Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:30:13.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Temporal trends of predation resistance in Paleozoic crinoid arm branching morphologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

V. J. Syverson  and
Tomasz K. Baumiller
V. J. Syverson
Affiliation:
Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]
Tomasz K. Baumiller
Affiliation:
Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The rise of durophagous predators during the Paleozoic represents an ecological constraint imposed on sessile marine fauna. In crinoids, it has been suggested that increasing predation pressure drove the spread of adaptations against predation. Damage to a crinoid's arms from nonlethal predation varies as a function of arm branching pattern. Here, using a metric for resilience to predation (“expected arm loss,” EAL), we test the hypothesis that the increase in predation led to more predation-resistant arm branching patterns (lower EAL) among Paleozoic crinoids. EAL was computed for 230 genera of Paleozoic crinoids and analyzed with respect to taxonomy and time. The results show significant variability among taxa. Camerates, especially monobathrids, display a pattern of increasingly convergent and predation-resistant arm morphologies from the Ordovician through the Devonian, with no significant change during the Mississippian. In contrast, the mean EAL among cladids follows no overall trend through the Paleozoic. Regenerating arms are known to be significantly more common in camerates than in other Paleozoic taxa; if regeneration is taken as a proxy for nonlethal interactions with durophagous predators, this indicates that nonlethal predation occurred more often among camerates throughout the Early and Middle Paleozoic. In addition, frequency of injury among camerates is inversely correlated with EAL and positively correlated with infestation by parasitic snails. From this we conclude that decreasing EAL signals a selective pressure in favor of resistance to grazing predation in camerates but not in other subclasses before the Mississippian, with an apparent relaxation in this constraint after the late Devonian extinctions.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , Summer 2014 , pp. 417 - 427
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

Ausich, W. I. 1980. A model for niche differentiation in Lower Mississippian crinoid communities. Journal of Paleontology 54:273–288.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., and Roeser, E. W. 2012. Camerate and disparid crinoids from the Late Kinderhookian Meadville Shale, Cuyahoga Formation of Ohio. Journal of Paleontology 86:488–507.Google Scholar
Bambach, R. K. 1999. Energetics in the global marine fauna: a connection between terrestrial diversification and change in the marine biosphere. Geobios 32:131–144.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1993. Survivorship analysis of Paleozoic Crinoidea: effect of filter morphology on evolutionary rates. Paleobiology 19:304–321.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 2008. Crinoid ecological morphology. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 36:221–249.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 2013. Ephemeral injuries, regeneration frequencies, and intensity of the injury-producing process. Marine Biology 160:3233–3239.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., and Gahn, F. J. 2004. Testing predator-driven evolution with Paleozoic crinoid arm regeneration. Science 305:1453–1455.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., Mooi, R., and Messing, C. G. 2008. Urchins in the meadow: paleobiological and evolutionary implications of cidaroid predation on crinoids. Paleobiology 34:22–34.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
Brett, C. E. 2003. Durophagous predation in Paleozoic marine benthic assemblages. Pp. 401–432inKelley, P. H., Kowalewski, M., and Hansen, T. A., eds. Predator-prey interactions in the fossil record. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., and Walker, S. E. 2002. Predators and predation in Paleozoic marine environments. InKowalewski, M. and Kelley, P. H., eds. The fossil record of predation. Paleontological Society Special Papers 8:93–118.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., Gahn, F. J., and Baumiller, T. K. 2004. Platyceratid gastropods as parasites, predators, and prey and their possible effects on echinoderm hosts: collateral damage and targeting. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 36:478.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 2006. Ontogeny of the food-gathering system in Ordovician crinoids. Journal of Paleontology 80:430–446.Google Scholar
Cowen, R. 1981. Crinoid arms and banana plantations: an economic harvesting analogy. Paleobiology 7:332–343.Google Scholar
Dahl, T. 2010. Devonian rise in atmospheric oxygen correlated to the radiations of terrestrial plants and large predatory fish. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107:17,911–17,915.Google Scholar
Gahn, F. J., and Baumiller, T. K. 2005. Arm regeneration in Mississippian crinoids: evidence of intense predation pressure in the Paleozoic? Paleobiology 31:151–164.Google Scholar
Gahn, F. J., and Baumiller, T. K. 2006. Using platyceratid gastropod behaviour to test functional morphology. Historical Biology 18:397–404.Google Scholar
