Padian Kevin
Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
Integr Comp Biol. 2018 Dec 1;58(6):1191-1203. doi: 10.1093/icb/icy084.
To understand our present diversity crisis, it is natural to look to past crises for parallels and indicators. This is difficult because the present crisis is unlike the "Big Five" of the past: it is mostly terrestrial (with an increasing marine component), involves widespread habitat destruction and alteration of climate, and is largely anthropogenic, with confounding effects of differences in loss of diversity among continents and the difficulty of separating anthropogenic extinctions from natural Pleistocene and post-Pleistocene extinctions. In contrast, the "Big Five" crises of the geologic record are mainly marine (in the first two, no land vertebrates existed), and because marine taxa outnumber terrestrial taxa by a margin of about 25:1, global analyses of diversity crises have tended to lump together all phyla and environments. As a result, terrestrial evidence has been "swamped" statistically by the marine data. Both synchroneity and causality of terrestrial and marine events have usually been assumed, but without decisive data. Terrestrial vertebrate faunas do not seem to have been suddenly and catastrophically affected at the ends of the Permian, the Triassic, and the Cretaceous; rather, the pattern generally seems to be of steady turnover and replacement of groups and sometimes of slow decline. Here I suggest a revision of the concept of "mass extinction," which has no definitional limits on the application of the term with respect to duration, geography, ecology, or taxa affected. Unusual drops in taxonomic diversity have traditionally focused on increases in extinction rates, with scarce consideration of origination rates and their interplay with extinction rates. Analyses of hypothesized diversity crises should be operationally and situationally defined and statistically normalized through the histories of taxa and biotas, and should explicitly include both origination and extinction rates. The term "mass extinctions" would be usefully replaced by "diversity crises." These parameters require not absolute numerical (or percentage) limits but situational ones.
为了理解我们当前的生物多样性危机,自然而然地会去寻找过去的危机以作类比和参考。但这颇具难度,因为当前的危机与过去的“五大”危机不同:它主要发生在陆地(海洋部分也在增加),涉及广泛的栖息地破坏和气候改变,且在很大程度上是人为造成的,同时还存在各大洲生物多样性丧失差异的混杂影响,以及区分人为灭绝与更新世及更新世后自然灭绝的困难。相比之下,地质记录中的“五大”危机主要发生在海洋(在前两次危机中,尚无陆地脊椎动物存在),而且由于海洋生物分类单元数量比陆地生物分类单元多约25倍,对生物多样性危机的全球分析往往将所有门类和环境混为一谈。结果,陆地证据在统计上被海洋数据“淹没”了。陆地和海洋事件的同步性及因果关系通常被假定,但缺乏决定性数据。在二叠纪、三叠纪和白垩纪末期,陆地脊椎动物群似乎并未突然遭受灾难性影响;相反,总体模式似乎是各群体的稳定更替,有时是缓慢衰退。在此,我建议对“大灭绝”的概念进行修正,该术语在应用于持续时间、地理范围、生态或受影响的生物分类单元方面没有明确界定。传统上,分类多样性的异常下降主要关注灭绝率的增加,而很少考虑物种形成率及其与灭绝率的相互作用。对假定的生物多样性危机的分析应在操作和具体情况上进行定义,并通过生物分类单元和生物群的历史进行统计归一化,且应明确包括物种形成率和灭绝率。“大灭绝”一词将有益地被“生物多样性危机”所取代。这些参数需要的不是绝对的数值(或百分比)限制,而是具体情况的限制。