Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T19:29:41.466Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relation between anatomy and lifestyles in Recent and Early Cambrian chaetognaths

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

David Casenove ,
Taichiro Goto  and
Jean Vannier
David Casenove
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Science and Astronomy, University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan
Taichiro Goto
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Faculty of Education, Mie University, 1577 Kurimamachiya-cho, Tsu, Mie 514-8507, Japan
Jean Vannier
Affiliation:
UMR 5276 (Laboratoire de géologie de Lyon: Terre, Planètes, Environnement), Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Campus scientifique de la Doua, Bâtiment géode, 2 rue Raphaël Dubois, 69622 Villeurbanne, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Burgess Shale-type Lagerstätten of the Early Cambrian Maotianshan Shale record an apparently sudden conquest of pelagic niches by ten phyla of metazoans. One of these phyla is Chaetognatha, a group of predatory marine worms. Given their role as major predators in modern planktonic ecosystems, the chaetognaths discovered in the Maotianshan Shale (Yunnan Province, South China) suggest that the pelagos at the time was already quite complex. Modern chaetognaths, however, can be divided into benthic and pelagic forms; the pelagic nature of Eognathacantha ercainella should therefore be validated by strong morphological evidence.

Knowing that planktonic animals present morphological adaptations that increase their buoyancy, we studied the drag produced during the active phase of chaetognath locomotion for the modern forms Paraspadella gotoi (benthic) and Sagitta elegans (pelagic). By using a motion model developed by Jordan in 1992, we could calculate the resistive force produced by the undulatory movement of chaetognaths' bodies.

This mechanistic approach evaluates the effect of three motion parameters (relative speed, total length, and tail ratio) on the drag force produced during locomotion. Our results show that the increase of size contributes to higher drag while the shorter tail of the pelagic form balances this effect by reducing the wetted surface subject to friction. For chaetognaths, therefore, a bigger body (both in length and width) and a shorter tail indicate a pelagic lifestyle, a finding that can be applied to the study of the fossil Eognathacantha ercainella. A discriminant analysis can confirm that the Early Cambrian chaetognath presents a pelagic morphology with similarities to modern bathypelagic and mesopelagic species.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , Fall 2011 , pp. 563 - 576
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

