Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-jtdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T23:38:34.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trends in shell fragmentation as evidence of mid-Paleozoic changes in marine predation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Mariusz A. Salamon ,
Przemysław Gorzelak ,
Robert Niedźwiedzki ,
Dawid Trzęsiok  and
Tomasz K. Baumiller
Mariusz A. Salamon
Affiliation:
University of Silesia, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Department of Palaeontology and Biostratigraphy, Będzińska Street 60, 41–200 Sosnowiec, Poland
Przemysław Gorzelak*
Affiliation:
Department of Biogeology, Institute of Paleobiology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Twarda Street 51/55, 00–818 Warsaw, Poland. E-mail: pgorzelak@twarda.pan.pl
Robert Niedźwiedzki
Affiliation:
Institute of Geological Sciences, Wrocław University, Place M. Borna 9, 50–205 Wrocław, Poland
Dawid Trzęsiok
Affiliation:
University of Silesia, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Department of Palaeontology and Biostratigraphy, Będzińska Street 60, 41–200 Sosnowiec, Poland
Tomasz K. Baumiller
Affiliation:
Museum of Paleontology and Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, U.S.A.
*
Corresponding author
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent observations indicate that shell fragmentation can be a useful tool in assessing crushing predation in marine communities. However, criteria for recognizing shell breakage caused by durophagous predators versus physical factors are still not well established. Here, we provide data from tumbling and aquarium experiments to argue that physical and biotic processes lead to different patterns of shell damage, specifically that angular shell fragments are good indicators of durophagous predation. Using such angular shell fragments as a predation proxy, we analyze data from 57 European Paleozoic localities spanning the Ordovician through the Mississippian. Our results reveal a significant increase in angular shell fragments (either occurring as isolated valves or present in regurgitalites) in the Mississippian. The timing of this increase is coincident with the increased diversity of crushing predators as well as marked anti-predatory changes in the architecture and mode of life of invertebrate prey observed after the end-Devonian Hangenberg extinction (359 Ma). More specifically, the observed trend in shell fragmentation constitutes strong and independent confirmation of a recently suggested end-Devonian changeover in the primary method of fish predation from shearing to crushing. These results also highlight the important effect of extinction events, not only on taxonomic diversity, but also on the nature of predator-prey interactions.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , Winter 2014 , pp. 14 - 23
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Alexander, R. R. 1981. Predation scars preserved in Chesterian brachiopods: probable culprits and evolutionary consequences for the articulates. Journal of Paleontology 55:192–203.Google Scholar
Bambach, R. K. 1993. Seafood through time: changes in biomass, energetics and productivity in the marine ecosystem. Paleobiology 19:372–397.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., Salamon, M. A., Gorzelak, P., Mooi, R., Messing, C. G., and Gahn, F. J. 2010. Post-Paleozoic crinoid radiation in response to benthic predation preceded the Mesozoic marine revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107:5893–5896.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J. 1997. Vertebrate palaeontology. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., and Walker, S. E. 2002. Predators and predation in Paleozoic marine environments. Pp. 93–118in Kowalewski and Kelley 2002.Google Scholar
Brunnschweiler, J. M., Andrews, P. L. R., Southall, E. J., Pickering, M., and Sims, D. W. 2005. Rapid voluntary stomach eversion in a free-living shark. Journal of Marine Biology 85:1141–1144.Google Scholar
Cadée, E. G. C. 1994. Eider, shelduck, and other predators, the main producers of shell fragmentation in the Wadden Sea: palaeoecological implications. Palaeontology 37:181–202.Google Scholar
Cate, A. S., and Evans, I. 1994. Taphonomic significance of the biomechanical fragmentation of live molluscan shell material by a bottom-feeding fish (Pogonius cromis) in Texas coastal bays. Palaios 9:254–274.Google Scholar
Cintra-Buenrostro, C. E. 2007. Trampling, peeling and nibbling mussels: an experimental assessment of mechanical and predatory damage to shells of Mytilus trossulus (Mollusca: Mytilidae). Journal of Shellfish Research 26:221–231.Google Scholar
Gorzelak, P., Salamon, M. A., and Baumiller, T. K. 2012. Predator-induced macroevolutionary trends in Mesozoic crinoids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109:7004–7007.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H., Kowalewski, M., and Hansen, T. A. 2003. Predator-prey interactions in the fossil record. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Kosnik, M. A., Alroy, J., Behrensmeyer, A. K., Fürsich, F. T., Gastaldo, R. A., Kidwell, S. M., Kowalewski, M., Plotnick, R. E., Rogers, R. R., and Wagner, P. J. 2011. Changes in shell durability of common marine taxa through the Phanerozoic: evidence for biological rather than taphonomic drivers. Paleobiology 37:303–331.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M., and Kelley, P. H. 2002. The fossil record of predation. Paleontological Society Papers 8.Google Scholar
Leighton, L. R. 2003. Predation on brachiopods. Pp. 215–237in Kelley et al. 2003.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L., and Ausich, W. I. 1983. Biotic interactions among recent and among fossil crinoids. Pp. 377–427inTevesz, M. J. S. and McCall, P. L, eds. Biotic interactions in Recent and fossil benthic communities. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Moy-Thomas, J. A., and Miles, R. S. 1971. Palaeozoic fishes. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Oji, T., Ogaya, Ch., and Sato, T. 2003. Increase of shell-crushing predation recorded in fossil shell fragmentation. Paleobiology 29:520–526.Google Scholar
Pasco-Viel, E., Charles, C., Chevret, P., Semon, M., Tafforeau, P., Viriot, L., and Laudet, V. 2010. Evolutionary trends of the pharyngeal dentition in Cypriniformes (Actinopterygii: Ostariophysi). PLoS ONE 5 (6): e11293. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011293.Google Scholar
Salamon, M. A., Niedźwiedzki, R., Gorzelak, P., Lach, R., and Surmik, D. 2012. Bromalites from the Middle Triassic of Poland and the rise of the Mesozoic Marine Revolution. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 321–322:142–150.Google Scholar
Sallan, L. C. 2012. Tetrapod-like axial regionalization in an early ray-finned fish. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 279:3264–3271.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 107:10131–10135.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
Signor, P. W., and Brett, C. E. 1984. The mid Paleozoic precursor to the Mesozoic marine revolution. Paleobiology 10:229–236.Google Scholar
Simpson, C. 2010. Species selection and driven mechanisms jointly generate a large-scale morphological trend in monobathrid camerates. Paleobiology 36:481–496.Google Scholar
Sims, D. W., Andrews, P. L. R., and Young, J. Z. 2000. Fish behaviour: stomach rinsing in rays. Nature 404:566.Google Scholar
Skompski, S. 2008. Stop 5. Czatkowice Quarry. Ichthyolith Issues Special Publication 11:55–56.Google Scholar
Stafford, E. S., Chojnacki, N., Tyler, C., Schneider, Ch., and Leighton, L. 2012. Six thousand little pieces: shell fragments as an indicator of crushing predation intensity. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 44:367.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1974. What has happened to the articulate brachiopods? Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 8:966–967.Google Scholar
Syverson, V. J. and Baumiller, T. K. 2012. Evolutionary response in Paleozoic crinoid arm branching patterns to grazing predators. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 44:137.Google Scholar
Tintori, A. 1995. Biomechanical fragmentation in shell-beds from the Late Triassic of the Lombardian Basin (Northern Italy). Preliminary report. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 101:371–380Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1977. The Mesozoic marine revolution; evidence from snails, predators and grazers. Paleobiology 3:245–258.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1983. Shell breaking predation through time. Pp. 649–669inTevesz, M. J. S. and McCall, P. L., eds. Biotic interactions in recent and fossil benthic communities. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Zangerl, R., and Richardson, E. S. 1963. The paleoecologic history of two Pennsylvanian shales. Fieldiana 4:1–353.Google Scholar
Zuschin, M., Stachowitsch, M., and Stanton, R. J. 2003. Patterns and processes of shell fragmentation in modern and ancient marine environments. Earth-Science Reviews 63:33–82.Google Scholar