Hostname: page-component-669899f699-rg895 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-29T11:04:03.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Importance of hydrodynamic lift to crinoid autecology, or, could crinoids function as kites?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Tomasz K. Baumiller
Tomasz K. Baumiller*
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus 43210-1398
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The importance of hydrodynamic lift to the autecology of stalked crinoids was evaluated by comparing the maximum hydrodynamic lift experienced by the crinoid crown to the weight of the crinoid in water. Results of the analysis suggest that even under optimum conditions a current velocity of over 20 cm/s would be required to produce enough lift to overcome the animals' weight in water. This implies that under normal conditions crinoids could not function as kites, using the stalk as a tether, unless they possessed some means of reducing their densities. Lift, however, may play a role in the reorientation of crinoids in response to current direction changes, and also in elevating the crown above the substrate following dislodgement or crawling.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 66 , Issue 4 , July 1992 , pp. 658 - 665
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ausich, W. I. 1980. A model for niche differentiation in Lower Mississippian crinoid communities. Journal of Paleontology, 54:279–288.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1986. Paleoecology and history of the Calceocrinidae (Paleozoic Crinoidea). Palaeontology, 29:85–99.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1988. Effects of filter porosity and shape on fluid flux: implications for the biology and the evolutionary history of stalked crinoids [no pagination]. In Burke, R. D., Mladenov, P. V., and Parsley, R. L. (eds.), Echinoderm Biology: Proceedings of the Sixth International Echinoderm Conference, Victoria, 1987. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1990. Crinoid functional morphology and the energetics of passive suspension feeding: implications to the evolutionary history of Paleozoic Crinoidea. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Chicago, 150 p.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., and LaBarbera, M. 1989. Metabolic rates of Caribbean crinoids (Echinodermata), with special reference to deep-water stalked and stalkless taxa. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 93A:391–394.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., LaBarbera, M., and Woodley, J. D.In press. Ecology and functional morphology of the isocrinid Cenocrinus asterius (Linnaeus) (Echinodermata: Crinoidea): in situ and laboratory experiments and observations. Bulletin of Marine Science.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., and Plotnick, R. E. 1989. Rotational stability in stalked crinoids and the function of wing plates in Pterotocrinus depressus. Lethaia, 22:317–326.Google Scholar
Breimer, A., and Webster, G. D. 1975. A further contribution to the paleoecology of fossil stalked crinoids. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie Van Wetenschapen Proceedings, Series B, 80:149–167.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E. 1981. Systematics and paleoecology of Late Silurian (Wenlockian) calceocrinid crinoids from New York and Ontario. Journal of Paleontology, 55:145–175.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1966. Functional morphology of Calceocrinidae with descriptions of some new species. Journal of Paleontology, 40:613–634.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1973. Crinoids from the Girardeau Limestone (Ordovician). Palaeontographica Americana, 46:1–499.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1977. Calceocrinids from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of southern Oklahoma. Circular of the Oklahoma Geological Survey, 78:1–27.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1987. The relations between allometry, phylogeny, and functional morphology in some calceocrinid crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 61:999–1032.Google Scholar
Cain, J. D. B. 1968. Aspects of the depositional environment and paleoecology of crinoidal limestones. Scottish Journal of Geology, 4:191–208.Google Scholar
Denny, M. W. 1988. Biology and the Mechanics of the Wave-swept Environments. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 329 p.Google Scholar
Gislén, T. 1924. Echinoderm studies. Zoologiska Bidrag från Uppsala, 9:1–316.Google Scholar
Haude, R. 1972. Bau und Funktion der Scyphocrinites-Lobolithen. Lethaia, 5:95–125.Google Scholar
Hoerner, S. F., and Borst, H. V. 1975. Fluid-dynamic Lift. Hoerner Fluid Dynamics, P.O. Box 342, Brick Town, New Jersey, 535 p.Google Scholar
Holland, N. D., Strickler, J. R., and Leonard, A. B. 1986. Particle interception, transport and rejection by the feather star Oligometra serripinna (Echinodermata: Crinoidea), studied by frame analysis of video tapes. Marine Biology, 93:111–126.Google Scholar
Kesling, R. V., and Sigler, J. A. 1969. Cunctocrinus, a new Middle Devonian calceocrinid crinoid from the Silica Shale of Ohio. Paleontological Contributions, University of Michigan Museum, 22:339–360.Google Scholar
Lahaye, M. C., and Jangoux, M. 1985. Functional morphology of the podia and ambulacral grooves of the comatulid crinoid Antedon bifida (Echinodermata). Marine Biology, 86:307–318.Google Scholar
Leonard, A. B. 1989. Functional response in Antedon mediterranea (Lamarck) (Echinodermata: Crinoidea): the interaction of prey concentration and current velocity on a passive suspension-feeder. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 127:81–103.Google Scholar
Macurda, D. B., and Meyer, D. L. 1974. Feeding posture of modern stalked crinoids. Nature, 247:394–396.Google Scholar
Magnus, D. B. E. 1963. Der Federstern Heterometra savignyi im Roten Meer. Natur und Museum (Frankfurt), 93:355–368.Google Scholar
Messing, C. G. 1985. Submersible observations of deep-water crinoid assemblages in the tropical western Atlantic Ocean, p. 185–193. In Keegan, B. F. and O'Connor, B. D. F. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Echinoderm Conference, Galway, 1984. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Messing, C. G., Neumann, C. G., and Lang, J. C. 1990. Biozonation of deep-water lithoherms and associated hardgrounds in the northeastern Straits of Florida. Palaios, 5:15–33.Google Scholar
Messing, C. G., Rosesmyth, M. C., Mailer, S. R., and Miller, J. E. 1988. Relocation movement in a stalked crinoid (Echinodermata). Bulletin of Marine Science, 42:480–487.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. 1962. Revision of the Calceocrinidae. Paleontological Contributions, University of Kansas, Echinodermata, Article 4:1–40.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, H. W. 1977. Function and attachment of the stem in Isocrinidae and Pentacrinidae: review and interpretation. Lethaia, 10:51–57.Google Scholar
Roux, M. 1980. Les Crinoïdes pédonculés (Echinodermes) photographiés sur les dorsales océaniques de l'Atlantique et du Pacifique. Implications biogéographiques. Comptes Rendu Academie Science, Paris, Serie D, 291:901–904.Google Scholar
Roux, M. 1987. Evolutionary ecology and biogeography of recent stalked crinoids as a model for the fossil record, p. 1–53. In Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J. M. (eds.), Echinoderm Studies 2. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Shapiro, A. H. 1961. Shape and Flow. Doubleday and Company, Garden City, New York, 186 p.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1926. American Silurian crinoids. Smithsonian Institution Publication, 2871:1–239.Google Scholar
Vogel, S. 1981. Life in Moving Fluids. Willard Grant Press, Boston, 325 p.Google Scholar
Warner, S. 1977. On the shape of passive suspension feeders, p. 567–576. In Keegan, B. F., Ceidigh, P. O., and Boaden, P. J. S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium on Marine Biology, Galway, 1976. Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar