Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T23:25:19.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Geometric consequences of branching growth in adeoniform Bryozoa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Alan H. Cheetham
Affiliation:
Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560
Lee-Ann C. Hayek
Affiliation:
Scientific Applications Division, Office of Information Resources Management, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560

Abstract

Many cheilostome bryozoans of diverse phylogenetic origin grow as erect, arborescent colonies with branches of modified planar form composed of two layers of zooids back to back. Regular branching enables a growing colony to expand in surface area, and hence in the number of zooids that feed, reproduce, and perform other vital functions, at an accelerating rate. During growth, branches first all diverge, then increasingly converge, and in late stages of growth begin to interfere with each other's growth and function. Interference can set limits to the width and thickness of branches and hence to the number and size of zooids.

Simulation of growth using a 3–dimensional mathematical model shows that a narrow range of possible values of branching angles minimizes branch interference in late growth stages. These values are prevalent in fossil and modern species. Branch spacing at later growth stages is correlated with the distance between branches at first crossing, providing room for feeding organs of the two facing layers of zooids to protrude and function. Interbranch distances dwindle as branches increasingly converge, so emphasis on minimizing interference at a late stage sets a practical limit to growth beyond that stage. To gain this long-term benefit requires adhering to a regular pattern throughout growth. The considerable variation in branching properties in fossil and modern species, and a variability in spacing inherent in the growth pattern itself, limit the amount of usable interbranch space. Despite a higher intraspecific variability, branching properties are as distinctive interspecifically as zooidal properties, and variability is randomly distributed through the colony. A small reduction in variability between fossil and modern species suggests that increasing regularity may provide a selective advantage in the utilization of interbranch space.

Type
Research Article
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

Boardman, R. S. and Cheetham, A. H. 1973. Degrees of colony dominance in stenolaemate and gymnolaemate Bryozoa. Pp. 121220. In: Boardman, R. S., Cheetham, A. H., and Oliver, W. A. Jr., eds. Animal Colonies. Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross; Stroudsburg, Pa.Google Scholar
Cheetham, A. H. 1966. Cheilostomatous Polyzoa from the Upper Bracklesham Beds (Eocene) of Sussex. Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist., Geol. 13(1):1115.Google Scholar
Cheetham, A. H. 1976. Multiserial cheilostomes from the Gulf Coast of the U.S.A. Pp. 547564. In: Pouyet, S., ed. Bryozoa 1974. Docum. Lab. Géol. Fac. Sci. Lyon, h. sér. 3, 2.Google Scholar
Cheetham, A. H., Hayek, L. C., and Thomsen, E. 1980. Branching structure in arborescent animals: models of relative growth. J. Theor. Biol. 85:335369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheetham, A. H., Hayek, L. C., and Thomsen, E. 1981. Growth models in fossil arborescent cheilostome bryozoans. Paleobiology. 7:6886.Google Scholar
Cheetham, A. H. and Thomsen, E. 1981. Functional morphology of arborescent animals: strength and design of cheilostome bryozoan skeletons. Paleobiology. 7:355383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J. B. C. 1979. Morphological strategies of sessile animals. Pp. 499555. In: Larwood, G. and Rosen, B. R., eds. Syst. Assoc. Spec. Vol. 11. Academic Press; London.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, K. W. 1970. A model for predicting the influence of colony morphology on reproductive potential in the phylum Ectoprocta. Biol. Bull. 139:426.Google Scholar
Maturo, F. J. S. Jr. and Schopf, T. J. M. 1968. Ectoproct and entoproct type material: reexamination of species from New England and Bermuda named by A. E. Verrill, J. W. Dawson and E. Desor. Postilla, Peabody Mus. Nat. Hist., Yale Univ. 120:195.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K. 1981. Planar branch systems in colonial suspension feeders. Paleobiology. 7:344354.Google Scholar
Niklas, K. J. 1982. Computer simulations of early plant branching morphologies: canalization of patterns during evolution? Paleobiology. 8:196210.Google Scholar
Orbigny, A. D. D'. 1852. Paléontologie française. Description des animaux invertébrés. Terrain crétacé. 5, Bryozoaires. Pp. 185472. Masson; Paris.Google Scholar
Schopf, T. J. M. 1977. Patterns and themes of evolution among the Bryozoa. Pp. 159207. In: Hallam, A., ed. Patterns of evolution. Elsevier; Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Stach, L. W. 1937. The application of Bryozoa in Cainozoic stratigraphy. Aust. N. Z. Ass. Adv. Sci., Rept. 23d Meeting. Pp. 8083.Google Scholar
Starcher, R. W. 1982. Growth parameters in vine-like encrusting bryozoans: a deductive analysis of branch extension and bifurcation. Geol. Soc. Am., Abstr. Prog. 14:85.Google Scholar
Voigt, E. 1972. Les méthodes d'utilisation stratigraphique des Bryozoaires du Crétacé supérieur. Bur. Rech. Géol. Min., France, Mém. 77:4553.Google Scholar
Winston, J. E. 1978. Polypide morphology and feeding behavior in marine ectoprocts. Bull. Mar. Sci. 28:131.Google Scholar
Winston, J. E. 1981. Feeding behavior of modern bryozoans. Pp. 121. In: Broadhead, T. W., ed. Lophophorates notes for a short course. Univ. Tennessee, Dept. Geol. Sci., Studies in Geology 5.Google Scholar