Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T06:50:14.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New perspectives in vertebrate paleoecology from a recent bone assemblage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Anna K. Behrensmeyer ,
David Western  and
Dorothy E. Dechant Boaz
Anna K. Behrensmeyer
Affiliation:
Peabody Museum, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520 and Earth Sciences Board, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064
David Western
Affiliation:
New York Zoological Society. Mailing address: Department of Zoology, University of Nairobi, P. O. Box 30197, Nairobi, Kenya
Dorothy E. Dechant Boaz
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720 and Department of Anthropology, New York University, New York, N.Y. 10003
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interpretations of vertebrate paleoecology depend on knowledge of taphonomical processes which alter the composition of the preserved fossil assemblage from that of the original community. Study of the potential fossil record of a recent mammal community in Amboseli National Park, Kenya, shows the effects of some of these biasing processes and demonstrates how a bone assemblage on a modern land surface can be a source of past and present ecological information. In the bone assemblage, species presence or absence and relative abundance differ from recorded living species occurrences and population sizes: only 74% of the extant species in the basin are identified in the bone sample, and carcass abundances vary significantly from known population sizes of the major herbivore species. Both biases appear to be strongly correlated to body size, and this results from greater destruction of bones of smaller animals within the weight range from about 1-1000 kg. This size-biasing against small species appears to be due primarily to the greater susceptibility of small bones to destruction by carnivore mastication, breakage through bioturbation (trampling), and physical and chemical processes of weathering. Size-biasing resulting from such primary processes can thus be inherited by buried bone assemblages whatever their final mode of deposition. The bone assemblage also provides information on the spatial distributions of the major herbivore species over six major habitats. Patterns of strong habitat specificity are accurately represented in the bone assemblage. However, the record for certain species is affected by their seasonal and diurnal habitat shifts so that their bone distributions do not match live census data. The Amboseli bone assemblage provides a modern analogue for taphonomical processes which may have affected fossil assemblages derived from paleo-land surfaces prior to fluvial transport. It also helps to define limits of resolution in interpreting paleoecological information from such fossil assemblages.

Type
Research Article
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , Winter 1979 , pp. 12 - 21
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

Andere, D. 1975. The dynamics of pasture use by wildebeest and cow in the Amboseli Basin. M.Sc. Dissertation. Univ. Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
Behrensmeyer, A. K. 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone weathering. Paleobiology. 4(2):150–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrensmeyer, A. K.Ms. in prep. Vertebrate paleoecology in a recent East African ecosystem. In: Berry, W. and Boucot, A., eds. Paleocommunities (North Am. Paleontol. Congr. II Symp., Aug. 1978).Google Scholar
Behrensmeyer, A. K. and Dechant, D. E. 1979. The recent bones of Amboseli Park, Kenya in relation to East African paleoecology. In: Behrensmeyer, A. K. and Hill, A. P., eds. Fossils in the Making. Univ. Chicago Press; Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Brain, C. K. 1967. Hottentot food remains and their meaning in the interpretation of fossil bone assemblages. Sci. Pap. Namib Desert Res. Station. 32:1–11.Google Scholar
Brain, C. K. 1979. Some criteria for the recognition of bone-collecting agencies in African caves. In: Behrensmeyer, A. K. and Hills, A. P., eds. Fossils in the Making. Univ. Chicago Press; Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Caughley, G. 1966. Mortality patterns in mammals. Ecology. 47(6):906–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. J., Beerbower, R., and Kietzke, K. K. 1967. Oligocene sedimentation, stratigraphy, paleoecology and paleoclimatology in the Big Badlands of South Dakota. Fieldiana, Geol. Mem. 5:1–158.Google Scholar
Dodson, P. 1973. The significance of small bones in paleoecological interpretation. Univ. Wyoming Contrib. Geol. 12(1):15–19.Google Scholar
Efremov, I. A. 1940. Taphonomy: a new branch of paleontology. Pan-Am. Geol. 74:81–93.Google Scholar
Fenchel, T. 1974. Intrinsic rate of natural increase: the relationship with body size. Oecologia (Berlin). 14:317–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hay, R. L. 1976. Geology of the Olduvai Gorge. Univ. Calif. Press; Berkeley, California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, A. P. 1975. Taphonomy of contemporary and late Cenozoic East African vertebrates. 331 pp. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of London, London.Google Scholar
Kruuk, H. 1972. The Spotted Hyena. Univ. Chicago Press; Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Lawrence, D. R. 1968. Taphonomy and information losses in fossil communities. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 79:1315–1330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, D. F. 1977. Avian predators as accumulators of fossil mammal material. Boreas. 6:25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellet, J. S. 1974. Scatological origin of microvertebrate fossil accumulations. Science. 185:349–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, E. C. 1957. Size-frequency distribution in samples of extinct organisms. J. Geol. 65:309–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, E. C. 1966. Community evolution and the origin of mammals. Ecology. 47:291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shotwell, J. A. 1963. The Juntura Basin: studies in earth history and paleoecology. Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. (N.S.). 53(1):3–77.Google Scholar
Spinage, C. A. 1972. African ungulate life tables. Ecology. 53(4):645–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanton, R. J. and Dodd, J. R. 1976. The application of trophic structure of fossil communities in paleoenvironmental reconstruction. Lethaia. 9:327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voorhies, M. R. 1969. Taphonomy and population dynamics of an early Pliocene vertebrate fauna, Knox County, Nebraska. Contrib. Geol. Spec. Pap. #1, Univ. Wyoming Press; Laramie, Wyoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warme, J. E. 1971. Paleoecological aspects of a modern coastal lagoon. Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol. Sci. 87:1–112.Google Scholar
Western, D. 1973. The structure, dynamics and changes of the Amboseli ecosystem. 345 pp. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
Western, D. 1975. Water availability and its influence on the structure and dynamics of a savannah large mammal community. E. Afr. Wildl. J. 13:265–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Western, D. 1979. Linking the ecology of past and present mammal communities. In: Behrensmeyer, A. K. and Hill, A. P., eds. Fossils in the Making. Univ. Chicago Press; Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Western, D. and van Praet, C. 1973. Cyclical changes in the habitat and climate of an East African ecosystem. Nature. 241:104–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Western, D. and Sindiyo, D. M. 1972. The status of the Amboseli rhino population. E. Afr. Wildl. J. 10(1):43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar