Electronic Supplementary Material
Macroevolutionary consequences of profound climate change on niche evolution in
marine mollusks over the past three million years
Saupe, E.E.1,2*; Hendricks, J.R.3; Portell, R.W.4; Dowsett, H.J.5; Haywood, A.6; Hunter,
S.J.7; Lieberman, B.S.8
1
Biodiversity Institute and Department of Geology, University of Kansas, 1475
Jayhawk Boulevard, Room 120 Lindley Hall, Lawrence, KS 66045
2
Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, 210 Whitney Avenue, New
Haven, CT 06511 USA
3
Department of Geology, San José State University, Duncan Hall 321, San José, CA
95192 and Paleontological Research Institution, 1259 Trumansburg Road, Ithaca,
NY 14850
4
Division of Invertebrate Paleontology, Florida Museum of Natural History,
University of Florida, 1659 Museum Road, PO Box 117800, Gainesville, FL 32611
5
U.S. Geological Survey, 926A National Center, Reston, VA 20192
6
School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, United
Kingdom
7
Sellwood Group for Palaeo-Climatology, University of Leeds, Room 9.127 Earth and
Environment Building, School of Earth and Environment, West Yorkshire, LS2 9JT,
United Kingdom
8
Biodiversity Institute and Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University
of Kansas, 1345 Jayhawk Boulevard, Dyche Hall, Lawrence, KS 66045
Table of Contents
Figure S1. Distributional data for Anomia simplex, Bulla occidentalis, Crassostrea
virginica and Crepidula fornicata
Figure S2. Distributional data for Dinocardium robustum, Lucina pensylvanica,
Mercenaria campechiensis and Neverita duplicata
Figure S3. Distributional data for Oliva sayana and Terebra dislocata
Figure S4. Ecological niche model results for Bulla occidentalis, Crassostrea virginica,
Crepidula fornicata, and Dinocardium robustum
Figure S5. Ecological niche model results for Lucina pensylvanica, Mercenaria
campechiensis, Neverita duplicata, and Terebra dislocata
Table S1. Climatic preference and larval strategy for the species analysed
Table S2. Ecological niche model evaluation results
Table S3. Comparisons of multi-dimensional niches
1
Figure S1. Distributional data for Anomia simplex, Bulla occidentalis, Crassostrea
virginica and Crepidula fornicata. Three time slices are represented: mid-Pliocene Warm
Period (mPWP; ~3.1 Ma), Last Interglacial (LIG; ~ 130 Ka), and present-day (PI).
2
Figure S2 | Distributional data for Dinocardium robustum, Lucina pensylvanica,
Mercenaria campechiensis and Neverita duplicata. Three time slices are represented:
mid-Pliocene Warm Period (mPWP; ~3.1 Ma), Last Interglacial (LIG; ~ 130 Ka), and
present-day (PI).
3
Figure S3 | Distributional data for Oliva sayana and Terebra dislocata. Three time
slices are represented: mid-Pliocene Warm Period (mPWP; ~3.1 Ma), Last Interglacial
(LIG; ~ 130 Ka), and present-day (PI).
4
Figure S4 | Ecological niche model results for Bulla occidentalis, Crassostrea
virginica, Crepidula fornicata, and Dinocardium robustum. Binary and continuous
predictions are presented, with binary predictions thresholded using the mean suitability
value from the continuous output. For the binary predictions, yellow=suitable and dark
blue=unsuitable, whereas for the continuous predictions, darker greys indicate higher
suitability. Note that the modeled shorelines do not match the continental shorelines
because of the nature of our GCM data and the need to capture the higher sea levels
characteristic of the mid-Pliocene Warm Period.
5
Figure S5 | Ecological niche model results for Lucina pensylvanica, Mercenaria
campechiensis, Neverita duplicata, and Terebra dislocata. Binary and continuous
predictions are presented, with binary predictions thresholded using the mean suitability
value from the continuous output. For the binary predictions, yellow=suitable and dark
blue=unsuitable, whereas for the continuous predictions, darker greys indicate higher
suitability. Note that the modeled shorelines do not match the continental shorelines
because of the nature of our GCM data and the need to capture the higher sea levels
characteristic of the mid-Pliocene Warm Period.
6
Table S1 | Climatic preference and larval strategy for the species analysed.
Distributional data are shown for each time slice: mid-Pliocene Warm Period (mPWP;
~3.1 Ma), Last Interglacial (LIG; ~ 130 Ka), and present-day (PI). The “all” column
indicates the total number of distributional records for each time slice/species, and the
“unique” column specifies the spatially explicit distributional records used for modelling.
Gastropoda
Bivalvia
Species
Anomia simplex
Crassostrea virginica
Dinocardium robustum
Lucina pensylvanica
Mercenaria campechiensis
Bulla occidentalis
Crepidula fornicata
Neverita duplicata
Oliva sayana
Terebra dislocata
Climatic Zone
Larval
Strategy
Temperate—Tropical
Temperate—Tropical
Subtropical—Tropical
Tropical
Subtropical—Tropical
Tropical
Temperate—Tropical
Temperate—Tropical
Tropical
Subtropical—Tropical
Planktonic
Planktonic
Planktonic
Benthic
Planktonic
Planktonic
Planktonic
Planktonic
Planktonic
Benthic
7
Distributional Data
mPWP
LIG
PI
All Unique All Unique All Unique
219
13
85
15
96
31
42
7
24
10
62
37
59
7
46
11
74
22
127
7
29
8
79
37
198
14
94
12
70
24
82
6
60
9
191
58
157
16
31
10
103
42
134
16
54
14
88
28
76
9
28
8
81
25
58
9
37
13
89
20
Table S2 | Significance testing of ecological niche models for each species and time
slice. P-values on the niche models were obtained using a jackknife procedure for time
slices/species that had < 25 occurrence points (single rows), and with a partial Receiver
Operating Characteristic Analysis (partial ROC) for time slices/species that had > 25
occurrence points. All models were statistically significant.
Bivalvia
Species
Time
Slice
Set
Gastropoda
AUC Ratio/
P-value
Success Rate
mPWP NA 0.92
LIG
NA 0.93
1
1.81
Anomia simplex
2
1.81
PI
3
1.82
4
1.31
5
1.19
mPWP NA 0.71
LIG
NA 0.90
1
1.29
Crassostrea virginica
2
1.77
PI
3
1.65
4
1.52
5
1.79
mPWP NA 0.86
Dinocardium robustum LIG
NA 0.91
PI
NA 0.95
mPWP NA 0.86
LIG
NA 0.75
1
1.61
Lucina pensylvanica
2
1.59
PI
3
1.54
4
1.91
5
1.76
mPWP NA 0.93
Mercenaria
LIG
NA 0.92
campechiensis
PI
NA 0.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Species
Bulla occidentalis
Crepidula fornicata
Neverita duplicata
Oliva sayana
Terebra dislocata
8
Time
Slice
Set
AUC Ratio/
P-value
Success Rate
mPWP NA 0.50
LIG
NA 0.89
1
1.53
2
1.18
PI
3
1.61
4
1.59
5
1.22
mPWP NA 0.88
LIG
NA 0.90
1
1.79
2
1.20
PI
3
1.20
4
1.78
5
1.26
mPWP NA 0.88
LIG
NA 0.93
1
1.82
2
1.70
PI
3
1.88
4
1.90
5
1.57
mPWP NA 0.89
LIG
NA 0.88
PI
NA 0.96
mPWP NA 0.78
LIG
NA 0.92
PI
NA 0.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Table S3 | Comparisons of multi-dimensional niches. P-values for multi-dimensional
niche comparison tests (1) using a PCA applied to all six environmental variables; (2)
using raw average bottom temperature and maximum surface temperature; and (3) using
ENMTools on projections of ecological niche models. Bold values indicate nonsignificant results. All significant results (P<0.05) indicate niches are statistically more
similar than expected given the environmental background of the time slices, except for
the result with the asterisk, which indicates this niche comparison was statistically
dissimilar. Note that it is possible for two niches to be more similar than expected based
on the environment available for one time slice, but less similar than expected based on
the environment available for the other. For tests using a PCA applied to the three most
important environmental variables, see Table 1 in the main manuscript.
Species/Comparison
mPWP–LIG
LIG–mPWP
PI–LIG
LIG–PI
mPWP–PI
PI–mPWP
Gastropoda
Bivalvia
Environmental comparison: p-values for tests using PCA on all 6 variables
Anomia simplex
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
Crassostrea virginica
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
Dinocardium robustum
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
Lucina pensylvanica
0.16
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.14
0.00
Mercenaria campechiensis 0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
Bulla occidentalis
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.00
Crepidula fornicata
0.11
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
Neverita duplicata
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
Oliva sayana
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
Terebra dislocata
0.06
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
Gastropoda
Bivalvia
Environmental comparison: p-values for tests using raw temperature variables
Anomia simplex
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Crassostrea virginica
<0.05
NS
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
NS
Dinocardium robustum
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Lucina pensylvanica
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Mercenaria campechiensis <0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Bulla occidentalis
NS
NS
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
NS
Crepidula fornicata
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Neverita duplicata
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Oliva sayana
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
NS
Terebra dislocata
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Gastropoda
Bivalvia
Geographic comparison: p-values for tests using ecological niche models
Anomia simplex
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Crassostrea virginica
NS
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Dinocardium robustum
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Lucina pensylvanica
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
NS
Mercenaria campechiensis <0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Bulla occidentalis
<0.05*
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
NS
Crepidula fornicata
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Neverita duplicata
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Oliva sayana
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Terebra dislocata
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
9