Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T23:57:02.596Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Information loss in the transition from life to death assemblages of foraminifera in back reef environments, Key Largo, Florida

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2016

Ronald E. Martin  and
Ramil C. Wright
Ronald E. Martin
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Delaware, Newark 19716
Ramil C. Wright
Affiliation:
Exxon Production Research Company, P.O. Box 2189, Houston, Texas 77001
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite numerous distributional studies of foraminifera in modern shallow-water carbonate environments, information loss and taphonomic bias in the transition from life to death assemblages of foraminifera in these environments have not previously been examined in detail. Surface sediment and vegetation samples were collected along six nearshore traverses and one traverse across the back reef lagoon off Key Largo, Florida. Living foraminifera are found in abundance on algae and the marine angiosperm, Thalassia testudinum, while foraminifera in sediment assemblages are represented primarily by empty tests. Q-mode cluster analysis of living assemblages on Thalassia delineates inshore (depth 0.4–2.7 m) and offshore (3.0–9.0 m) back reef biofacies. Calcareous imperforate (suborder Miliolina) species thrive in quiet waters of the inshore biofacies, in which biotic interactions appear to be the prime factor in determining small-scale species distributions of living foraminifera. Fragile species are most susceptible to test destruction, and, therefore, sediment assemblages are dominated by more robust forms (e.g., Archaias angulatus, Valvulina oviedoiana, thick-walled species of Quinqueloculina).

Water turbulence primarily determines species composition of living populations of the offshore biofacies. These assemblages are dominated by the calcareous perforate (suborder Rotaliina) species Planorbulina acervalis and Rosalina bahamaensis. These species resist transport by encrusting Thalassia blades and having a test which fits flush with grass blades, respectively. However, sediment assemblages of the offshore biofacies are also dominated by typical inshore, robust species (Archaias angulatus, thick-walled miliolids). Thus, inshore and offshore biofacies are not readily differentiated by Q-mode cluster analysis of sediment assemblages. Robust species are wide ranging and often abundant in sediment because of differential preservation and time-averaging of sediment assemblages. The resultant taphonomic bias may interfere with paleoecologic interpretations concerning intensity of water energy and distance from shore.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , May 1988 , pp. 399 - 410
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

Ball, M. M., Shinn, E. A., and Stockman, K. W. 1967. The geologic effects of Hurricane Donna in South Florida. Journal of Geology, 75:583–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, R. W. 1960. Taxonomic notes on the species figured by H. B. Brady in his report on the foraminifera dredged by H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873–1876. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication 9, 238 p.Google Scholar
Bock, W. D. 1967. Monthly variation in the foraminiferal biofacies on Thalassia and sediment in the Big Pine Key Area, Florida. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, 293 p.Google Scholar
Bock, W. D. 1971. A handbook of the benthonic foraminifera of Florida Bay and adjacent waters. Miami Geological Society Memoir 1:1–72.Google Scholar
Boltovskoy, E., and Lena, H. 1969. Microdistribution des foraminifères benthoniques vivants. Revue Micropaléontologie.Google Scholar
Bock, W. D. and Wright, R. C. 1976. Recent Foraminifera. W. Junk, The Hague, 515 p.Google Scholar
Brooks, W. W. 1973. Distribution of Recent foraminifera from the southern coast of Puerto Rico. Micropaleontology, 19:385–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzas, M. A. 1968. On the spatial distribution of foraminifera. Contributions from the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, 19:1–11.Google Scholar
Buzas, M. A., Smith, R. K., and Beem, K. A. 1977. Ecology and systematics of foraminifera in two Thalassia habitats, Jamaica, West Indies. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, 31, 139 p.Google Scholar
Cottey, T. L. 1986. Post-mortem surface features in the larger foraminiferan Archaias angulatus as paleoenvironmental indicator. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 70:577.Google Scholar
