Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T08:14:14.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biodiversity of Shallow-Water Red Sea Echinoids: Implications For the Fossil Record

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

James H. Nebelsick
James H. Nebelsick
Affiliation:
Institute for Geology and Palaeontology, University of Tübingen, SigwartstraBe 10, D-72076, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Determination of fossil echinoid diversities is an important aspect of detailed palaeon- tological studies. The comparison of recent and fossil associations can be used to elucidate the problems of determination of fossil echinoid distributions. Actuopalaeontological studies of echinoids from the Red Sea (northern Bay of Safaga, Egypt) have shown that the study of fragments within bulk sediment samples greatly increased the possibilities for determining echinoid presence and distribution. The results show the restricted distribution as well as the differential preservation potential of the various echinoids.

The distribution of echinoids is primarily controlled by grain size, food availability, exposure to current activity, and predation pressure. Regular and irregular sea-urchins show the expected disjunct distributions with the former showing a more undifferentiated distribution to various hard substrates. Irregular echinoids are tightly restricted to particular types of soft substrates reflecting their adaptation to the specific grain size of the sediments. Co-occurring irregular sea-urchins show a spatial differentiation into shallow (clypeasteroids) and deeper burrowers (spatangoids). This investigation shows that important echinoid species known to occur in the Red Sea are lacking or are very rare within the study area, although a large number of different facies types are present. Patchy distributions are present for both regular and irregular sea-urchins. The determination of biodiversity is therefore seen to be largely dependent on the scale of investigation.

An important implication for fossil echinoid presence are the differential effects of taphonomic agents on the various test architectures. Some species are well represented due to their common occurrences, and their comparatively robust tests or test fragments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , February 1996 , pp. 185 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1996

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

Allison, P. A. & Briggs, D.E.G., 1993. Exceptional fossil record: distribution of soft-tissue preservation through the Phanerozoic. Geology, 21, 527–530.Google Scholar
Beer, M. De, 1990. Distribution patterns of regular sea urchins (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) across the Spermonde Shelf, SW Sulawesi (Indonesia). In Echinoderm research (ed. C., De Ridder et al.), pp. 165–169. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.Google Scholar
Benton, M.J., 1985. Mass extinction among non-marine tetrapods. Nature, London, 316, 811–814.Google Scholar
Benton, M.J., 1989. Mass extinctions among tetrapods and the quality of the fossil record. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 325, 369–386.Google ScholarPubMed
Carter, B.D. & McKinney, M.L., 1992. Eocene echinoids, the Suwannee Strait, and biogeographic taphonomy. Paleobiology, 18, 299–325.Google Scholar
Clark, A.M. & Rowe, F.W.E., 1971. Shallow-water Indo-West Pacific echinoderms. London: Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History).Google Scholar
Dullo, W.-C., 1983. Diagenesis of fossils of the Miocene Leitha limestones of the Paratethys, Austria: an example for faunal modifications due to changing diagenetic environments. Facies, 8, 1–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebert, T.A., 1971. A preliminary quantitative survey of the echinoid fauna of Kealakekua and Honaunau Bays, Hawaii. Pacific Science, 25, 112–131.Google Scholar
Ernst, G., Hahnel, G.W. & Seibertz, E., 1973. Aktuopaläontologie und Merkmalsvariabilität bei mediterranen Echiniden und Rückschliisse auf die Ökologie und Artumgrenzung fossiler Formen. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 47, 188–216.Google Scholar
Ghiold, J. & Hoffman, A., 1986. Biogeography and biogeographic history of clypeasteroid echinoids. Journal of Biogeography, 13, 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghiold, J. & Hoffman, A., 1989. Biogeography of spatangoid echinoids. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Palaontologie, Abhandlungen, 178, 59–83.Google Scholar
Greenstein, B.J., 1989. Mass mortality of the West-Indian echinoid Diadema antillarium (Echinodermata: Echinoidea): a natural experiment in taphonomy. Palaios, 4, 487–492.Google Scholar
Greenstein, B.J., 1993. Is the fossil record of regular echinoids really so poor? A comparison of living and subfossil assemblages. Palaios, 8, 587–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenstein, B.J. & Meyer, D.L., 1990. Mass mortality of the West-Indian echinoid Diadema antillarium adjacent to Andros Island, Bahamas. A natural experiment in taphonomy. In Symposium on the geology of the Bahamas (ed. J., Mylorie and D., Gerace), pp. 159–168. San Salvador: Bahamian Field Station.Google Scholar
Hohenegger, J. & Tatzreiter, F., 1992. Morphometric methods in determination of ammonite species, exemplified through Balatonites shells (Middle Triassic), Journal of Palaeontology, 66, 801–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, S.M. & Baumiller, T., 1990. Experimental disintegration of regular echinoids: roles of temperature, oxygen and decay thresholds. Paleobiology, 16, 247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kier, P.M., 1975. The echinoids of Carrie Bow Cay, Belize. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 206, 1–45.Google Scholar
Kier, P.M., 1977. The poor fossil record of the regular echinoids. Paleobiology, 3, 168–174.Google Scholar
Kier, P.M. & Grant, R.E., 1965. Echinoid distribution and habits, Key Largo Coral Reef Preserve, Florida. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 149(6), 1–68.Google Scholar
Kleemann, K., 1992. Coral communities and coral-bivalve associations in the northern Red Sea at Safaga, Egypt, Fades, 26, 125–134.Google Scholar
McNamara, K.J., 1987. Taxonomy, evolution, and functional morphology of southern Australian Tertiary hemiasterid echinoids. Palaeontology, 30, 312–325.Google Scholar
Mergner, H. & Schuhmacher, H., 1974. Morphologie, Ökologie und Zonierung von Korallenriffen bei Aqaba, (Gulf von Aqaba, Rotes Meer). Helgoländer Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen, 26, 238–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nebelsick, J.H., 1992a. Echinoid distribution by fragment identification in the northern Bay of Safaga, Red Sea, Egypt. Palaios, 7, 316–328.Google Scholar
Nebelsick, J.H., 1992b. The northern Bay of Safaga (Red Sea, Egypt): an actuopalaeontological approach. III. Distribution of echinoids. Beiträge zur Paläontologie von Österreich, 17, 5–79.Google Scholar
Piller, W., 1994. The northern Bay of Safaga (Red Sea, Egypt): an actuopalaeontological approach. IV. Thin section analysis. Beitrage zur Palaontologie von Osterreich, 18, 1–73.Google Scholar
Piller, W. & Mansour, A.M., 1990. The northern Bay of Safaga (Red Sea, Egypt): an actuopalaeontological approach. II. Sediment analysis and sedimentary facies. Beitrage zur Palaontologie von Osterreich, 16, 1–102.Google Scholar
Piller, W. & Pervesler, P., 1989. The northern Bay of Safaga (Red Sea, Egypt): an actuopalaeontological approach. I. Topography and bottom facies. Beitrage zur Palaontologie von Osterreich, 15, 103–147.Google Scholar
Poddubiuk, R.H., 1985. Evolution and adaptation in some Caribbean Oligo-Miocene Clypeasters. In Echinodermata (ed. B.B., Keegan and B.D.S., O'conner), pp. 75–80. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.Google Scholar
Price, A.R.G., 1981. Studies on the echinoderm fauna of the western Arabian Gulf. Journal of Natural History, 15, 1–15.Google Scholar
Price, A.R.G., 1983. Echinoderms of Saudi Arabia. Echinoderms of the Arabian Gulf coast of Saudi Arabia. Fauna of Saudi Arabia, 5, 28–108.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M., 1976. Species diversities in the Phanerozoic: a tabulation. Paleobiology, 2, 279–288.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M. & Sepkoski, J.J. Jr 1986. Periodic extinction of families and genera, Science, New York, 231, 833–836.Google Scholar
Rose, E.P.F., 1984. Problems and principles of Neogene echinoid biostratigraphy. Annales Geologiques Pays Helleniques, 32, 171–181.Google Scholar
Sloan, N.A., Clark, A.M. & Taylor, J.D., 1979. The echinoderms of Aldabra and their habitats. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Zoology), 37, 81–128.Google Scholar
Smith, A.B., 1978. The comparative study on the life styles of two Jurassic irregular echinoids. Lethaia, 11, 57–66.Google Scholar
Smith, A.B., 1994. Sytematics and the fossil record, documenting evolutionary patterns. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A.B. & Patterson, C., 1988. The influence of taxonomic method on the perception of patterns of evolution. Evolutionary Biology, 23, 127–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar