Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-z2ts4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T12:04:37.385Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Testing size–frequency distributions as a method of ontogenetic aging: a life-history assessment of hadrosaurid dinosaurs from the Dinosaur Park Formation of Alberta, Canada, with implications for hadrosaurid paleoecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2020

Mateusz Wosik
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Misericordia University, 301 Lake Street, Dallas, Pennsylvania, 18612, U.S.A.; and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, 100 Queen's Park, Toronto, OntarioM5S 2C6, Canada. E-mail: mwosik@misericordia.edu
Kentaro Chiba
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, 100 Queen's Park, Toronto, OntarioM5S 2C6, Canada; and Department of Biosphere-Geosphere Science, Okayama University of Science, Ridai-cho 1-1, Kita-ku, Okayama-hi, Okayama, Japan, 700-0005. E-mail: chiba@big.ous.ac.jp
François Therrien
Affiliation:
Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology, PO Box 7500, Highway 838 Midland Provincial Park, Drumheller, AlbertaT0J 0Y0, Canada. E-mail: francois.therrien@gov.ab.ca
David C. Evans
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, and Department of Natural History, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park, Toronto, OntarioM5S 2C6, Canada. E-mail: d.evans@utoronto.ca

Abstract

Hadrosaurid dinosaurs, the dominant large-bodied terrestrial herbivores in most Laurasian Late Cretaceous ecosystems, have an exceptional fossil record consisting of many species known from partial ontogenetic series, making them an ideal clade with which to conduct life-history studies. Previous research considered the Dinosaur Park Formation (DPF) of Alberta as an attritional, or time-averaged, sample and interpreted size–frequency distribution of long bones collected from the DPF with three size classes to suggest that hadrosaurids from the DPF attained near-asymptotic body size in under 3 years. This conflicted with previously published osteohistological estimates of 6+ years for penecontemporaneous hadrosaurids from the Two Medicine Formation (TMF) of Montana, suggesting either extreme variation in hadrosaurid growth rates or that size–frequency distributions and/or osteohistology and growth modeling inaccurately estimate ontogenetic age.

We tested the validity of the previously proposed size–age relationship of hadrosaurids from the DPF by significantly increasing sample size and combining data from size–frequency distributions and osteohistology across multiple long-bone elements. The newly constructed size–frequency distributions typically reveal four relatively distinct size–frequency peaks that, when integrated with the osteohistological data, aligned with growth marks. The yearling size class was heavily underrepresented in the size–frequency distribution. If not due to preservation, this suggests that either juvenile (<2 years of age) hadrosaurids from the DPF had increased survivorship following an initially high nestling mortality rate or that yearlings were segregated from adults. A growth-curve analysis revealed asymptotic body size was attained in approximately 7 years, which is consistent with hadrosaurids from the TMF. The data suggest size–frequency distributions of attritional samples underestimate age and overestimate growth rates, but when paired with osteohistology can provide unique life-history insights.

Information

Type
Articles
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 2020
Figure 0

Figure 1. Geographic map distinguishing hadrosaurid taxa between the Dinosaur Park Formation, Alberta, Canada, and the Two Medicine Formation, Montana, USA.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Combined size–frequency distributions of hadrosaurids from the Dinosaur Park Formation, Alberta, Canada. Tick marks below each size–frequency distribution correspond to individual bones. A, Original size–frequency distribution from Brinkman (2014) scaled to ROM 845 (Corythosaurus casuarius). N = 58 femora and tibiae. B, Updated size–frequency distribution from our study scaled to ROM 845. N = 204 isolated humeri, femora, and tibiae. Dark shade represents raw measurement values; light shade represents estimated values based on an ordinary least squares regression between total length and minimum diaphyseal circumference (Supplementary Table 3, Supplementary Fig. 1C,D). Ontogenetic progression of Corythosaurus was included for visual reference of well-known associated skeletons. Skull progression was used to represent approximate size classes (modified from Evans 2010). Illustration of ROM 845 done by D. Dufault.

