Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nf276 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T13:46:39.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aragonite bias, and lack of bias, in the fossil record: lithological, environmental, and ecological controls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2015

Michael Foote ,
James S. Crampton ,
Alan G. Beu  and
Campbell S. Nelson
Michael Foote
Affiliation:
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, U.S.A. E-mail: mfoote@uchicago.edu
James S. Crampton
Affiliation:
GNS Science, Post Office Box 30-368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand, and School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Post Office Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand. E-mail: J.Crampton@gns.cri.nz
Alan G. Beu
Affiliation:
GNS Science, Post Office Box 30-368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand. E-mail:A.Beu@gns.cri.nz
Campbell S. Nelson
Affiliation:
School of Science, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand. E-mail: c.nelson@waikato.ac.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Macroevolutionary and macroecological studies must account for biases in the fossil record, especially when questions concern the relative abundance and diversity of taxa that differ in preservation and sampling potential. Using Cenozoic marine mollusks from a temperate setting (New Zealand), we find that much of the long-term temporal variation in gastropod versus bivalve occurrences is correlated with the stage-level sampling probabilities of aragonitic versus calcitic taxa. Average sampling probabilities are higher for calcitic species, but this contrast is time-varying in a predictable way, being concentrated in stages with widespread carbonate deposition.

To understand these results fully, we link them with analyses at the level of individual point occurrences. Doing so reveals that aragonite bias is effectively absent in terrigenous clastic sediments. In limestones, by contrast, calcitic species have at least twice the odds of sampling as aragonitic species. This result is most pronounced during times of widespread carbonate deposition, where the difference in the per-collection odds of sampling species is a factor of eight. During carbonate-rich intervals, calcitic taxa also have higher odds of sampling in clastics. At first glance this result may suggest simple preservational bias against aragonite. However, comparing relative odds of aragonitic versus calcitic sampling with absolute sampling rates shows that the positive calcite bias during carbonate-rich times reflects higher than average occurrence rates for calcitic taxa (rather than lower rates for aragonitic taxa) and that the negative aragonite bias in limestones reflects lower than average occurrence rates for aragonitic taxa (rather than higher rates for calcitic taxa).

Our results therefore indicate a time-varying interplay of two main factors: (1) taphonomic loss of aragonitic species in carbonate sediments, with no substantial bias in terrigenous clastics; and (2) an ecological preference of calcitic taxa for environments characteristic of periods with pervasive carbonate deposition, irrespective of lithology per se.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , March 2015 , pp. 245 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 The Paleontological Society. All rights reserved. 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Agresti, A., and Coull, B. A.. 1998. Approximate is better than “exact” for interval estimation of binomial proportions. American Statistician 52:119–126.Google Scholar
Behrensmeyer, A. K., Fürsich, F. T., Gastaldo, R. A., Kidwell, S. M., Kosnik, M. A., Kowalewski, M., Plotnick, R. E., Rogers, R. R., and Alroy, J.. 2005. Are the most durable shelly taxa also the most common in the marine fossil record? Paleobiology 31:607–623.Google Scholar
Best, M. M. R. 2008. Contrast in preservation of bivalve death assemblages in siliciclastic and carbonate tropical shelf settings. Palaios 23:796–809.Google Scholar
Best, M. M. R., Ku, T. C. W., Kidwell, S. M., and Walter, L. M.. 2007. Carbonate preservation in shallow marine environments: unexpected role of tropical siliciclastics. Journal of Geology 115:437–456.Google Scholar
Beu, A. G. 1995. Pliocene limestones and their scallops: lithostratigraphy, pectinid biostratigraphy and paleogeography of eastern North Island late Neogene limestone. Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Monograph 10:1–243.Google Scholar
Brachert, T. C., and Dullo, W.-C.. 2000. Shallow burial diagenesis of skeletal carbonates: selective loss of aragonite shell material (Miocene to Recent, Queensland Plateau and Queensland Trough, NE Australia) — implications for shallow cool-water carbonates. Sedimentary Geology 136:169–187.Google Scholar
Bush, A. M., and Bambach, R. K.. 2004. Did alpha diversity increase during the Phanerozoic? Lifting the veils of taphonomic, latitudinal, and environmental biases. Journal of Geology 112:625–642.Google Scholar
Canfield, D. E., and Raiswell, R.. 1991. Carbonate precipitation and dissolution: its relevance to fossil preservation. Pp. 411–453in P. A. Allison and D. E. G. Briggs, eds. Taphonomy: releasing the data locked in the fossil record. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Caron, V., and Nelson, C. S.. 2009. Diversity of neomorphic fabrics in New Zealand Plio-Pleistocene cool-water limestones: insights into aragonite alteration pathways and controls. Journal of Sedimentary Research 79:226–246.Google Scholar
Carter, J. G. 1990a. Skeletal biomineralization: patterns, processes, and evolutionary trends. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Carter, J. G 1990b. Chapter 10. Evolutionary significance of shell microstructure in the Palaeotaxodonta. Pteriomorphia, and Isofilibranchia (Bivalvia: Mollusca). Pp. 136–296in Carter 1990a.Google Scholar
Cherns, L., and Wright, V. P.. 2000. Missing molluscs as evidence of large-scale, early skeletal aragonite dissolution in a Silurian sea. Geology 28:791–794.Google Scholar
Cherns, L., and Wright, V. P.. 2009. Quantifying the impacts of early diagenetic aragonite dissolution on the fossil record. Palaios 24:756–771.Google Scholar
Cherns, L., and Wright, V. P.. 2011. Skeletal mineralogy and biodiversity of marine invertebrates: size matters more than seawater chemistry. In A. J. McGowan, and A. B. Smith, eds. Comparing the geological and fossil records: implications for biodiversity studies. Geological Society of London Special Publication 358:9–17.Google Scholar
Cherns, L., Wheeley, J. R., and Wright, V. P.. 2008. Taphonomic windows and molluscan preservation. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 270:220–229.Google Scholar
Cherns, L., Wheeley, J. R., and Wright, V. P.. 2011. Taphonomic bias in shelly faunas through time: early aragonitic dissolution and its implications for the fossil record. Pp. 79–105in P. A. Allison and D. J. Bottjer, eds. Taphonomy: process and bias through time (Topics in Geobiology 32). Springer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. A., Maxwell, P. A., Crampton, J. S., Beu, A. G., Jones, C. M., and Marshall, B. A.. 2006. Completeness of the fossil record: estimating losses due to small body size. Geology 34:241–244.Google Scholar
Crampton, J. S., Foote, M., Beu, A. G., Maxwell, P. A., Cooper, R. A., Matcham, I., Marshall, B. A., and Jones, C. M.. 2006a. The ark was full! Constant to declining Cenozoic shallow marine biodiversity on an isolated midlatitude continent. Paleobiology 32:509–532.Google Scholar
Crampton, J. S., Foote, M., Beu, A. G., Cooper, R. A., Matcham, I., Jones, C. M., Maxwell, P. A., and Marshall, B.. 2006b. Second-order sequence stratigraphic controls on the quality of the fossil record at an active margin: New Zealand Eocene to Recent shelf molluscs. Palaios 21:86–105.Google Scholar
Crampton, J. S., Cooper, R. A., Beu, A. G., Foote, M., and Marshall, B. A.. 2010. Biotic influences on species duration: interactions between traits in marine molluscs. Paleobiology 36:204–223.Google Scholar
Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J., Martinez, N. D., Wood, R. A., and Erwin, D. H.. 2008. Compilation and network analysis of Cambrian food webs. PLoS Biology 6(4):e102. doi:10.1371/journal. pbio.0060102.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 2012. Evolutionary dynamics of taxonomic structure. Biology Letters 8:135–138.Google Scholar
Foote, M., and Raup, D. M.. 1996. Fossil preservation and the stratigraphic ranges of taxa. Paleobiology 22:121–140.Google Scholar
Gilinsky, N. L., and Bennington, J. B.. 1994. Estimating whole numbers of individuals from collections of body parts: a taphonomic limitation of the paleontological record. Paleobiology 20:245–258.Google Scholar
