Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:48:29.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is predation intensity reduced with increasing depth? Evidence from the west Atlantic stalked crinoid Endoxocrinus parrae (Gervais) and implications for the Mesozoic marine revolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Tatsuo Oji
Tatsuo Oji*
Affiliation:
Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The number of regenerated arms was counted on specimens of two distinct phenotypes of the stalked crinoid Endoxocrinus parrae (Gervais) from a wide bathymetric range in the Caribbean (178-723 m). In one phenotype, the sample was divided into two groups, one from shallower (< 500 m) depths, the other from deeper (≥ 500 m); in the other phenotype the group divided at 550 m. In both phenotypes, the frequency of regenerated arms is significantly higher in specimens from shallower water than in those from deeper water. If the regenerated arms in Endoxocrinus parrae were the result of sublethal predation, as previously suggested, then predation intensity is higher in shallow water than deep water. These results are consistent with the idea of the late Mesozoic marine revolution—that there has been stronger predation on various invertebrates in shallow-water environments since the late Mesozoic. The stalked crinoids may have been unable to cope with increased predation in shelf environments, and they migrated to offshore environments.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , Summer 1996 , pp. 339 - 351
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

Literature Cited

Amemiya, S., and Oji, T. 1992. Regeneration in sea lilies. Nature 357:546–547.Google Scholar
Aronson, R. B. 1987. Predation on fossil and Recent ophiuroids. Paleobiology 13:187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, R. B. 1989. A community-level test of the Mesozoic marine revolution theory. Paleobiology 15:20–25.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., LaBarbera, M., and Woodley, J. D. 1991. Ecology and functional morphology of the isocrinid Cenocrinus asterius (Linnaeus) (Echinodermata: Crinoidea): in situ and laboratory experiments and observations. Bulletin of Marine Science 48:731–748.Google Scholar
Bottjer, D.J., and Jablonski, D. 1988. Paleoenvironmental patterns in the evolution of post-Paleozoic benthic marine invertebrates. Palaios 3:540–560.Google Scholar
Clark, H. L. 1941. Reports on the scientific results of the Atlantis Expeditions to the West Indies, under the joint auspices of the University of Havana and Harvard University. The Echinoderms (other than holothurians). Memorias de la Sociedad Cubana de Historia Natural 15:1–149.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K., and Pawson, D. L. In press. Proximal growth of the column in bathycrinid crinoids (Echinodermata) following decapitation. Bulletin of Marine Science.Google Scholar
Eagle, M. K. 1993. A new fossil isocrinid crinoid from the late Oligocene of Waitete Bay, northern Coromandel. Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum 30:1–12.Google Scholar
Hansen, T. A., and Kelley, P. H. 1995. Spatial variation of naticid gastropod predation in the Eocene of North America. Palaios 10:268–278.Google Scholar
Hess, H., and Holenweg, H. 1985. Die Begleitfauna auf den Seelilienbänken im mittleren Dogger des Shweizer Jura. Tätigkeitsberichte Naturforschende Gesellschaft Baselland 33:141–177.Google Scholar
Messing, C. G. 1984. Submersible observations of deep-water crinoid assemblages in the tropical western Atlantic Ocean. pp. 185–193In Keegan, B. F. and O'Connor, B. D. F, eds. Proceedings of the Fifth International Echinoderm Conference, Galway. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.CrossRefGoogle 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
Meyer, D. L. 1985. Evolutionary implications of predation on Recent comatulid crinoids from the Great Barrier Reef. Paleobiology 11:154–164.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L., and Macurda, D. B. Jr. 1977. Adaptive radiation of the comatulid crinoids. Paleobiology 3:74–82.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L., and Oji, T. 1993. Eocene crinoids from Seymour Island, Antarctic Peninsula: paleobiogeographic and paleoecologic implications. Journal of Paleontology 67:250–257.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L., Messing, C. G., and Macurda, D. B. Jr. 1978. Zoogeography of tropical western Atlantic Crinoidea (Echinodermata). Bulletin of Marine Science 28:412–441.Google Scholar
Milner, G. J. 1989. The first record of an isocrinid crinoid from the Tertiary of Australia. Records of the West Australian Museum 14:385–389.Google Scholar
Oji, T. 1986. Skeletal variation related to arm regeneration in Metacrinus and Saracrinus, Recent stalked crinoids. Lethaia 19:355–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oji, T. 1989. Distribution of the stalked crinoids from Japanese and nearby waters. Nature and Culture, University Museum, University of Tokyo 1:27–43.Google Scholar
Oji, T. 1990. Dimorphism and geographic distribution of two phenotypes of a west Atlantic stalked crinoid Endoxocrinus parrae (Gervais). Transactions and Proceedings of the Palaeontological Society of Japan, new series 159:603–606.Google Scholar
Oji, T. In press. Nielsenicrinus, n. sp. (Echinodermata: Crinoidea) from the Late Cretaceous of western Japan and its paleobiogeographic implications. Journal of Paleontology.Google Scholar
Oji, T., and Okamoto, T. 1994. Arm autotomy and arm branching pattern as anti-predatory adaptation in stalked and stalkless crinoids. Paleobiology 20:27–39.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, H. W. 1978. Crinoideos del Cretacico Superior y del Terciario Inferior de la Isla Vicecomodoro Marambio (Seymour Island), Antarctica. Contribuciones cientificas del Instituto Antartico Argentino 4:79–97.Google Scholar
Schneider, J. A. 1988. Frequency of arm regeneration of comatulid crinoids in relation to life habit. pp. 531–538In R. D. Burke et al., eds. Echinoderm biology. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Schoener, T. W. 1979. Inferring the properties of predation and other injury-producing agents from injury frequencies. Ecology 60:1110–1115.Google Scholar
Simms, M. J. 1988. The phylogeny of post-Palaeozoic crinoids. pp. 269–284In Paul, C. R. C. and Smith, A. B., eds. Echinoderm phylogeny and evolutionary biology. Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B. 1994. Systematics and the fossil record. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. 1995. Biometry, 3d ed.W. H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
Stilwell, J. D., Fordyce, R. E., and Rolfe, P. J. 1994. Paleocene isocrinids (Echinodermata: Crinoidea) from the Kauru Formation, South Island, New Zealand. Journal of Paleontology 68:135–141.Google Scholar
Tommasi, L. R. 1969. Nova contribuição à lista dos crinóides recentes do Brazil. Contribuições avulsas do Instituto Oceanográfico, Universidade de São Paulo, Série Oceanográfia biológica 17:1–8.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. 1977. The Mesozoic marine revolution: evidence from snails, predators, and grazers. Paleobiology 3:245–258.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. 1987. Evolution and escalation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar