Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T03:23:46.237Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Local variability of taphonomic attributes in a parautochthonous assemblage: can taphonomic signature distinguish a heterogeneous environment?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

George M. Staff  and
Eric N. Powell
George M. Staff
Affiliation:
Water Use Section, Texas Water Commission, P.O. Box 13087, Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78711
Eric N. Powell
Affiliation:
Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University, College Station 77843
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Taphofacies have been based on the likelihood that considerable variability exists in taphonomic processes between different environments and that this variability produces predictable variations in taphonomic signature between assemblages. Three stations above storm wave base that differed little in sediment texture and depth were sampled on the inner continental shelf of central Texas. Taphonomic analysis revealed subtle gradients in sediment grain size and water depth that would not be revealed by most other analyses. These gradients may exist over very small spatial scales, equivalent to those within a single extensive outcrop. Not all taphonomic attributes are equally likely to be preserved in the fossil record. Those varying with depth in our study area, such as fragmentation and articulation, are more likely to be preserved than those documenting changes in sediment texture, such as variation in the frequency of dissolution features on the shells. Nevertheless, siting and sampling protocols are important when characterizing a taphofacies because within-habitat variation is potentially as large as between-habitat variation. Description of the average taphofacies for an environment must include documentation of the variation in taphonomic attributes within the sampled area because few conservative taphonomic attributes exist. Fragments, even those that are unidentifiable, retain significant taphonomic information and should not be ignored. Careful sampling should permit the simultaneous description of general taphofacies as well as the detection of important but unsuspected gradients in the environment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 64 , Issue 4 , July 1990 , pp. 648 - 658
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.)

