Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-p566r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T12:51:22.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The oldest Zoophycos and implications for Early Cambrian deposit feeding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2012

AARON SAPPENFIELD*
Affiliation:
University of California, Riverside, Department of Earth Sciences, 900 University Ave., Riverside CA 92521, USA
MARY DROSER
Affiliation:
University of California, Riverside, Department of Earth Sciences, 900 University Ave., Riverside CA 92521, USA
MARTIN KENNEDY
Affiliation:
University of Adelaide, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, South Australia, 5005, Australia
RYAN MCKENZIE
Affiliation:
University of California, Riverside, Department of Earth Sciences, 900 University Ave., Riverside CA 92521, USA
*
Author for correspondence: aaron.sappenfield@email.ucr.edu

Abstract

Zoophycos-group burrows are prevalent elements of the post-Cambrian trace fossil record. Here we report the oldest specimens of Zoophycos from Lower Cambrian strata of the Lower Member Wood Canyon Formation in southeastern California. In addition to these being the oldest examples of this well-known trace fossil, the discovery of these specimens also reveals the presence of deposit feeding considerably earlier than has been suggested for the advent of this feeding style. This type of activity may have had a significant impact on sediment mixing during the Precambrian–Cambrian transition, though the rarity and shallow tier position of these specimens suggests otherwise.

Type
Rapid Communication
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

Alpert, S. P. 1977. Trace fossils and the basal Cambrian boundary. In Trace Fossils (eds Crimes, T. P. & Harper, J. C.), pp. 21–8. Liverpool: Seel House Press.Google Scholar
Bergström, J. 2001. Chengjiang. In Palaeobiology II: A Synthesis (eds Briggs, D. E. G & Crowther, P. R.), pp. 337–40. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
Bromley, R. G. 1991. Zoophycos: strip mine, refuse dump, cache or sewage farm? Lethaia 24, 460–2.Google Scholar
Bromley, R. G. 1996. Trace Fossils, Biology, Taphonomy and Applications, 2nd ed. London: Chapman and Hall, 361 pp.Google Scholar
Bromley, R. G. & Hanken, N. M. 2003. Structure and function of large, lobed Zoophycos, Pliocene of Rhodes, Greece. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 192, 79100.Google Scholar
Butterfield, N. J. 2002. Leanchoilia guts and the interpretation of three-dimensional structures in Burgess Shale-type fossils. Paleobiology 28, 155–71.Google Scholar
Butterfield, N. J. & Jensen, S. A. 2001. The non-prevalence of Cambrian deposit feeding. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 33, 75.Google Scholar
Canfield, D. E. & Farquhar, J. 2009. Animal evolution, bioturbation, and the sulfate concentration of the oceans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 8123–7.Google Scholar
Corsetti, F. A. & Hagadorn, J. W. 2000. Precambrian-Cambrian transition: Death Valley, United States. Geology 28, 299302.Google Scholar
Crimes, T. P. 1992. Changes in the trace fossil biota across the Proterozoic-Phanerozoic boundary. Journal of the Geological Society, London 149, 637–46.Google Scholar
Droser, M. L. & Bottjer, D. J. 1989. Ordovician increase in extent and depth of bioturbation: implications for understanding early Paleozoic ecospace utilization. Geology 17, 850–2.Google Scholar
Droser, M. L., Jensen, S. R. & Gehling, J. G. 2002. Trace fossils and substrates of the terminal Proterozoic-Cambrian transition: implications for the record of early bilaterians and sediment mixing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99, 12572–6.Google Scholar
Ekdale, A. A. & Lewis, D. A. 1991. The New Zealand Zoophycos revisited: morphology, ethology, and paleoecology. Ichnos 1, 183–94.Google Scholar
Fedo, C. M. & Cooper, J. D. 2001. Sedimentology and sequence stratigraphy of Neoproterozoic and Cambrian units across a craton-margin hinge zone, southeastern California, and implications for the early evolution of the Cordilleran margin. Sedimentary Geology 141–142, 501–22.Google Scholar
Hagadorn, J. W., Fedo, C. M. & Waggoner, B. M. 2000. Early Cambrian Ediacaran-Type fossils from California. Journal of Paleontology 74, 731–40.Google Scholar
Häntzschel, W. 1975. Trace fossils and problematica. In Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, W, Supplement 1, 2nd ed. (ed. Teichert, R. C.). Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 269 pp.Google Scholar
Horodyski, R. J. 1991. Late Proterozoic megafossils from southern Nevada. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 23 (6), 163.Google Scholar
Horodyski, R. J., Gehling, J. G., Jensen, S. & Runnegar, B. 1994. Ediacara fauna and earliest Cambrian trace fossils in a single parasequence set, southern Nevada. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 26 (2), 60.Google Scholar
Jensen, S. 1997. Trace fossils from the Lower Cambrian Mickwitzia Sandstone, south-central Sweden. Fossils and Strata 4, 1111.Google Scholar
Jensen, S., Droser, M. L., & Heim, N. A. 2001. Trace fossils and ichnofabrics of the Lower Cambrian Wood Canyon Formation, southwest Death Valley Area. In The Proterozoic-Cambrian of the Great Basin and Beyond (ed. Corsetti, F. A.), p. 123–35. Upland: Pacific Section Society for Sedimentary Geology (SEPM).Google Scholar
Kotake, N. 1989. Paleoecology of the Zoophycos producers. Lethaia 22, 327–41.Google Scholar
Lopez, G. R. & Levinton, J. S. 1987. Ecology of deposit-feeding animals in marine sediments. The Quarterly Review of Biology 62, 235–60.Google Scholar
Löwemark, L. & Schäfer, P. 2003. Ethological implications from a detailed X-ray radiograph and 14C study of the modern deep-sea Zoophycos . Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 192, 101–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, M. F. 1991. Morphology and paleoenvironmental distribution of Paleozoic Spirophyton and Zoophycos: implications for the Zoophycos ichnofacies. Palaios 6, 410–25.Google Scholar
Narbonne, G. M., Myrow, P. M., Landing, E. & Anderson, M. M. 1987. A candidate stratotype for the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary, Fortune Head, Burin Peninsula, southeastern Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 24, 1277–93.Google Scholar
Olivero, D. 2007. Zoophycos and the role of type specimens in ichnotaxonomy. In Trace Fossils Concepts, Problems, Prospects (ed. Miller, W. I.), p. 219–31. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Orr, P. J., Benton, M. J. & Briggs, D. E. G. 2003. Post-Cambrian closure of the deep water slope-basin taphonomic window. Geology 31, 769–72.Google Scholar
Rhoads, D. C. & Young, D. G. 1970. The influence of deposit-feeding organisms on sediment stability and community trophic structure. Journal of Marine Research 28, 150–78.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1967. Bathymetry of trace fossils. Marine Geology 5, 413–28.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1999. Biomat-related lifestyles in the Precambrian. PALAIOS 14, 8693.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A. 2007. Trace Fossil Analysis. Berlin: Springer, 226 pp.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A. & Pflüeger, F. 1994. From biomats to benthic agriculture: a biohistoric revolution. In Biostabilization of Sediments: Bibliotheks and Krumbe (eds Krumbein, W. E., Paterson, D. M. & Stal, L. J.), pp. 97105. Oldenburg: Information System der Carl von Ossietzky Universitat.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. 1970. Notes on Zoophycos and Spirophyton . In Trace Fossils: Geological Journal, Special Issue 3 (eds Crimes, T. P. & Harper, J. C.), pp. 505–14.Google Scholar
Stewart, J. H. 1970. Upper Precambrian and lower Cambrian strata in the southern Great Basin, California and Nevada. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 620, 206 pp.Google Scholar
Uchman, A. 1995. Taxonomy and palaeoecology of flysch trace fossils: the Marnoso- arenacea Formation and associated facies (Miocene, Northern Apennines, Italy). Beringeria 15, 3115.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Sappenfield supplementary material

Appendix

Download Sappenfield supplementary material(File)
File 8.4 MB