolutionary quiescence (Stanley and Powell Reference Stanley and Powell2003; Powell Reference Powell2005; Stanley Reference Stanley2007).

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank A. F. Sterren (CICTERRA, CONICET and Universidad Nacional de Córdoba) and G. A. Cisterna (CONICET and Universidad Nacional de La Rioja) for the invaluable help provided in the construction of the database and for sharing their knowledge about systematic, stratigraphic, paleoenvironmental, and biostratigraphic issues. Matthew Powell (Juniata College), Mark Patzkowsky (Pennsylvania State University), and an anonymous reviewer are thanked for their thoughtful suggestions, which significantly improved this contribution. The Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) and the Universidad Nacional de Córdoba provided support and facilities used in this investigation. Financial support was provided by the ANPyT (Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica)-FONCYT (Grant PICT-2014-3058).

Supplementary Material

Supplemental material deposited at Dryad: doi:10.5061/dryad.04gj1

References

Literature Cited

Aberhan, M., and Kiessling, W.. 2015. Persistent ecological shifts in marine molluscan assemblages across the end-Cretaceous mass extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 112:72077212.Google Scholar
Alonso-Muruaga, P. J., Buatois, L. A., and Limarino, C. O.. 2013. Ichnology of the Late Carboniferous Hoyada Verde Formation of western Argentina: Exploring postglacial shallow-marine ecosystems of Gondwana. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 369:228238.Google Scholar
Alroy, J. 2015. A simple way to improve multivariate analyses of paleoecological data sets. Paleobiology 41:377386.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. J. 2006. Distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions. Biometrics 62:245253.Google Scholar
Angiolini, L., Jadoul, F., Leng, M. J., Stephenson, M. H., Rushton, J., Chenery, S., and Crippa, G.. 2009. How cold were the Early Permian glacial tropics? Testing sea-surface temperature using the oxygen isotope composition of rigorously screened brachiopod shells. Journal of the Geological Society of London 166:933945.Google Scholar
Astini, R. A., Dávila, F. M., López Gamundí, O. R., Gómez, F. J., Collo, G., Ezpeleta, M., Martina, F., and Ortiz, A.. 2005. Cuencas de la región precordillerana. Pp. 115146in L. A. Chebli, G. A. Cortiñas, and J. S. Spalletti, eds. Frontera Exploratoria de La Argentina. Instituto Argentino del Petróleo y del Gas, Buenos Aires, Argentina.Google Scholar
Azcuy, C. L., Beri, A., Bernardes-de-Oliveira, M. E. C., Carrizo, H. A., di Pasquo, M., Diaz Saravia, P., González, C. R., Iannuzzi, R., Lemos, V. B., Melo, J. H. G., Pagani, M. A., Rohn, R., Amenábar, C. R., Sabattini, N., Souza, P. A., Taboada, A. C., and Vergel, M. d M.. 2007. Bioestratigrafía del Paleozoico Superior de América del Sur: Primera Etapa de Trabajo Hacia una Nueva Propuesta Cronoestratigráfica. Asociación Geológica Argentina, Serie D, Publicación Especial 11:965.Google Scholar
Badyrka, K., Clapham, M. E., and López, S.. 2013. Paleoecology of brachiopod communities during the late Paleozoic ice age in Bolivia (Copacabana Formation, Pennsylvanian–Early Permian). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 387:5665.Google Scholar
Balseiro, D., and Waisfeld, B. G.. 2013. Ecological instability in Upper Cambrian–Lower Ordovician trilobite communities from Northwestern Argentina. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 370:6476.Google Scholar
Balseiro, D., Sterren, A. F., and Cisterna, G. A.. 2014. Coexistence of brachiopods and bivalves in the Late Paleozoic of Western Argentina. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 414:133145.Google Scholar
Birgenheier, L. P., Fielding, C. R., Rygel, M. C., Frank, T. D., and Roberts, J.. 2009. Evidence for dynamic climate change on sub-106-year scales from the Late Paleozoic glacial record, Tamworth Belt, New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Sedimentary Research 79:5682.Google Scholar
