Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Nutrient-dependent growth underpinned the Ediacaran transition to large body size

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 1, pages 1201–1204 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Macroscale rangeomorph fossils, with characteristic branching fronds, appear (571 Myr ago) after the Gaskiers glaciation (580 Myr ago). However, biological mechanisms of size growth and potential connections to ocean geochemistry were untested. Using micro-computerized tomography and photographic measurements, alongside mathematical and computer models, we demonstrate that growth of rangeomorph branch internodes declined as their relative surface area decreased. This suggests that frond size and shape were directly responsive to nutrient uptake.

Early representatives of the Ediacaran macrobiota include the rangeomorphs, characterized by an approximately fractal, branching morphology1,2. Reaching up to 2 m in length3, rangeomorphs from the Drook Formation, Newfoundland (571 Myr ago4) show a size increase of one to two orders of magnitude in comparison with most earlier organisms5,6 (though see also refs 7,8). Their large size and morphological differentiation (with a frond and holdfast) class rangeomorphs within the major evolutionary transition to complex multicellularity5,6,9. Furthermore, geological evidence for deep-marine habitats rules out photosynthesis but is compatible with heterotrophy10. Consequently, they are widely viewed as, at least, opisthokonts and, probably, early metazoans11. A key question, then, is why large rangeomorph fossils appeared suddenly3, potentially 1 billion years after eukaryotes first evolved8 but some 30 Myr before the Cambrian explosion of animal diversity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Retrodeformed stem diameter measured from a 3D micro-CT volume rendering of A. abaculus cast ROM 63005.
Figure 2: Sequential stem internode volumes and lengths, from micro-CT and digital photographs of rangeomorph specimens.
Figure 3: Computer simulations of rangeomorph internode size growth.

References

  1. Narbonne, G. M. Science 305, 1141–1144 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hoyal Cuthill, J. F. & Conway Morris, S. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 13122–13126 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Narbonne, G. M. & Gehling, J. G. Geology 31, 27–30 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pu, J. P. et al. Geology 44, 955–958 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Butterfield, N. J. Precambrian Res. 173, 201–211 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Payne, J. L. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 24–27 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yuan, X., Chen, Z., Xiao, C., Zhou, C. & Hua, H. Nature 470, 390–393 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhu, S. et al. Nat. Commun. 7, 11500 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Szathmary, E. & Maynard Smith, J. Nature 374, 227–232 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sperling, E. A., Peterson, K. J. & Laflamme, M. Geobiology 9, 24–33 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Narbonne, G. M., Laflamme, M., Greentree, C. & Trusler, P. J. Paleontol. 83, 503–523 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Laflamme, M., Xiao, S. & Kowalewski, M. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 14438–14443 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Canfield, D. E., Poulton, S. W. & Narbonne, G. M. Science 315, 92–95 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Runnegar, B. Alcheringa 6, 223–239 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Garcia Camacho, F. et al. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 73, 525–532 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mills, D. B. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 4168–4172 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Budd, G. E. & Jensen, S. Biol. Rev. 92, 446–473 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cavalier-Smith, T. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 372, 20151476 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ghisalberti, M. et al. Curr. Biol. 24, 305–309 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Brasier, M. D. & Antcliffe, J. B. J. Geol. Soc. London 166, 363–384 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sahoo, S. K. et al. Nature 489, 546–549 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sperling, E. A. et al. Nature 523, 451–454 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Niklas, K. J. Ann. Bot 75, 217–227 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Specimen number ROM 63005 was loaned by the Royal Ontario Museum with the permission of the Rooms Museum, Newfoundland. CT-scanning was conducted by R. Asher at the Cambridge Biotomography Centre. Access to the specimen of Fig. 2d was provided at the South Australian Museum by J. Gehling and M.-A. Binnie, who found this fossil. This research was funded by an ELSI Origins Network (EON) Research Fellowship to J.F.H.C., supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation, and Palaeontological Association Research Grant number PA-RG201501 (J.F.H.C.). We thank N. Butterfield, A. Caulton and E. Smith for discussion of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Earth-Life Science Institute, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, 152-8550, Japan

    Jennifer F. Hoyal Cuthill

  2. Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3EQ, UK

    Jennifer F. Hoyal Cuthill & Simon Conway Morris

Authors
  1. Jennifer F. Hoyal Cuthill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon Conway Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.F.H.C. designed and carried out the analysis; J.F.H.C. and S.C.M. co-wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer F. Hoyal Cuthill.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Figures 1–12, Supplementary References

Supplementary Tables

Supplementary Tables 1–5

Supplementary Code

Computer simulation code, MATLAB script in txt format

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hoyal Cuthill, J.F., Conway Morris, S. Nutrient-dependent growth underpinned the Ediacaran transition to large body size. Nat Ecol Evol 1, 1201–1204 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0222-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0222-7

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing