MACROEVOLUTION AND MACROECOLOGY THROUGH DEEP TIME
Abstract
Abstract: The fossil record documents two mutually exclusive macroevolutionary modes separated by the transitional Ediacaran Period. Despite the early appearance of crown eukaryotes and an at least partially oxygenated atmosphere, the pre‐Ediacaran biosphere was populated almost exclusively by microscopic organisms exhibiting low diversity, no biogeographical partitioning and profound morphological/evolutionary stasis. By contrast, the post‐Ediacaran biosphere is characterized by large diverse organisms, bioprovinciality and conspicuously dynamic macroevolution. The difference can be understood in terms of the unique escalatory coevolution accompanying the early Ediacaran introduction of eumetazoans, followed by their early Cambrian (Tommotian) expansion into the pelagic realm. Eumetazoans reinvented the rules of macroecology through their invention of multitrophic food webs, large body size, life‐history trade‐offs, ecological succession, biogeography, major increases in standing biomass, eukaryote‐dominated phytoplankton and the potential for mass extinction. Both the pre‐Ediacaran and the post‐Ediacaran biospheres were inherently stable, but the former derived from the simplicity of superabundant microbes exposed to essentially static, physical environments, whereas the latter is based on eumetazoan‐induced diversity and dynamic, biological environments. The c . 100‐myr Ediacaran transition (extending to the base of the Tommotian) can be defined on evolutionary criteria, and might usefully be incorporated into the Phanerozoic.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Ediacaran stands as the transition interval between the 'Precambrian' and the Phanerozoic.
“Thus, the Ediacaran stands as the transition interval between the 'Precambrian' and the Phanerozoic (Butterfield 2007).”
From The Ediacaran emergence of bilaterians: congruence between the genetic and the geological fossil records (2008) · cites this paper as Butterfield 2007
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 168 · Cited by 267
- Authors
- BUTTERFIELD, N. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Corresponding author
- BUTTERFIELD, NICHOLAS J.
- Venue
- Palaeontology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-01
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 41-55
- ISSN
- 0031-0239 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-4983
- OpenAlex
- W2131981964
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 168
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 20.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Palaeontology (publishedVersion)
- Department of Earth Sciences EPrints Repository (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
- Keywords
- macroevolution, macroecology, Tommotian, biogeography, ecological succession, life-history trade-offs, standing biomass, mass extinction, Phanerozoic, deep time, evolutionary stasis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review