Bonelli, J. R. J., and Patzkowsky, M. E.. 2008. How are global patterns of faunal turnover expressed at regional scales? Evidence from the Upper Mississippian (Chesterian Series), Illinois Basin, USA. PALAIOS 23:760772.Google Scholar
Bonelli, J. R. J., and Patzkowsky, M. E.. 2011. Taxonomic and ecologic persistence across the onset of the Late Paleozoic Ice Age: Evidence from the Upper Mississippian (Chesterian Series), Illinois Basin, United States. PALAIOS 26:517.Google Scholar
Buatois, L. A., Netto, R. G., and Mángano, M. G.. 2010. Ichnology of late Paleozoic postglacial transgressive deposits in Gondwana: reconstructing salinity conditions in coastal ecosystems affected by strong meltwater discharge. In O. López Gamundí and L. A. Buatois, eds. Late Paleozoic glacial events and postglacial transgressions in Gondwana. Geological Society of America Special Paper 468:149173. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo.Google Scholar
Buatois, L. A., Netto, R. G., Gabriela Mángano, M., and Carmona, N. B.. 2013. Global deglaciation and the re-appearance of microbial matground-dominated ecosystems in the late Paleozoic of Gondwana. Geobiology 11:307317.Google Scholar
Burns, J. H., and Strauss, S. Y.. 2011. More closely related species are more ecologically similar in an experimental test. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108:53025307.Google Scholar
Bush, A. M., and Brame, R. I.. 2010. Multiple paleoecological controls on the composition of marine fossil assemblages from the Frasnian (Late Devonian) of Virginia, with a comparison of ordination methods. Paleobiology 36:573591.Google Scholar
Césari, S. N., Limarino, C. O., and Gulbranson, E. L.. 2011. An Upper Paleozoic bio-chronostratigraphic scheme for the western margin of Gondwana. Earth-Science Reviews 106:149160.Google Scholar
Chao, A., Chiu, C.-H., and Hsieh, T. C.. 2012. Proposing a resolution to debates on diversity partitioning. Ecology 93:20372051.Google Scholar
Christie, M., Holland, S. M., and Bush, A. M.. 2013. Contrasting the ecological and taxonomic consequences of extinction. Paleobiology 39:538559.Google Scholar
Cisterna, G. A. 2010. Earliest Permian brachiopod faunas of west-central Argentina: defining the Pennsylvanian–Permian boundary in Gondwana. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 298:91100.Google Scholar
Cisterna, G. A., and Sterren, A. F.. 2008. Late Carboniferous Levipustula fauna in the Leoncito Formation, San Juan province, Argentine Precordillera: biostratigraphical and palaeoclimatological implications. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 120:135145.Google Scholar
Cisterna, G. A., and Sterren, A. F.. 2010. Levipustula Fauna” in central-western Argentina and its relationships with the Carboniferous glacial event in the southwestern Gondwanan margin. In O. López Gamundí and L. A. Buatois, eds. Late Paleozoic glacial events and postglacial transgressions in Gondwana. Geological Society of America Special Paper 468:133147. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo.Google Scholar
Cisterna, G. A., Sterren, A. F., and Gutiérrez, P. R.. 2011. The Carboniferous–Permian boundary in the central western Argentinean basins: paleontological evidences. Andean Geology 38:349370.Google Scholar
Cisterna, G. A., Sterren, A. F., and Niemeyer, H.. 2014. Las sucesiones carbonáticas marinas del Pérmico Temprano en Antofagasta, norte de Chile. Andean Geology 41:626638.Google Scholar
Clapham, M. E., and James, N. P.. 2008. Paleoecology of Early–Middle Permian marine communities in eastern Australia: response to global climate change in the aftermath of the late Paleozoic ice age. PALAIOS 23:738750.Google Scholar
Clapham, M. E., and James, N. P.. 2012. Regional-scale marine faunal change in eastern Australia during Permian climate fluctuations and its relationship to local community restructuring. Palaios 27:627635.Google Scholar
Clarke, K. R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18:117143.Google Scholar
Crowell, J. C. 1999. Pre-Mesozoic ice ages: their bearing on understanding the climate system. Geological Society of America Memoir 192:1112.Google Scholar
Danise, S., Twitchett, R. J., Little, C. T. S., and Clémence, M.-E.. 2013. The impact of global warming and anoxia on marine benthic community dynamics: an example from the Toarcian (Early Jurassic). PLoS ONE 8:e56255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desjardins, P. R., Buatois, L. A., Limarino, C. O., and Cisterna, G. A.. 2009. Latest Carboniferous–earliest Permian transgressive deposits in the Paganzo Basin of western Argentina: lithofacies and sequence stratigraphy of a coastal-plain to bay succession. Journal of South American Earth Sciences 28:4053.Google Scholar
Desjardins, P. R., Buatois, L. A., Mángano, M. G., and Limarino, C. O.. 2010. Ichnology of the latest Carboniferous–earliest Permian transgression in the Paganzo Basin of western Argentina: the interplay of ecology, sea-level rise, and paleogeography during postglacial times in Gondwana. In O. López Gamundí and L. A. Buatois, eds. Late Paleozoic glacial events and postglacial transgressions in Gondwana. Geological Society of America Special Paper 468:175192. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo.Google Scholar
DiMichele, W. A., Pfefferkorn, H. W., and Gastaldo, R. A.. 2001. Response of Late Carboniferous and Early Permian plant communities to climate change. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 29:461487.Google Scholar
DiMichele, W. A., Behrensmeyer, A. K., Olszewski, T. D., Labandeira, C. C., Pandolfi, J. M., Wing, S. L., and Bobe, R.. 2004. Long-term stasis in ecological assemblages: evidence from the fossil record. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:285322.Google Scholar
Dineen, A. A., Fraiser, M. L., and Isbell, J. L.. 2013. Palaeoecology and sedimentology of Carboniferous glacial and post-glacial successions in the Paganzo and Río Blanco basins of northwestern Argentina. In A. Gasiewicz and M. Słowakiewicz, eds. Palaeozoic climate cycles: their evolutionary and sedimentological impact Geological Society of London Special Publication 376:109140. Geological Society, London.Google Scholar
Droser, M. L., Bottjer, D. J., Sheehan, P. M., and McGhee, G. R. J.. 2000. Decoupling of taxonomic and ecologic severity of Phanerozoic marine mass extinctions. Geology 28:675678.Google Scholar
Fall, L. M., and Olszewski, T. D.. 2010. Environmental disruptions influence taxonomic composition of brachiopod paleocommunities in the Middle Permian Bell Canyon Formation (Delaware Basin, west Texas). PALAIOS 25:247259.Google Scholar
Fielding, C. R., Frank, T. D., Birgenheier, L. P., Rygel, M. C., Jones, A. T., and Roberts, J.. 2008a. Stratigraphic imprint of the Late Palaeozoic ice age in eastern Australia: a record of alternating glacial and nonglacial climate regime. Journal of the Geological Society, London 165:129140.Google Scholar
Fielding, C. R., Frank, T. D., Birgenheier, L. P., Rygel, M. C., Jones, A. T., and Roberts, J.. 2008b. Stratigraphic record and facies associations of the Late Paleozoic ice age in eastern Australia (New South Wales and Queensland). In C. R. Fielding, T. D. Frank, and J. L. Isbell, eds. Resolving the Late Paleozoic ice age in time and space. Geological Society of America Special Paper 441:4157. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo.Google Scholar
Fielding, C. R., Frank, T. D., and Isbell, J. L.. 2008c. The Late Paleozoic ice age—a review of current understanding and synthesis of global climate patterns. In C. R. Fielding, T. D. Frank and J. L. Isbell, eds. Resolving the Late Paleozoic ice age in time and space. Geological Society of America Special Paper 441:343354. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo.Google Scholar
Geuna, S. E., Escosteguy, L. D., and Limarino, C. O.. 2010. Palaeomagnetism of the Carboniferous–Permian Patquía Formation, Paganzo Basin, Argentina: implications for the apparent polar wander path for South America and Gondwana during the Late Palaeozoic. Geologica Acta 8:373397.Google Scholar
Gulbranson, E. L., Montañez, I. P., Schmitz, M. D., Limarino, C. O., Isbell, J. L., Marenssi, S. A., and Crowley, J. L.. 2010. High-precision U-Pb calibration of Carboniferous glaciation and climate history, Paganzo Group, NW Argentina. Geological Society of America Bulletin 122:14801498.Google Scholar
Gulbranson, E. L., Isbell, J. L., Montañez, I. P., Limarino, C. O., Marenssi, S. A., Meyer, K., and Hull, C.. 2014. Reassessment of mid-Carboniferous glacial extent in southwestern Gondwana (Rio Blanco Basin, Argentina) inferred from paleo-mass transport of diamictites. Gondwana Research 25:13691379.Google Scholar
Gulbranson, E. L., Montañez, I. P., Tabor, N. J., and Limarino, C. O.. 2015. Late Pennsylvanian aridification on the southwestern margin of Gondwana (Paganzo Basin, NW Argentina): a regional expression of a global climate perturbation. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 417:220235.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. P., Ross, S. J., and Lawton, J. H.. 1992. Beta diversity on geographic gradients in Britain. Journal of Animal Ecology 61:151158.Google Scholar
Heim, N. A. 2009. Stability of regional brachiopod diversity structure across the Mississippian/Pennsylvanian boundary. Paleobiology 35:393412.Google Scholar
Henry, L. C., Isbell, J. L., and Limarino, C. O.. 2008. Carboniferous glacigenic deposits of the proto-Precordillera of west-central Argentina. In C. R. Fielding, T. D. Frank and J. L. Isbell, eds. Resolving the Late Paleozoic ice age in time and space. Geological Society of America Special Paper 441:131142. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo.Google Scholar
Henry, L. C., Isbell, J. L., Limarino, C. O., McHenry, L. J., and Fraiser, M. L.. 2010. Mid-Carboniferous deglaciation of the Protoprecordillera, Argentina recorded in the Agua de Jagüel palaeovalley. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 298:112129.Google Scholar
Holt, A. R., Gaston, K. J., and He, F.. 2002. Occupancy–abundance relationships and spatial distribution: a review. Basic and Applied Ecology 3:113.Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. 2001. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. 2006. Neutral theory and the evolution of ecological equivalence. Ecology 87:13871398.Google Scholar
Hurlbert, A. H. 2004. Species–energy relationships and habitat complexity in bird communities. Ecology Letters 7:714720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isbell, J. L., Fraiser, M. L., and Henry, L. C.. 2008. Examining the complexity of environmental change during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic. PALAIOS 23:267269.Google Scholar
Isbell, J. L., Henry, L. C., Gulbranson, E. L., Limarino, C. O., Fraiser, M. L., Koch, Z. J., Ciccioli, P. L., and Dineen, A. A.. 2012. Glacial paradoxes during the late Paleozoic ice age: evaluating the equilibrium line altitude as a control on glaciation. Gondwana Research 22:119.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
Jenkins, D. G. 2011. Ranked species occupancy curves reveal common patterns among diverse metacommunities. Global Ecology and Biogeography 20:486497.Google Scholar
Jost, L. 2006. Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113:363375.Google Scholar
Jost, L. 2007. Partitioning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. Ecology 88:24272439.Google Scholar
Kaspari, M., O’Donnell, S., and Kercher, J. R.. 2000. Energy, density, and constraints to species richness: ant assemblages along a productivity gradient. American Naturalist 155:280293.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H., and Raymond, A. C.. 1991. Migration, origination and extinction of Southern Hemisphere brachiopods during the middle Carboniferous. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 86:2339.Google Scholar
Lande, R. 1996. Statistics and partitioning of species diversity, and similarity among multiple communities. Oikos 76:513.Google Scholar
Legendre, P., and Legendre, L.. 2012. Numerical ecology, 3rd ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Levins, R. 1968. Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Limarino, C. O., Césari, S. N., Net, L. I., Marenssi, S. A., Gutiérrez, P. R., and Tripaldi, A.. 2002. The Upper Carboniferous postglacial transgression in the Paganzo and Río Blanco basins (northwestern Argentina): facies and stratigraphic significance. Journal of South American Earth Sciences 15:445460.Google Scholar
Limarino, C. O., Tripaldi, A., Marenssi, S. A., and Fauqué, L. E.. 2006. Tectonic, sea-level, and climatic controls on Late Paleozoic sedimentation in the western basins of Argentina. Journal of South American Earth Sciences 22:205226.Google Scholar
Limarino, C. O., Isbell, J. L., Ciccioli, P. L., and Taboada, A. C.. 2013. La secuencia neopaleozoica de la quebrada de Agua de Jagüel (Precordillera de Mendoza): edad y redefinición estratigráfica. Revista de la Asociación Geológica Argentina 70:216228.Google Scholar
Limarino, C. O., Césari, S. N., Spalletti, L. a., Taboada, A. C., Isbell, J. L., Geuna, S., and Gulbranson, E. L.. 2014. A paleoclimatic review of southern South America during the late Paleozoic: a record from icehouse to extreme greenhouse conditions. Gondwana Research 25:13961421.Google Scholar
López Gamundí, O. R. 1997. Glacial–postglacial transition in the late Paleozoic basins of southern South America. Pp. 147168in I. P. Martini, ed Late glacial and postglacial environmental changes: Quaternary, Carboniferous–Permian, and Proterozoic. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
López Gamundí, O. R. 2001. La Formación Majaditas (Carbonífero), flanco occidental de la Precordillera sanjuanina: litoestratigrafia y facies. AAS Revista 8:5785.Google Scholar
López Gamundí, O. R. 2010. Transgressions related to the demise of the Late Paleozoic ice age: their sequence stratigraphic context. In O. López Gamundí and L. A. Buatois, eds. Late Paleozoic glacial events and postglacial transgressions in Gondwana. Geological Society of America Special Paper 46:81–35. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo.Google Scholar
López Gamundí, O. R., and Martínez, M.. 2000. Evidence of glacial abrasion in the Calingasta–Uspallata and western Paganzo basins, mid-Carboniferous of western Argentina. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 159:145165.Google Scholar
López Gamundí, O. R., and Martínez, M.. 2003. Esquema estratigráfico-secuencial para las unidades neopaleozoicas de la cuenca Calingasta-Uspallata en el flanco occidental de la Precordillera. Revista de la Asociación Geológica Argentina 58:367382.Google Scholar
López Gamundí, O. R., Espejo, I. S., Conaghan, P. J., and Powell, C. M.. 1994. Southern South America. Geological Society of America Memoir 1984:281329.Google Scholar
MacArthur, R. H., Recher, H., and Cody, M.. 1966. On the relation between habitat selection and species diversity. American Naturalist 100:319332.Google Scholar
McGhee, G. R. J. 1981. Evolutionary replacement of ecological equivalents in Late Devonian benthic marine communities. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 34:267283.Google Scholar
McGhee, G. R. J., Sheehan, P. M., Bottjer, D. J., and Droser, M. L.. 2012. Ecological ranking of Phanerozoic biodiversity crises: the Serpukhovian (early Carboniferous) crisis had a greater ecological impact than the end-Ordovician. Geology 40:147150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGhee, G. R. J., Clapham, M. E., Sheehan, P. M., Bottjer, D. J., and Droser, M. L.. 2013. A new ecological-severity ranking of major Phanerozoic biodiversity crises. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 370:260270.Google Scholar
Minchin, P. R. 1987. An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecological ordination. Vegetatio 69:89107.Google Scholar
Montañez, I. P., and Poulsen, C. J.. 2013. The Late Paleozoic ice age: an evolving paradigm. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 41:629656.Google Scholar
