Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T10:08:14.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preservational effects in paleoecological studies: Cretaceous mollusc examples

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Carl F. Koch  and
Norman F. Sohl
Carl F. Koch
Affiliation:
Department of Geophysical Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia 23508
Norman F. Sohl
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 20560
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect of preservational quality on paleoecologic studies is evaluated quantitatively by using data from 83 fossil collections. These collections are from a restricted Cretaceous time interval (Haustator bilira Assemblage Zone) of Maestrichtian Age and are from the Eastern Gulf Coastal Plain Province. In all, 32,335 specimens were identified, resulting in recognition of 643 different taxa. Each collection was categorized into one of six preservational types, ranging from those in which both aragonite and calcite shells are well preserved to those having only calcite shells preserved.

Statistical comparisons reveal that preservation affects the faunal makeup of these collections. Specifically, collections in which both aragonite and calcite are well preserved have more taxa than collections of poorer preservational quality and contain faunal elements not found in other collections.

These two effects can confound paleoecologic studies of endemism, eurytopy vs. stenotopy, species longevity and other studies of the distribution of organisms in space and time. These effects are especially significant for studies based on presence/absence data, such as published faunal lists and selectively collected samples. In such studies, collections of good preservational quality may be interpreted to represent strata of high diversity, taxa having the more durable hard parts will appear to be widespread and long ranging, and taxa that are preserved only in collections of the best preservational quality will appear stenotopic, endemic, and rare.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , Winter 1983 , pp. 26 - 34
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

Buzas, M. A., Koch, C. F., Culver, S. J., and Sohl, N. F. 1982. On the distribution of species occurrence. Paleobiology. 8:143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chave, K. E. 1967. Skeletal durability and preservation. Pp. 377–387. In: Imbrie, J. and Newell, N. D., eds. Approaches to Paleobiology. John Wiley and Sons; New York.Google Scholar
Davis, J. C. 1973. Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology. 550 pp. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; New York.Google Scholar
Gardner, J. A. 1916. Systematic paleontology, Mollusca. Pp. 371–733. In: Clark, W. B. and others, eds. Upper Cretaceous. Maryland Geol. Surv.; Baltimore.Google Scholar
Hansen, T. A. 1978. Larval dispersal and species longevity in lower tertiary gastropods. Science. 199:885–887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jablonski, D. 1980. Apparent versus real biotic effects of transgressions and regressions. Paleobiology. 6:397–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, E. G. 1967. Coloradoan macroinvertebrate assemblages, Central Western Interior, United States. Pp. 67–143. In: Paleoenvironments of the Cretaceous Seaway in the Western Interior. Colorado School of Mines; Golden, Colorado.Google Scholar
Koch, C. F. 1980. Bivalve species duration, areal extent and population size in a Cretaceous sea. Paleobiology. 6:184–192.Google Scholar
Lawrence, D. R. 1968. Taphonomy and information losses in fossil communities. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 79:1315–1330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K., and Bent, D. H. 1975. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. 675 pp. McGraw-Hill Book Co.; New York.Google Scholar
Preston, F. W. 1948. The commonness and rarity of species. Ecology. 29:245–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, H. L. 1968. Marine benthic diversity: a comparative study. Am. Nat. 102:243–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sohl, N. F. 1960. Archeogastropoda, Mesogastropoda, and stratigraphy of the Ripley, Owl Creek, and Prairie Bluff Formations. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 331-A:1–151.Google Scholar
Sohl, N. F. 1964. Neogastropoda, Opisthobranchia, and Basommatophora from the Ripley, Owl Creek, and Prairie Bluff Formations. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 331–B:153–344.Google Scholar
Sohl, N. F. 1977. Utility of gastropods in biostratigraphy. Pp. 519–539. In: Kauffman, E. G. and Hazel, J. E., eds. Concepts and Methods of Biostratigraphy. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc.; Stroudsburg, Pa.Google Scholar
Stephenson, L. W. 1914. Cretaceous deposits of the eastern Gulf region and species of Exogyra from the eastern Gulf region and the Carolinas. 55 pp. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, L. W. 1923. Cretaceous formations of North Carolina. 604 pp. North Carolina Geol. and Econ. Surv.5.Google Scholar
Stephenson, L. W. 1933. The zone of Exogyra cancellata traced twenty-five hundred miles. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 17:1351–1361.Google Scholar
Stephenson, L. W. 1941. The larger invertebrate fossils of the Navarro Group of Texas. 641 pp. Univ. Tex. Publ. 4101.Google Scholar
Stephenson, L. W. 1955. Owl Creek (Upper Cretaceous) fossils from Crowleys Ridge, southeastern Missouri. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 274-E:97–140.Google Scholar
Stephenson, L. W. and Monroe, W. H. 1940. The Upper Cretaceous deposits. 296 pp. Mississippi State Geol. Surv. Bull. 40.Google Scholar
Tipper, J. C. 1979. Rarefaction and rarefiction: the use and abuse of a method in paleoecology. Paleobiology. 5:423–434.Google Scholar
Weller, Stuart. 1907. Cretaceous faunas. 1106 pp. New Jersey Geol. Surv. Paleontology 4.Google Scholar