Gahn, F. J., and Baumiller, T. K. 2010. Evolutionary history of regeneration in crinoids (Echinodermata). Integrative and Comparative Biology 50:514a–514m.Google Scholar
Gorzelak, P. L., Rakowicz, L., Salamon, M. A., and Szrek, P. 2011. Inferred placoderm bite marks on Devonian crinoids from Poland. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 259:105–112.Google Scholar
Hempson, T. N., and Griffiths, C. L. 2008. Symbionts of comatulid crinoids in False Bay, South Africa. African Zoology 43:237–244.Google Scholar
Janevski, G. A., and Baumiller, T. K. 2010. Could a stalked crinoid swim? a biomechanical model and characteristics of swimming crinoids. Palaios 25:588–596.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W., and Ausich, W. I. 1987. Aerosol suspension feeding and current velocities: distributional controls for Late Osagean crinoids. Paleobiology 13:379–395.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G. 1984. Predation and survival among inadunate crinoids. Paleobiology 10:453–458.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J. M. 2009. Arm loss and regeneration in stellate echinoderms: an organismal view. Pp. 53–66inJohnson, C., ed. Echinoderms in a changing world. Proceedings of the 13th International Echinoderm Conference. Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J. M., and Vasquez, J. 1996. The effect of sublethal predation on the biology of echinoderms. Oceanologica Acta 19:431–440.Google Scholar
McClintock, J. B., Baker, B. J., Baumiller, T. K., and Messing, C. G. 1999. Lack of chemical defense in two species of stalked crinoids: support for the predation hypothesis for Mesozoic bathymetric restriction. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 232:1–7.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1985. Evolutionary implications of predation on recent comatulid crinoids from the Great Barrier Reef. Paleobiology 11:154–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. L., and Macurda, D. B. 1977. Adaptive radiation of the comatulid crinoids. Paleobiology 3:74–82.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L., LaHaye, C. A., Holland, N. D., Arneson, A. C., and Strickler, J. R. 1984. Time-lapse cinematography of feather stars (Echinodermata: Crinoidea) on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia: demonstrations of posture changes, locomotion, spawning and possible predation by fish. Marine Biology 78:179–184.Google Scholar
Mladenov, P. V. 1983. Rate of arm regeneration and potential causes of arm loss in the feather star Florometra serratissima (Echinodermata: Crinoidea). Canadian Journal of Zoology 61:2873–2879.Google Scholar
Moore, R., Rasmussen, H. W., Lane, N. G., Ubaghs, G., Strimple, H. L., Peck, R. E., Sprinkle, J., Fay, R. O., and Sieverts-Doreck, H. 1978. Systematic Descriptions. Pp.T402–T812inUbaghs, G.et al. Echinodermata 2, Crinoidea. Part T ofMoore, R. C. and Teichert, C., eds. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo. and University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Nichols, D. 1994. Reproductive seasonality in the comatulid crinoid Antedon bifida (Pennant) from the English Channel. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 343:113–134.Google Scholar
Oji, T. 2001. Fossil record of echinoderm regeneration with special regard to crinoids. Microscopy Research and Technique 55:397–402.Google Scholar
Oji, T., and Okamoto, T. 1994. Arm autotomy and arm branching pattern as anti-predatory adaptations in stalked and stalkless crinoids. Paleobiology 20:27–39.Google Scholar
Rideout, J. A., Smith, N. B., and Sutherland, M. D. 1979. Chemical defense of crinoids by polyketide sulphates. Experientia 35:1273–1274.Google Scholar
Salamon, M. A., Gorzelak, P., Niedźwiedzki, R., Trzęsiok, D., and Baumiller, T. K. 2014. Trends in shell fragmentation as evidence of mid-Paleozoic changes in marine predation. Paleobiology 40:1–10.Google Scholar
Sallan, L. C., and Coates, M. I. 2010. End-Devonian extinction and a bottleneck in the early evolution of modern jawed vertebrates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107:10,131–10,135.Google Scholar
Sallan, L. C., Kammer, T. W., Ausich, W. I., and Cook, L. A. 2011. Persistent predator-prey dynamics revealed by mass extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108:8335–8338.Google Scholar
Schneider, J. A. 1988. Frequency of arm regeneration of comatulid crinoids in relation to life habit. Pp. 531–538inKeegan, B. F. and O'Connor, B. D. S., eds. Echinoderm biology. Proceedings of the Sixth International Echinoderm Conference. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Signor, P. W., and Brett, C. E. 1984. The mid-Paleozoic precursor to the Mesozoic Marine Revolution. Paleobiology 10:229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, C. 2010. Species selection and driven mechanisms jointly generate a large-scale morphological trend in monobathrid crinoids. Paleobiology 36:481–496.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1977. The Mesozoic marine revolution: evidence from snails, predators and grazers. Paleobiology 3:245–258.Google Scholar
Waters, J. A., and Maples, C. G. 1991. Mississippian pelmatozoan community reorganization: a predation-mediated faunal change. Paleobiology 17:400–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, G. D. 2003. Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids, coronates, and hemistreptocrinoids, 1758–1999. Geological Society of America Special Paper 363.Google Scholar