Montgomery, D. R. 2002. Valley formation by fluvial and glacial erosion. Geology 30:10471050.Google Scholar
Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F. G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P. R., O’Hara, R. B., Simpson, G. L., Solymos, P., Stevens, M. H. H., and Wagner, H.. 2015. vegan: Community Ecology Package, Version 2.2-1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.Google Scholar
Olszewski, T. D., and Patzkowsky, M. E.. 2001a. Evaluating taxonomic turnover: Pennsylvanian–Permian brachiopods and bivalves of the North American midcontinent. Paleobiology 27:646668.Google Scholar
Olszewski, T. D., and Patzkowsky, M. E.. 2001b. Measuring recurrence of marine biotic gradients: a case study from the Pennsylvanian–Permian midcontinent. PALAIOS 16:444460.Google Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. E., and Holland, S. M.. 2003. Lack of community saturation at the beginning of the Paleozoic plateau: the dominance of regional over local processes. Paleobiology 29:545560.Google Scholar
Patzkowsky, M. E., and Holland, S. M.. 2007. Diversity partitioning of a Late Ordovician marine biotic invasion: controls on diversity in 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
Payne, J. L., Heim, N. A., Knope, M. L., and McClain, C. R.. 2014. Metabolic dominance of bivalves predates brachiopod diversity decline by more than 150 million years. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281:20133122.Google Scholar
Powell, M. G. 2005. Climatic basis for sluggish macroevolution during the late Paleozoic ice age. Geology 33:381384.Google Scholar
Powell, M. G. 2007. Latitudinal diversity gradients for brachiopod genera during late Palaeozoic time: links between climate, biogeography and evolutionary rates. Global Ecology and Biogeography 16:519528.Google Scholar
Powell, M. G. 2008. Timing and selectivity of the Late Mississippian mass extinction of brachiopod genera from the central Appalachian Basin. PALAIOS 23:525534.Google Scholar
Raymond, A. C., Kelley, P. H., and Lutken, C. B.. 1990. Dead by degrees: articulate brachiopods, paleoclimate and the mid-Carboniferous extinction event. PALAIOS 5:111123.Google Scholar
R Core Team 2015. R: a language and environment for statistical computing, Version 3.2.1. http://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. L. 1995. Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sabattini, N., Ottone, E. G., and Azcuy, C. L.. 1990. La Zona de Lissochonetes jachalensis-Streptorhynchus inaequiornatus (Carbonífero tardío) en la localidad de La Delfina, provincia de San Juan. Ameghiniana 27:7581.Google Scholar
Scarponi, D., and Kowalewski, M.. 2007. Sequence stratigraphic anatomy of diversity patterns: late Quaternary benthic mollusks of the Po plain, Italy. PALAIOS 22:296305.Google Scholar
Shi, G. R., and Waterhouse, J. B.. 2010. Late Palaeozoic global changes affecting high-latitude environments and biotas: an introduction. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 298:116.Google Scholar
Shi, G. R., Zhang, Y., Shen, S., and He, W.. 2015. Nearshore–offshore–basin species diversity and body size variation patterns in Late Permian (Changhsingian) brachiopods. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 10.1016/j.palaeo.2015.07.046.Google Scholar
Simanauskas, T., and Cisterna, G. A.. 2001. Braquiópodos articulados de la Formación El Paso, Paleozoico Superior, Precordillera Argentina. Revista Española de Paleontología 16:209222.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 2007. An analysis of the history of marine animal diversity. Paleobiology 33:155.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M., and Powell, M. G.. 2003. Depressed rates of origination and extinction during the late Paleozoic ice age: a new state for the global marine ecosystem. Geology 31:877880.Google Scholar
Sterren, A. F. 2008. Concentraciones bioclásticas del Carbonífero–Pérmico Inferior en la Precordillera Argentina. Variaciones temporales y relación con las tendencias propuestas para el Fanerozoico. Ameghiniana 45:303320.Google Scholar
Sterren, A. F., and Cisterna, G. A.. 2010. Bivalves and brachiopods in the Carboniferous–Early Permian of Argentine Precordillera: diversification and faunal turnover in southwestern Gondwana. Geologica Acta 8:501517.Google Scholar
Taboada, A. C. 1997. Bioestratigrafía del carbonífero marino del Valle de Calingasta-Uspallata, Provincias de San Juan y Mendoza. Ameghiniana 34:215246.Google Scholar
Taboada, A. C. 2010. Mississippian–Early Permian brachiopods from western Argentina: tools for middle- to high-latitude correlation, paleobiogeographic and paleoclimatic reconstruction. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 298:152173.Google Scholar
Tang, C. M., and Bottjer, D. J.. 1996. Long-term faunal stasis without evolutionary coordination: Jurassic benthic marine paleocommunities, Western Interior, United States. Geology 24:815818.Google Scholar
Tokeshi, M. 1999. Species coexistence: ecological and evolutionary perspective. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Tomašových, A. 2006. Linking taphonomy to community-level abundance: insights into compositional fidelity of the Upper Triassic shell concentrations (eastern Alps). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 235:355381.Google Scholar
Tomašových, A., and Kidwell, S. M.. 2009. Fidelity of variation in species composition and diversity partitioning by death assemblages: time-averaging transfers diversity from beta to alpha levels. Paleobiology 35:94118.Google Scholar
Tomašových, A., and Siblík, M.. 2007. Evaluating compositional turnover of brachiopod communities during the end-Triassic mass extinction (Northern Calcareous Alps): removal of dominant groups, recovery and community reassembly. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 244:170200.Google Scholar
Tomašových, A., Dominici, S., Zuschin, M., and Merle, D.. 2014. Onshore–offshore gradient in metacommunity turnover emerges only over macroevolutionary time-scales. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281:20141533.Google Scholar
Tuomisto, H. 2010. A diversity of beta diversities: straightening up a concept gone awry. Part 2. Quantifying beta diversity and related phenomena. Ecography 33:2345.Google Scholar
Veech, J. A., Summerville, K. S., Crist, T. O., and Gering, J. C.. 2002. The additive partitioning of species diversity: recent revival of an old idea. Oikos 99:39.Google Scholar
Veevers, J. J., and Powell, C. M.. 1987. Late Paleozoic glacial in Gondwanaland reflected in transgressive–regressive depositional sequences in Euramerica. Geological Society of America Bulletin 98:475487.Google Scholar
Warton, D. I., Wright, S. T., and Wang, Y.. 2012. Distance-based multivariate analyses confound location and dispersion effects. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3:89101.Google Scholar
Waterhouse, J. B., and Shi, G. R.. 2013. Climatic implications from the sequential changes in diversity and biogeographic affinities for brachiopods and bivalves in the Permian of eastern Australia and New Zealand. Gondwana Research 24:139147.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R. H. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou mountains, Oregon and California. Ecological Monographs 30:279338.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R. H. 1972. Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21:213251.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1 Location map of the study area depicting the basin paleogeography. Gray areas indicate positive topography. Sampling localities: RP, Río Blanco Anticlinal; QL, Quebrada Larga; H, Huaco area (Quebrada La Herradura and Quebrada La Delfina); DS, Quebrada del Salto; LC, La Capilla area (Las Cambachas and Las Juntas); ST, Sierra del Tontal. B, Barreal area (Barreal Anticlinal, Leoncito, Quebrada Majaditas, Cordón del Naranjo). CT, Cordillera del Tigre; AJ, Agua de Jagüel; SE, Quebrada Santa Elena.