References

Brett, C. E., and Baird, G. C. 1986. Comparative taphonomy: a key to paleoenvironmental interpretation based on fossil preservation. Palaios, 1:207–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, L. F. Jr., Brewton, J. L., McGowen, J. H., Evans, T. J., Fisher, W. L., and Groat, C. G. 1976. Environmental geologic atlas of the Texas coastal zone—Corpus Christi area. Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin, 123 p.Google Scholar
Callender, W. R., Staff, G. M., Powell, E. N., and MacDonald, I. R. In press. Gulf of Mexico hydrocarbon seep communities. V. Biofacies and shell orientation of autochthonous shell beds. Palaios.Google Scholar
Cummins, H., Powell, E. N., Newton, H. J., Stanton, R. J. Jr., and Staff, G. 1986a. Assessing transportation by the covariance of species with comments on contagious and random distributions. Lethaia, 19:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, H., Powell, E. N., Stanton, R. J. Jr., and Staff, G. 1986b. The rate of taphonomic loss in modern benthic habitats: how much of the potentially preservable community is preserved? Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology. Palaeoecology, 52:291–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, H., Powell, E. N., Stanton, R. J. Jr., and Staff, G. 1986c. The size-frequency distribution in palaeoecology: the effects of taphonomic processes during formation of death assemblages in Texas bays. Palaeontology, 29:495–518.Google Scholar
Curray, J. R. 1960. Sediments and history of Holocene transgression, continental shelf, northwest Gulf of Mexico, p. 221–266. In Shepard, F. P., Phleger, F. B., and van Andel, T. H. (eds.), Recent Sediments, Northwest Gulf of Mexico. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.Google Scholar
Davies, D. J., Powell, E. N., and Stanton, R. J. Jr. 1989. Taphonomic signature as a function of environmental process: shells and shell beds in a hurricane-influenced inlet on the Texas coast. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 72:317–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, D. J., Staff, G. M., Callender, W. R., and Powell, E. N. In press. Description of a more quantitative approach to taphonomy and taphofacies analysis: all dead things are not created equal. Special Publication (Paleontological Society).Google Scholar
Dörjes, J., Frey, R. W., and Howard, J. D. 1986. Origins of, and mechanisms for, mollusk shell accumulations on Georgia beaches. Senckenbergiana Maritima, 18:1–43.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, M. G., Parmenter, C. M., and Milliman, J. D. 1979. Particulate calcium carbonate in New England shelf water: result of shell degradation and resuspension. Sedimentology, 26:853–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, R. W., and Dörjes, J. 1988. Carbonate skeletal remains in beach-to-offshore sediments, Pensacola, Florida. Senckenbergiana Maritima, 20:31–57.Google Scholar
Frey, R. W., Hong, J.-S., and Hayes, W. B. 1988. Physical and biological aspects of shell accumulation on a modern macrotidal flat, Inchon, Korea. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 22:267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, R. W., and Howard, J. D. 1986. Taphonomic characteristics of offshore mollusk shells; Sapelo Island, Georgia. Tulane Studies in Geology and Paleontology, 19:51–61.Google Scholar
Fürsich, F. T., and Werner, W. 1986. Benthic associations and their environmental significance in the Lusitanian Basin (Upper Jurassic, Portugal). Neues Jahrbuch fuer Geologie und Palaeontologie Abhandlung, 172:271–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, S. W., and Frey, R. W. 1986. Taphonomic redistribution of mollusk shells in a tidal inlet channel, Sapelo Island, Georgia. Palaios, 1:3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, W. K., Driscoll, D. M., and McCormack, J. P. 1983. Hurricanes on the Texas coast. Texas A&M University, Sea Grant College Program, TAMU-SG-75-504, 48 p.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 1989. Stratigraphic condensation of marine transgressive records: origin of major shell deposits in the Miocene of Maryland. Journal of Geology, 97:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, S. M., and Behrensmeyer, A. K. 1988. Overview: ecological and evolutionary implications of taphonomic processes. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 63:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. E., and Wright, R. C. 1988. Information loss in the transition from life to death assemblages of foraminifera in back reef environments, Key Largo, Florida. Journal of Paleontology, 62:399–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, A. I. 1988. Spatial resolution in subfossil molluscan remains: implications for paleobiological analyses. Paleobiology, 14:91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, K. B., Brett, C. E., and Parsons, K. M. 1988. The paleoecologic significance of storm-generated disturbance within a Middle Devonian muddy epeiric sea. Palaios, 3:35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, R. D. 1986. Taphonomic gradients in shelf fossil assemblages: Pliocene Purisima Formation, California. Palaios, 1:256–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulicek, M., Jaspar-Versali, M. F., and Goffinet, G. 1981. Étude expérimentale de la dégradation des coquilles de mollusques au niveau des sédiments marins. Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 50:513–518.Google Scholar
Powell, E. N., White, M. E., Wilson, E. A., and Ray, S. M. 1987. Small-scale spatial distribution of oysters (Crassostrea virginica) on oyster reefs. Bulletin of Marine Science, 41:835–855.Google Scholar
Powell, E. N., Staff, G. M., Davies, D. J., and Callender, W. R. 1989. Macrobenthic death assemblages in modern marine environments: formation, interpretation and application. Critical Reviews in Aquatic Sciences, 1:555–589.Google Scholar
Snedden, J. W., Nummendal, D., and Amos, A. F. 1988. Storm- and fair-weather combined flow on the central Texas continental shelf. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 58:580–595.Google Scholar
Speyer, S. E., and Brett, C. E. 1986. Trilobite taphonomy and Middle Devonian taphofacies. Palaios, 1:312–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speyer, S. E., and Brett, C. E. 1988. Taphofacies models for epeiric sea environments: middle Paleozoic examples. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 63:225–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staff, G. M., and Powell, E. N. 1988. The paleoecological significance of diversity: the effect of time averaging and differential preservation on macroinvertebrate species richness in death assemblages. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 63:73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staff, G. M., and Powell, E. N. In press. Taphonomic signature and the imprint of taphonomic history: discriminating between taphofacies of the inner continental shelf and a microtidal inlet. Special Publications (Paleontological Society).Google Scholar
Tanabe, K.Fujiki, T., and Katsuta, T. 1986. Comparative analysis of living and dead bivalve assemblages on the Kawarazu shore, Elime Perfecture, west Japan. Benthos Research (Bulletin of the Japanese Association of Benthology), 30:17–30.Google Scholar