No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Inferring predation intensity in the marine fossil record
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 April 2016
Abstract
Accurate estimates of predation intensity, the frequency of mortality from predation, are critical to studies of the evolution of species in response to predation, and to studies of predator-prey systems in general. Most commonly used indirect proxies for predation intensity in the fossil record have logistical or theoretical problems. Direct proxies, using actual traces of predatory activity, such as drilling and repair scars, may hold more promise. However, these direct proxies often have been used in conjunction with optimal foraging models, and in this context, the underlying assumptions and predictions of optimal foraging are examined.
Results from theoretical models using optimal foraging suggest that (1) the ratio of internal shell volume to shell thickness of prey (benefit/cost ratio) may be a questionable measurement of prey “value” to the predator, as it fails to account adequately for energetic cost to the predator during pursuit and grappling; (2) drilling and repair frequency are invalid measures of prey preference, because optimal foraging predicts that specific prey types are either always taken or always ignored; (3) pooled drilling frequency will not be a useful metric of predation intensity in systems in which the predator need not always drill; and (4) an increase in repair frequency can be a consequence of either an increase or a decrease in predation intensity.
Although drilling frequency may not indicate prey preference, it is a valid proxy for selection due to predation. An approach using size classes, in which the minimum size at which a predation refuge is achieved, is suggested for use with repair frequency.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Paleontological Society
References
Literature Cited
Abrams, P. A., and Matsuda, H. 1997. Adaptive foraging by predators as a cause of predator-prey cycles. Evolutionary Ecology 6:56–72.Google Scholar
Allmon, W. D., Nieh, J. C., and Norris, R. D. 1990. Drilling and peeling of turritelline gastropods since the Late Cretaceous. Palaeontology 33:596–611.Google Scholar
Ansell, A. D., and Morton, B. 1987. Alternative predation tactics of a tropical naticid gastropod. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 111:109–119.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., and Gurrola, R. A. 1979. Two boring organisms in a Lower Mississippian community of southern Indiana. Journal of Paleontology 53:335–344.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., Leighton, L. R., and Thompson, D. L. 1999. Boreholes in Mississippian spiriferide brachiopods and their implications for Paleozoic gastropod drilling. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 147:283–289.Google Scholar
Bertness, M. D., and Cunningham, C. 1981. Crab shell-crushing predation and gastropod architectural defense. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 50:213–230.Google Scholar
Boulding, E. G. 1984. Crab-resistant features of shells of burrowing bivalves: decreasing vulnerability by increasing handling time. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 76:201–223.Google Scholar
Boulding, E. G., and LaBarbera, M. 1986. Fatigue damage: repeated loading enables crabs to open larger bivalves. Biological Bulletin (Woods Hole) 171:538–547.Google Scholar
Charnov, E. L. 1976a. Optimal foraging: the marginal value theorem. Theoretical Population Biology 9:129–136.Google Scholar
Charnov, E. L. 1976b. Optimal foraging: attack strategy of a mantid. American Naturalist 110:141–151.Google Scholar
Dietl, G. P., and Alexander, R. R. 2000. Post-Miocene shift in stereotypic naticid predation on confamilial prey from the mid-Atlantic shelf: coevolution with dangerous prey. Palaios 15:414–429.Google Scholar
Dietl, G. P., Alexander, R. R., and Bien, W. F. 2000. Escalation in Late Cretaceous-early Paleocene oysters (Gryphaeidae) from the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Paleobiology 26:215–237.Google Scholar
Dudley, E. C., and Vermeij, G. J. 1978. Predation in time and space: drilling in the gastropod Turritella. Paleobiology 4:436–441.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. C. 1974. Preferred prey of Polynices duplicatus in Cape Cod inlets. Bulletin of the American Malacological Union 40:17–20.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. C., and Huebner, J. D. 1977. Feeding and growth rates of Polynices duplicatus preying on Mya arenaria at Barnstable Harbor, Massachusetts. Ecology 58:1218–1236.Google Scholar
Elner, R. W. 1978. The mechanics of predation by the shore crab, Carcinus maenas (L.), on the edible mussel, Mytilus edulis L. Oecologia 36:333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elner, R. W., and Hughes, R. N. 1978. Energy maximization in the diet of the shore crab, Carcinus maenas. Journal of Animal Ecology 47:103–116.Google Scholar
Gabriel, J. M. 1981. Differing resistance of various mollusc shell material to simulated whelk attack. Journal of Zoology 194:363–369.Google Scholar
Garrity, S. D., and Levings, S. C. 1981. A predator-prey interaction between two physically and biologically constrained tropical rocky shore gastropods: direct, indirect, and community effects. Ecological Monographs 51:267–286.Google Scholar
Harper, E. M. 1994. Are conchiolin sheets in corbulid bivalves primarily defensive? Palaeontology 37:551–578.Google Scholar
Harper, E. M., and Skelton, P. W. 1993. A defensive value of the thickened periostracum in the Mytiloidea. Veliger 36:36–42.Google Scholar
Harper, E. M., Forsythe, G. T. W., and Palmer, T. 1998. Taphonomy and the Mesozoic marine revolution: preservation state masks the importance of boring predators. Palaios 13:352–360.Google Scholar
Heller, R. 1980. On optimal diet in a patchy environment. Theoretical Population Biology 17:201–214.Google Scholar
Hibbert, C. J. 1977. Growth and survivorship in a tidal-flat population of the bivalve Mercenaria mercenaria. Marine Biology 44:71–76.Google Scholar