Alvarino, A., ed. 1983. Chaetognatha. Wiley, Chichester, U.K.Google Scholar
Azuma, A., ed. 2006. Biokinetics of flying and swimming. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Blacks-burg, Va.Google Scholar
Baier, C. T., and Purcell, J. E. 1997. Trophic interactions of chaetognaths, larval fish, and zooplankton in the South Atlantic Bight. Marine Ecology Progress Series 146:43–53.Google Scholar
Bieri, R. 1959. The distribution of the planktonic Chaetognatha in the Pacific and their Relationship to the water masses. Limnology and Oceanography 4:1–28.Google Scholar
Bone, Q. 1989. Evolutionary patterns of axial muscle systems in some invertebrates and fish. 1. American Zoologist 29:5–18.Google Scholar
Bone, Q., Kapp, H., and Pierrot-Bults, A. C., eds. 1991. The biology of chaetognaths. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Canino, M. F., and Grant, G. C. 1985. The feeding and diet of Sagitta tenuis (Chaetognatha) in the lower Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Plankton Research 7(2):175–188.Google Scholar
Casanova, J. P. 1985. Description de l'appareil génital primitif du genre Heterokrohnia et nouvelle classification des chaeto gnathes. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences, série 3, Sciences de la Vie 301:397–402.Google Scholar
Casanova, J. P., and Duvert, M. 2002. Comparative studies and evolution of muscles in chaetognaths. Marine Biology 141:925–938.Google Scholar
Casanova, J. P., Duvert, M., and Goto, T. 2003. Ultrastructural study and ontogenesis of the appendages and related musculature of Paraspadella (Chaetognatha). Tissue and Cell 35:339–351.Google Scholar
Catalan, J. 1999. Small-scale hydrodynamics as a framework for plankton evolution. Japanese Journal of Limnology 60:469–494.Google Scholar
Chen, J. Y., and Huang, D. Y. 2002. A possible Lower Cambrian chaetognath (arrow worm). Science 298:187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheney, J. 1985. Spatial and temporal abundance patterns of oceanic chaetognaths in the western North Atlantic. 2. Vertical distributions and migrations. Deep-Sea Research Part A, Oceanographic Research Papers 32:1061–1075.Google Scholar
Choe, N., and Deibel, D. 2000. Seasonal vertical distribution and population dynamics of the chaetognath Parasagitta elegans in the water column and hyperbenthic zone of Conception Bay, Newfoundland. Marine Biology 137:847–856.Google Scholar
Morris, S. Conway 2009. The Burgess Shale animal Oesia is not a chaetognath: a reply to Szaniawski (2005). Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 54:175–179.Google Scholar
Duro, A., Gili, J.-M., and Andreu, P. 1994. Influence of the pycnocline on the vertical migration of chaetognaths in the northern Benguela. Journal of Plankton Research 16:1149–1165.Google Scholar
Duvert, M. 1991. A very singular muscle: the secondary muscle of chaetognaths. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 332:245–260.Google Scholar
Duvert, M., and Dress, F. 1994. Development of the locomotory muscle of the chaetognath Sagitta.1. Quantitative and qualitative aspects of the body and muscle-tissue development within the phylum. Tissue and Cell 26:333–348.Google Scholar
Duvert, M., and Savineau, J. P. 1986. Ultrastructural and physiological studies of the contraction of the trunk musculature of Sagitta setosa (chaetognath). Tissue and Cell 18:937–952.Google Scholar
Duvert, M., Grandiervazeille, X., and Verna, A. 1990. Ultrastructural and biochemical-studies on the thick filaments of an invertebrate (Sagitta, Chaetognatha) fast-acting muscle. Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility 11:62–62.Google Scholar
Feigenbaum, D. 1982. Feeding by the chaetognath, Sagitta elegans, at low-temperatures in Vineyard Sound, Massachusetts. Limnology and Oceanography 27(4):699–706.Google Scholar
Ghirardelli, E., ed. 1968. Some aspects of the biology of the chaetognaths. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Goto, T., and Yoshida, M. 1997. Growth and reproduction of the benthic arrowworm Paraspadella gotoi (Chaetognatha) in laboratory culture. Invertebrate Reproduction and Development 32:201–207.Google Scholar
Grassi, B., ed. 1883. Anatomy and systematic with additional embryology (Anatomia e sistematica con aggiunte embriologiche). Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Hammer, O., Harper, D. A. T., and Ryan, P. D. 2001. PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4:9.Google Scholar
Hoerner, S. F., ed. 1965. Fluid dynamic drag. Hoerner Fluid Dynamics, Brick Town, N.J.Google Scholar
Hu, S. X., Steiner, M., Zhu, M. Y., Erdtmann, B. D., Luo, H. L., Chen, L. Z., and Weber, B. 2007. Diverse pelagic predators from the Chengjiang Lagerstätte and the establishment of modem-style pelagic ecosystems in the early Cambrian. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 254:307–316.Google Scholar
Ito, T. 1970. The biology of harpacticoid copepod Trigriopus japonicus Mori. Journal of the Faculty of Science of Hokkaido University, series 6, Zoology 17:474–500.Google Scholar
Jordan, C. E. 1992. A model of rapid-start swimming at intermediate reynolds number: undulatory locomotion in the chaetognath Sagitta elegans. Journal of Experimental Biology 163:119–137.Google Scholar
Jordan, C. E. 1996. Coupling internal and external mechanics to predict swimming behavior: a general approach? American Zoologist 36:710–722.Google Scholar
Jordan, C. E. 1998. Scale effects in the kinematics and dynamics of swimming leeches. Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue Canadienne de Zoologie 76:1869–1877.Google Scholar
Kruse, S., Bathmann, U., and Brey, T. 2009. Meso- and bathypelagic distribution and abundance of chaetognaths in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean. Polar Biology 32:1359–1376.Google Scholar
Lighthill, J., ed. 1975. Mathematical biofluiddynamics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Marazzo, A., Machado, C. F., and Nogueira, C. S. R. 1997. Notes on feeding of chaetognatha in Guanabara Bay, Brazil. Journal of Plankton Research 19:819–828.Google Scholar
Papillon, D., Perez, Y., Caubit, X., and Le Parco, Y. 2006. Systematics of Chaetognatha under the light of molecular data, using duplicated ribosomal 18S DNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 38:621–634.Google Scholar
Pearre, S. 1980. Feeding by Chaetognatha: the relation of prey size to predator size in several species. Marine Ecology Progress Series 3:126–134.Google Scholar
Pearre, S. 1982. Feeding by Chaetognatha: aspects of interspecific and intraspecific predation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 7:33–45.Google Scholar
Peres-Neto, P., and Magnan, P. 2004. The influence of swimming demand on phenotypic plasticity and morphological integration: a comparison of two polymorphic charr species. Oecologia 140:36–45.Google Scholar
Pierrot-Bults, A. C. 2004. Chaetognaths of the World. Netherlands Biodiversity Information Facility. http://nlbif.eti.uva.nl/bis/chaetognatha.phpGoogle Scholar
Pierrot-Bults, A. C., and Chidgey, K. C., eds. 1988. Chaetognatha: keys and notes for the identification of the species. Published for the Linnean Society of London and the Estuarine and Brackish-Water Sciences Association by E.J. Brill/W. Backhuys, Leiden.Google Scholar
Pierrot-Bults, A. C., and Nair, V. R., eds. 1991. Distribution patterns in Chaetognatha. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Rigby, S., and Milsom, C. V. 1996. Benthic origins of zooplankton: an environmentally determined macroevolutionary effect. Geology 24:52–54.Google Scholar
Rigby, S., and Milsom, C. V. 2000. Origins, evolution, and diversification of zooplankton. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31:293–313.Google Scholar
Ritter-Zahony, R. v., ed. 1911. Revision der Chaetognathen. Georg Reimer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Rudjakov, J. A. 1970. The possible causes of diel vertical migrations of planktonic animals. Marine Biology 6:98–105.Google Scholar
Samemoto, D. D. 1987. Vertical distribution and ecological significance of chaetognaths in the Arctic environment of Baffin Bay. Polar Biology 7:317–328.Google Scholar
Shinn, G. L. 1994. Epithelial origin of mesodermal structures in arrowworms (Phylum Chaetognatha). American Zoologist 34:523–532.Google Scholar
Shinn, G. L. ed. 1997. Chaetognatha. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Steiner, M., Li, G. X., Qian, Y., Zhu, M. Y., and Erdtmann, B. D. 2003. Lower Cambrian small shelly faunas from Zhejiang (China) and their biostratigraphical implications. Progress in Natural Science 13:852–860.Google Scholar
Sweatt, A. J., and Forward, R. B. 1985. Diel vertical migration and photoresponses of the chaetognath Sagitta hispida Conant. Biological Bulletin 168:18–31.Google Scholar
Szaniawski, H. 1982. Chaetognath grasping spines recognized among Cambrian protoconodonts. Journal of Paleontology 56:806–810.Google Scholar
Szaniawski, H. 2002. New evidence for the protoconodont origin of chaetognaths. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 47:405–419.Google Scholar
Szaniawski, H. 2005. Cambrian chaetognaths recognized in Burgess Shale fossils. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 50:1–8.Google Scholar
Szaniawski, H. 2009. Fossil chaetognaths from the Burgess Shale: a reply to Conway Morris (2009). Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 54:361–364.Google Scholar
Szyper, J. P. 1978. Feeding rate of the chaetognath Sagitta enflata in nature. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 7:567–575.Google Scholar
Telford, M., and Holland, P. 1997. Evolution of 28S ribosomal DNA in chaetognaths: duplicate genes and molecular phylogeny. Journal of Molecular Evolution 44:135–144.Google Scholar
Tokioka, T. 1965. The taxonomical outline of Chaetognatha. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory 12:335–357.Google Scholar
Vannier, J. 2009. The Cambrian explosion and the emergence of modern ecosystems. Comptes Rendus Palevol 8:133–154.Google Scholar
Vannier, J., and Chen, J. Y. 2005. Early Cambrian food chain: new evidence from fossil aggregates in the Maotianshan Shale Biota, SW China. Palaios 20:3–26.Google Scholar
Vannier, J., Steiner, M., Renvoise, E., Hu, S. X., and Casanova, J. P. 2007. Early Cambrian origin of modern food webs: evidence from predator arrow worms. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 274:627–633.Google Scholar
Vinogradov, M. E., ed. 1970. Vertical distribution of the oceanic zooplankton. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Webb, P. W. 1984. Body form, locomotion and foraging in aquatic vertebrates. American Zoologist 24:107–120.Google Scholar
Zhu, L. 2008. Scaling laws for drag of a compliant body in an incompressible viscous flow. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 607:387–400.Google Scholar