Figure 2

Table 1. Summary of parameter values and results for averaged age retrocalculation growth models along with estimated values for the age of first recorded growth mark (Est GM 1 age) and estimated values for the minimum diaphyseal circumference of the estimated first growth mark (Est GM 1 circ). Abbreviations: m, slope; A, asymptote; K, constant; I, inflection point, DPF, Dinosaur Park Formation.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Size–frequency distributions of hadrosaurid humeri (A, B), femora (C, D), and tibiae (E, F) from the Dinosaur Park Formation, Alberta, Canada. A, C, E, Total length. B, D, F, Minimum diaphyseal circumference. Tick marks below each size–frequency distribution correspond to individual bones. Dark shade represents raw measurement values; light shade represents estimated values based on an ordinary least squares regression between total length and minimum diaphyseal circumference (Supplementary Table 3, Supplementary Fig. 1C,D).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Osteohistology of nestling through subadult hadrosaurid tibiae from the Dinosaur Park Formation, Alberta, Canada, under plain polarized (PP) and cross-polarized (XP) light microscopy. A, B, E, G, Nestling (TMP 1997.012.0216). C, D, F, H, Early juvenile (TMP 1991.036.0783). I–N, Late juvenile (TMP 1979.014.0308). O–R, Subadult (TMP 1994.012.0870). A–D, I, K, O, P, Full transverse cross sections. E–H, M, N, Q, R, Close-up of dotted boxed region with arrows indicating visible growth marks and general bone vasculature orientation. J, L, Close-ups of solid boxed regions from I and K, respectively, showing the yearling growth mark. Abbreviations: L, laminar; MC, medullary cavity; P, plexiform; R, reticular.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Osteohistology of adult hadrosaurid tibiae from the Dinosaur Park Formation, Alberta, Canada. A–C, TMP 1979.014.0020. D–F, TMP 2016.012.0192. A, D, Full transverse cross sections in plain polarized light. B, E, Traced growth marks with extent of medullary cavity and/or secondary osteon development outlined in dotted central region. C, F, Close-up of boxed regions from A and D, respectively, with arrows indicating visible growth marks and general bone vasculature orientation in plain polarized light. Abbreviations: L, laminar; MC, medullary cavity; P, plexiform; R, reticular.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Summary of section stacking of tibiae demonstrating the obliteration of the inner cortex (early ontogeny) via processes of secondary bone remodeling. Schematics highlight cortical bone (solid gray), extent of medullary cavity and/or secondary osteon development (dotted white), and growth marks (solid black line). Circumferences refer to the extent of the medullary cavity and/or extensive inner cortex secondary remodeling (MC/SR), growth mark (GM), and outer/periosteal circumference (Outer).

Figure 7

Figure 7. Hadrosaurid growth curves. A, Tibial minimum diaphyseal circumference growth of individuals with longest growth records from each taxon. B, Body mass growth of currently known hadrosaurid growth records. Growth mark data for other hadrosaurid taxa were taken from the literature and reanalyzed (summarized in Table 2): Hypacrosaurus (Cooper et al. 2008), Maiasaura (Woodward et al. 2015), and Probrachylophosaurus (Freedman Fowler and Horner 2015). Poor estimation of the growth curve of Hypacrosaurus is due to the lack of the early part of its growth record (see “Results: Age Determination and Growth Modeling” for more information).

Figure 8

Table 2. Summary of retrocalculated ages, growth mark circumferences, estimated body masses using the averaged models, and the estimated growth rate between years of the five hadrosaurid tibiae analyzed in this study. Abbreviations: GM, growth mark, negative (-) values denote missing growth marks based on age retrocalculation; Circ, growth mark circumference; BM, estimated body mass (kg).

Figure 9

Figure 8. Size–frequency distribution of tibial minimum diaphyseal circumference integrated with osteohistology. Estimated values were based on ordinary least squares regressions (Supplementary Table 3, Supplementary Fig. 1C,D).

Figure 10

Figure 9. Density comparison of long-bone and tracksite size distributions of hadrosaurid bonebeds. Size for each individual bonebed is scaled based on the percentage of the corresponding element in the largest known adult from the respective taxon. N refers to sample size. Data derived from personal measurements or published literature: 1Wosik et al. 2017a; 2Evans et al. 2015; 3Fiorillo et al. 2014; 4Woodward et al. 2015; 5Bell et al. 2018; 6Hone et al. 2014; 7Varricchio and Horner 1993; 8Scherzer and Varricchio 2010; 9Lauters et al. 2008.