Cummins, H., Powell, E. N., Stanton, R. J. Jr., and Staff, G. 1986. The rate of taphonomic loss in modern benthic habitats: how much of the potentially preservable community is preserved? Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 52:291–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, J. A. 1918. The foraminifera of the Atlantic Ocean. Part 1. Astrorhizidae. United States National Museum Bulletin, 104:1–111.Google Scholar
Cushman, J. A. 1920. The foraminifera of the Atlantic Ocean. Part 2. Lituolidae. United States National Museum Bulletin, 104:1–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, J. A. 1922. The foraminifera of the Atlantic Ocean. Part 3. Textularidae. United States National Museum Bulletin, 104:1–149.Google Scholar
Cushman, J. A. 1923. The foraminifera of the Atlantic Ocean. Part 4. Lagenidae. United States National Museum Bulletin, 104:1–208.Google Scholar
Cushman, J. A. 1924. The foraminifera of the Atlantic Ocean. Part 5. Chilostemellidae and Globigerinidae. United States National Museum Bulletin, 104:1–55.Google Scholar
Cushman, J. A. 1929. The foraminifera of the Atlantic Ocean. Part 6. Miliolidae. United States National Museum Bulletin, 104:1–129.Google Scholar
Cushman, J. A. 1930. The foraminifera of the Atlantic Ocean. Part 7. Nonionidae, Camerinidae, Peneroplidae and Alveolinellidae. United States National Museum Bulletin, 104:1–79.Google Scholar
Cushman, J. A. 1931. The foraminifera of the Atlantic Ocean. Part 8. Rotaliidae, Amphisteginidae, Calcarinidae, Cymbaloporettidae, Globorotaliidae, Anomalinidae, Planorbulinidae, Rupertiidae and Homotremidae. United States National Museum Bulletin, 104:1–179.Google Scholar
Dayton, P. K., and Hessler, R. R. 1972. Role of biological disturbance in maintaining diversity in the deep sea. Deep-Sea Research, 19:199–208.Google Scholar
Douglas, R. G., Liestman, J., Walch, C., Blake, G., and Cotton, M. L. 1980. The transition from live to sediment assemblage in benthic foraminifera from the southern California borderland, p. 257–280. In Field, M. E., Bouma, A. H., and Colburn, I. P. (eds.), Quaternary Depositional Environments of the Pacific Coast. Pacific Coast Paleogeography Symposium, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Tulsa.Google Scholar
Enos, P., and Perkins, R. D. 1977. Quaternary sedimentation in south Florida. Geological Society of America Memoir 147, 198 p.Google Scholar
Fursich, F. T. 1978. The influence of faunal condensation and mixing on the preservation of fossil benthic communities. Lethaia, 11:243–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, R. N. 1957. Early diagenesis and lithification of shallow-water carbonate sediments in south Florida, p. 80–100. In LeBlanc, R. J. and Breeding, J. G. (eds.), Regional Aspects of Carbonate Deposition. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication 5, Tulsa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, R. N., and Lowenstam, H. A. 1958. The influence of marine bottom communities on the depositional environment of sediments. Journal of Geology, 66:310–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, K., Hoare, T. B., Ferrall, K. W., and Steinker, D. C. 1973. Some habitats of foraminifera, Coupon Bight, Florida. The Compass, 59:11–16.Google Scholar
Grassle, J. F., and Sanders, H. L. 1973. Life histories and the role of disturbance. Deep-Sea Research, 20:643–659.Google Scholar
Griffin, G. M. 1974. Case history of a typical dredge-fill project in the northern Florida Keys—effects of water clarity, sedimentation rates and biota. Harbor Branch Foundation Publication No. 33, Ft. Pierce, Florida, 51 p.Google Scholar
Lawrence, D. R. 1968. Taphonomy and information losses in fossil communities. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 79:1315–1330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeCalvez, Y., and Cesana, D. 1972. Détection de l'état de vie chez les foraminifères. Annales de Paleontologie, 58:129–134.Google Scholar
Lee, J. J., and Muller, W. A. 1973. Trophic dynamics and niches of salt marsh foraminifera. American Zoologist, 13:215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynts, G. W. 1966. Variation of foraminiferal standing crop over short lateral distances in Buttonwood Sound, Florida Bay. Limnology and Oceanography, 11:562–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. E. 1986. Habitat and distribution of the foraminifer Archaias angulatus (Fichtel and Moll) (Miliolina, Soritidae), northern Florida Keys. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 16:201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. E., and Steinker, D. C. 1973. Evaluation of techniques for recognition of living foraminifera. The Compass, 50:26–30.Google Scholar
Moore, W. E. 1957. Ecology of Recent foraminifera in northern Florida Keys. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 41:727–741.Google Scholar
Muller, W. A. 1975. Competition for food and other niche-related studies of three species of salt-marsh foraminifera. Marine Biology, 31:339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, J. W. 1973. Distribution and Ecology of Living Benthic Foraminiferids. Crane, Russak, and Company, New York, 274 p.Google Scholar