Horn, M. H. 1983. Optimal diets in complex environments—feeding strategies of two herbivorous fishes from a temperate rocky intertidal zone. Oecologia 58:345–350.Google Scholar
Kaplan, P., and Baumiller, T. K. 2000. Taphonomic inferences on boring habit in the Richmondian Onniella meeki epibole. Palaios 15:297–308.Google Scholar
Kardon, G. 1998. Evidence from the fossil record of an antipredatory exaptation: conchiolin layers in corbulid bivalves. Evolution 52:68–79.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1988. Predation by Miocene gastropods of the Chesapeake Group: stereotyped and predictable. Palaios 3:436–448.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H., and Hansen, T. A. 1993. Evolution of the naticid gastropod predator-prey system: an evaluation of the hypothesis of escalation. Palaios 8:358–375.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J. A., Boggs, C. H., Kitchell, J. F., and Rice, J. A. 1981. Prey selection by naticid gastropods: experimental tests and application to the fossil record. Paleobiology 7:533–552.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M., Dulai, A., and Fursich, F. T. 1998. A fossil record full of holes: the Phanerozoic history of drilling predation. Geology 26:1091–1094.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M., Simoes, M. G., Torello, F. F., Mello, L. H. C., and Ghilardi, R. P. 2000. Drill holes in shells of Permian benthic invertebrates. Journal of Paleontology 74:532–543.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R., Erichsen, J. T., Webber, M. I., and Charnov, E. L. 1977. Optimal prey-selection by the great tit (Parus major). Animal Behavior 25:30–38.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R., Kacelnik, A., and Taylor, P. 1978. Test of optimal sampling by foraging great tits. Nature 275:27–31.Google Scholar
Leighton, L. R. 1999. Possible latitudinal predation gradient in middle Paleozoic oceans. Geology 27:47–50.Google Scholar
Leighton, L. R. 2001. New example of Devonian predatory boreholes and the influence of brachiopod spines on predator success. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 165:53–69.Google Scholar
Lima, S. L. 1998. Non-lethal effects in the ecology of predator-prey interactions. Bioscience 48:25–34.Google Scholar
Morissette, S., and Himmelman, J. H. 2000. Decision of the asteroid Leptasterias polaris to abandon its prey when confronted with its predator, the asteroid Asterias vulgaris. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 252:151–157.Google Scholar
Morton, B., and Chan, K. 1999. Hunger rapidly overrides the risk of predation in the subtidal scavenger Nassarius siquijorensis (Gastropoda: Nassariidae): an energy budget and a comparison with the intertidal Nassarius festivus in Hong Kong. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 240:213–228.Google Scholar
Nebelsick, J. H., and Kowalewski, M. 1999. Drilling predation on recent clypeasteroid echinoids from the Red Sea. Palaios 14:127–144.Google Scholar
Ray-Culp, M., Davis, M., and Stoner, A. W. 1999. Predation by xanthid crabs on early post-settlement gastropods: the role of prey size, prey density, and habitat complexity. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 240:303–321.Google Scholar
Roopnarine, P., and Buessink, A. 1999. Extinction and naticid predation of the bivalve Chione Von Muhlfeld in the Late Neogene of Florida. Palaeontologia Electronica 2(1):33.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. L. 1966. Community structure in sympatric Carnivora. Journal of Mammalogy 47:602–612.Google Scholar
Roy, K., Miller, D. J., and LaBarbera, M. 1994. Taphonomic bias in analyses of drilling predation: effects of gastropod drillholes on bivalve shell strength. Palaios 4:413–421.Google Scholar
Seed, R., and Hughes, R. N. 1995. Criteria for prey size-selection in molluscivorous crabs with contrasting claw morphologies. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 193:177–195.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
Smith, S. A., Thayer, C. W., and Brett, C. E. 1985. Predation in the Paleozoic: gastropod-like drillholes in Devonian brachiopods. Science 230:1033–1037.Google Scholar
Smith, T. E., Ydenberg, R. C., and Elner, R. W. 1999. Foraging behavior of an excavating predator, the red rock crab (Cancer productus Randall) on soft-shell clam (Mya arenaria L.). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 238:185–197.Google Scholar
Stephens, D. W., and Krebs, J. R. 1986. Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1976. Interoceanic differences in vulnerability of shelled prey to crab predation. Nature 260:135–136.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1977a. The Mesozoic marine revolution: evidence from snails, predators, and grazers. Paleobiology 3:245–258.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1977b. Patterns in crab claw size: the geography of crushing. Systematic Zoology 26:138–151.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1982a. Unsuccessful predation and evolution. American Naturalist 120:701–720.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1982b. Gastropod shell form, repair, and breakage in relation to breakage by the crab Calappa. Malacologia 23:1–12.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1983. Shell-breaking predation through time. Pp. 649–669in Tevesz, M. J. S. and McCall, P. L., eds. Biotic interactions in recent and fossil benthic communities. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and escalation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J., Zipser, E., and Dudley, E. C. 1980. Predation in time and space: peeling and drilling in terebrid gastropods. Paleobiology 6:352–364.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J., Schindel, D. E., and Zipser, E. 1981. Predation through geological time: evidence from gastropod shell repair. Science 214:1024–1026.Google Scholar
Werner, E. E., and Hall, D. J. 1974. Optimal foraging and the size of selection of prey by the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 55:1042–1052.Google Scholar