Figure 1

Figure 2 Stratigraphic framework, sequence stratigraphy and chronostratigraphy of the studied region. Modified from Limarino et al. (2006), Césari et al. (2011), and Cisterna et al. (2010).

Figure 2

Figure 3 Environmental sampling coverage of the studied intervals.

Figure 3

Figure 4 NMDS (non-metric multidimensional scaling) of the entire data set. A, Based on genera. B, Families. C, Superfamilies. D, Orders.

Figure 4

Table 1 Number of Bashkirian brachiopods and bivalves extirpated or surviving to the Moscovian–Kasimovian

Figure 5

Table 2 Number of holdover or immigrants Moscovian–Kasimovian brachiopods and bivalves

Figure 6

Figure 5 A, NMDS of the entire data set showing the mean environmental position in the ordination space. B, Environment-scale temporal turnover measured as Bray-Curtis distance. Points are the means of 1000 subsamples, and error bars indicate 0.025 and 0.975 percentiles. ss, shallow subtidal; ds, deep subtidal; os, offshore.

Figure 7

Figure 6 A, B, NMDS of the Bashkirian data set. A, Ordination showing compositional differences between depositional environments. B, Ordination showing segregation of brachiopod and bivalves. C, D, NMDS of the Moscovian–Kasimovian data set. D, Ordination showing compositional differences between depositional environments. C, Ordination showing segregation of brachiopod and bivalves. Note that samples and taxa are plotted in the same ordination space.

Figure 8

Figure 7 Additive diversity partition of each time interval. From bottom to top (dark to light gray) partitions are αs, β+we, and β+be (see Methods for further explanation). Note that the total height of αs (dark gray bar) + β+we (medium-gray bar) equals αenv. Error bars are the 0.025 and 0.975 percentiles based on 1000 subsamples. A, Partition using all taxa. B, Bivalve partition. C, Brachiopod partition.

Figure 9

Figure 8 Relative turnover rate per community (Har) within environments and between environments in both intervals. Filled dots indicate mean, and error bars indicate the 0.025 and 0.975 percentiles based on 1000 subsamples. A, Har calculated using all taxa. B, Bivalve Har. C, Brachiopod Har.

Figure 10

Figure 9 Additive diversity partition along the bathymetric gradient in each interval. Partitions are αs (dark gray) and β+we (light gray); see Methods for further explanation. A, Bashkirian partition using all taxa. B, Moscovian–Kasimovian partition using all taxa. C, Bivalve Bashkirian partition. D, Bivalve Moscovian–Kasimovian partition. E, Brachiopod Bashkirian partition. F, Brachiopod Moscovian–Kasimovian partition.

Figure 11

Figure 10 Relative turnover rate per community (Har) within environments along the bathymetric gradient in both intervals. A, Bashkirian Har values using all taxa. B, Moscovian–Kasimovian Har values using all taxa. C, Bivalve Bashkirian Har values. D, Bivalve Moscovian–Kasimovian Har values. E, Brachiopod Bashkirian Har values. F, Brachiopod Moscovian–Kasimovian Har values.

Figure 12

Figure 11 Ranked taxon occupancy curves. Shaded areas are 95% confidence intervals based on 1000 bootstraps. A, Curves for all taxa. B, Bivalve curve, C, Brachiopod curve.

Figure 13

Figure 12 Histograms showing the proportion of brachiopod genera per sample. Note the different distributions between the Bashkirian (unimodal) and Moscovian–Kasimovian (bimodal).