Drivers of fossil sampling heterogeneity: lessons from planktonic foraminifera

Abstract The fossil record is subject to multiple biases that can distort macroevolutionary and paleoecological inferences. Although temporal and spatial sampling biases have received substantial attention, other sources of fossil sampling heterogeneity remain less well quantified. Using the Triton database of planktonic foraminifera, we assess the influence of geographic, ecological, morphological, and methodological factors on fossil recovery rates. We first apply a temporal subsampling method to standardize fossil occurrences over geologic time, validating this approach against an expert-curated lineage-through-time trajectory. After subsampling, the occurrences remain unevenly distributed throughout species’ lifetimes and inhomogeneously distributed across species, reflecting biological signal and/or persistent sampling biases. We then investigate this residual sampling heterogeneity with a generalized additive model incorporating relevant predictors from Triton. Our results reveal that, after correcting for temporal biases, geographic predictors (paleolatitude, paleolongitude, longitudinal spread) explain nearly a third of sampling variation. Species-specific ecological and morphological attributes contribute an additional fraction, among which mean relative abundance emerges as the main factor. Additional predictors of fossil sampling rates include age-calculation methods and biostratigraphic sampling biases. Despite accounting for multiple sources of variation, 37% of the deviance remains unexplained, suggesting unmodeled biological, stratigraphic, diagenetic, or taxonomic drivers of sampling heterogeneity. Overall, observed recovery rates question the validity of the homogeneous-sampling assumption used in most diversification models, and this heterogeneity cannot be reduced to a single dominant factor. This conclusion reinforces the need for integrated subsampling approaches and process-based models that explicitly account for heterogeneous fossilization rates to improve the reliability of macroevolutionary analyses.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Paleobiology
Published
2026-03-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/pab.2026.10094
Primary Topic
Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Drivers of fossil sampling heterogeneity: lessons from planktonic foraminifera

Isabel S. Fenton, Erin E. Saupe, Jérémy Andréoletti, Hélène Morlon
Paleobiology
Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
article

Drivers of fossil sampling heterogeneity: lessons from planktonic foraminifera

Isabel S. Fenton, Erin E. Saupe, Jérémy Andréoletti, Hélène Morlon
article en

Abstract

Abstract The fossil record is subject to multiple biases that can distort macroevolutionary and paleoecological inferences. Although temporal and spatial sampling biases have received substantial attention, other sources of fossil sampling heterogeneity remain less well quantified. Using the Triton database of planktonic foraminifera, we assess the influence of geographic, ecological, morphological, and methodological factors on fossil recovery rates. We first apply a temporal subsampling method to standardize fossil occurrences over geologic time, validating this approach against an expert-curated lineage-through-time trajectory. After subsampling, the occurrences remain unevenly distributed throughout species’ lifetimes and inhomogeneously distributed across species, reflecting biological signal and/or persistent sampling biases. We then investigate this residual sampling heterogeneity with a generalized additive model incorporating relevant predictors from Triton. Our results reveal that, after correcting for temporal biases, geographic predictors (paleolatitude, paleolongitude, longitudinal spread) explain nearly a third of sampling variation. Species-specific ecological and morphological attributes contribute an additional fraction, among which mean relative abundance emerges as the main factor. Additional predictors of fossil sampling rates include age-calculation methods and biostratigraphic sampling biases. Despite accounting for multiple sources of variation, 37% of the deviance remains unexplained, suggesting unmodeled biological, stratigraphic, diagenetic, or taxonomic drivers of sampling heterogeneity. Overall, observed recovery rates question the validity of the homogeneous-sampling assumption used in most diversification models, and this heterogeneity cannot be reduced to a single dominant factor. This conclusion reinforces the need for integrated subsampling approaches and process-based models that explicitly account for heterogeneous fossilization rates to improve the reliability of macroevolutionary analyses.

Paleobiology
University of Oxford (GB), The Alan Turing Institute (GB), Institut de Biologie de l'École Normale Supérieure (FR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.