Murray, J. W. 1976. Comparative studies of living and dead benthic foraminiferal distributions, p. 45–109. In Hedley, R. H. and Adams, C. G. (eds.), Foraminifera, Vol. 2. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Myers, E. H. 1942. A quantitative study of the productivity of the foraminifera in the sea. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 85:325–342.Google Scholar
Norton, R. D. 1930. Ecologic relations of some foraminifera. Scripps Institution of Oceanography Bulletin, Technical Series, 2:331–388.Google Scholar
Patriquin, D. G. 1975. “Migration” of blowouts in seagrass beds at Barbados and Capriacou, West Indies, and its ecological implications. Aquatic Botany, 1:163–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, R. D., and Enos, P. 1968. Hurricane Betsy in the Florida-Bahama area—geologic effects and comparisons with Hurricane Donna. Journal of Geology, 76:710–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, C. H. 1977. The paleoecological significance of undetected short-term temporal variability. Journal of Paleontology, 51:976–981.Google Scholar
Phleger, F. B., and Parker, F. L. 1951. Ecology of foraminifera, northwest Gulf of Mexico. Part II. Foraminifera species. Geological Society of America Memoir 45, 64 p.Google Scholar
Pielou, E. C. 1966. The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 13:131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romesburg, H. C. 1984. Cluster Analysis for Researchers. Wadsworth, Belmont, California, 334 p.Google Scholar
Rose, P. R., and Lidz, B. 1977. Diagnostic foraminiferal assemblages of shallow-water modern environments: south Florida and the Bahamas. Sedimenta VI. Comparative Sedimentology Laboratory, University of Miami, 55 p.Google Scholar
Scott, D. B., and Medioli, F. S. 1980. Living vs. total foraminiferal populations: their relative usefulness in paleoecology. Journal of Paleontology, 54:814–831.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. E., and Weaver, W. 1948. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 117 p.Google Scholar
Shifflett, E. 1961. Living, dead, and total foraminiferal faunas, Heald Bank, Gulf of Mexico. Micropaleontology, 7:45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. K. 1987. Fossilization potential in modern shallow-water benthic foraminiferal assemblages. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 17:117–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staff, G. M., Stanton, R. J. Jr., Powell, E. N., and Cummins, H. 1986. Time-averaging, taphonomy, and their impact on paleocommunity reconstruction: death assemblages in Texas bays. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 97:428–443.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinker, D. C. 1977. Foraminiferal studies in tropical carbonate environments: south Florida and Bahamas. Florida Scientist, Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences, 40:46–61.Google Scholar
Swinchatt, J. P. 1965. Significance of constituent composition, texture, and skeletal breakdown in some Recent carbonate sediments. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 35:71–90.Google Scholar
Thomas, L. P., Moore, D. R., and Work, R. C. 1961. Effects of Hurricane Donna on the turtle grass beds of Biscayne Bay, Florida. Bulletin of Marine Sciences of the Gulf and Caribbean, 11:191–197.Google Scholar
Todd, R., and Low, D. 1971. Foraminifera from the Bahama Bank west of Andros Island. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 683-C, p. C1–C22.Google Scholar
Walter, L. M., and Morse, J. W. 1984. Reactive surface area of skeletal carbonates during dissolution: effect of grain size. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 54:1081–1090.Google Scholar
Warme, J. E., Ekdale, A. A., Ekdale, S. F., and Peterson, C. H. 1976. Raw material of the fossil record, p. 143–169. In Scott, R. W. and West, R. R. (eds.), Structure and Classification of Paleocommunities. Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. L. 1975. Carbonate Facies in Geologic History. Springer-Verlag, New York, 471 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, R. C. 1964. Foraminiferal ecology in a back reef environment, Molasses Reef, Florida. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, 116 p.Google Scholar
Wright, R. C. and Hay, W. W. 1971. The abundance and distribution of foraminifers in a back-reef environment, Molasses Reef, Florida. Miami Geological Society Memoir 1:121–174.Google Scholar
Zieman, J. C. 1975. Seasonal variation of turtle grass, Thalassia testudinum König, with reference to temperature and salinity effects. Aquatic Botany, 1:107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar