Four documented examples, each tied to its actual context, are:
- Geographic range: widespread marine bivalve genera survived the end-Cretaceous event better than geographically restricted genera. Spatial spread can reduce exposure to some geographically heterogeneous stresses, although this does not guarantee survival of a global perturbation.[ref]Selectivity of end-Cretaceous marine bivalve extinctions by David Jablonski and others. Abstract: lower extinction intensity in geographically widespread genera
- Body size: large-bodied mammals were disproportionately lost during the late Quaternary. The global analysis documents size selectivity across continents and trophic groups; this is not evidence that large body size always raises extinction risk in every geological interval.[ref]Body size downgrading of mammals over the late Quaternary by Felisa Smith and others. Abstract: size-selective losses over the studied late-Quaternary intervals
- Physiological buffering and respiratory capacity: poor capacity to tolerate elevated carbon dioxide and associated oxygen stress has been linked to higher vulnerability among end-Permian marine groups. This is a paleophysiological interpretation informed by living relatives and fossil traits, rather than a direct measurement of a fossil animal’s tolerance.[ref]Paleophysiology and end-Permian mass extinction by Andrew H. Knoll and others. Abstract and section Extinction in the oceans: hypercapnia vulnerability and physiological selectivity
- Sexual dimorphism as a proxy for male reproductive investment: greater male–female carapace differences in fossil cytheroid ostracods were associated with higher estimated extinction rates. The measured fossil trait is dimorphism; interpreting it as investment requires the biological correspondence observed in living relatives.[ref]High male sexual investment as a driver of extinction in fossil ostracods by Maria João Fernandes Martins and others. Abstract: dimorphic fossil carapaces and association with estimated extinction rates
These examples demonstrate event- and group-dependent selectivity. They do not define one universal vulnerability ranking: the bivalve study, for instance, did not find body-size selectivity at the same end-Cretaceous genus-level event.
Articles by others on the same topic
There are currently no matching articles.