Glover, C. P., and Kidwell, S. M.. 1993. Influence of organic matrix on the postmortem destruction of molluscan shells. Journal of Geology 101:729–747.Google Scholar
Gradstein, F. M., Ogg, J., Schmitz, M., and Ogg, G.. 2012. The geologic time scale 2012. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Harper, E. M. 1998. The fossil record of bivalve molluscs. Pp. 243–267in S. K. Donovan and C. R. C. Paul, eds. The adequacy of the fossil record. Wiley, Chichester, U.K.Google Scholar
Hendy, A. J. W. 2009. The influence of lithification on Cenozoic marine biodiversity trends. Paleobiology 35:51–62.Google Scholar
Hendy, A. J. W 2011. Taphonomic overprints on Phanerozoic trends in biodiversity: lithification and other secular megabiases. Pp. 19–77in P. A. Allison and D. J. Bottjer, eds. Taphonomy: process and bias through time (Topics in Geobiology 32). Springer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Hollis, C. J., Beu, A. G., Crampton, J. S., Jones, C. M., Crundwell, M. P., Morgans, H. E. G., Raine, J. I., and Boyes, A. F.. 2010. Calibration of the New Zealand Cretaceous-Cenozoic timescale to GTS2004. GNS Science Report 2010/43:1–20.Google Scholar
James, N. P., Bone, Y., and Kyser, T. K.. 2005. Where has all the aragonite gone? Mineralogy of Holocene neritic cool-water carbonates, southern Australia. Journal of Sedimentary Research 75:454–463.Google Scholar
Kamp, P. J. J., and Nelson, C. S.. 1987. Tectonic and sea-level controls on nontropical Neogene limestones in New Zealand. Geology 15:610–613.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamp, P. J. J., and Nelson, C. S.. 1988. Nature and occurrence of modern and Neogene active margin limestones in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 31:1–20.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 2005. Shell composition has no net impact on large-scale evolutionary patterns in mollusks. Science 307:914–917.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M., and Bosence, D. W. J.. 1991. Taphonomy and time-averaging of marine shelly faunas. Pp. 115–209in P. A. Allison, and D. E. G. Briggs, eds. Taphonomy: releasing the data locked in the fossil record. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M., Best, M. M. R., and Kaufmann, R. S.. 2005. Taphonomic trade-offs in tropical marine death assemblages: differential time averaging, shell loss, and probable bias in siliciclastic vs. carbonate facies. Geology 33:729–732.Google Scholar
King, P. R., Naish, T. R., Browne, G. H., Field, B. D., and Edbrooke, S. W.. 1999. Cretaceous to Recent sedimentary patterns in New Zealand. Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Folio Series 1:1–35.Google Scholar
Koch, C. F., and Sohl, N. F.. 1983. Preservational effects in paleoecological studies: Cretaceous mollusc examples. Paleobiology 9:26–34.Google Scholar
Kosnik, M. A., Alroy, J., Behrensmeyer, A. K., Fürsich, F. T., Gastaldo, R. A., Kidwell, S. M., Kowalewski, M., Plotnick, R. E., Rogers, R. R., and Wagner, P. J.. 2011. Changes in shell durability of common marine taxa through the Phanerozoic: evidence for biological rather than taphonomic drivers. Paleobiology 37:303–331.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M., Gürs, K., Nebelsick, J. H., Oschmann, W., Piller, W. E., and Hoffmeister, A. P.. 2002. Multivariate hierarchical analyses of Miocene mollusk assemblages of Europe: paleogeographic, paleoecological, and biostratigraphic implications. Geological Society of America Bulletin 114:239–256.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M., Kiessling, W., Aberhan, M., Fürsich, F. T., Scarponi, D., Barbour Wood, S. L., and Hoffmeister, A. P.. 2006. Ecological, taxonomic, and taphonomic components of the post-Paleozoic increase in sample-level species diversity of marine benthos. Paleobiology 32:533–561.Google Scholar
McAlester, A. L. 1962. Mode of preservation in early Paleozoic pelecypods and its morphologic and ecologic significance. Journal of Paleontology 36:69–73.Google Scholar
Nelson, C. S. 1978. Temperate shelf carbonate sediments in the Cenozoic of New Zealand. Sedimentology 25:737–771.Google Scholar
Palmer, T. J., and Wilson, M. A.. 2004. Calcite precipitation and dissolution of biogenic aragonite in shallow Ordovician calcite seas. Lethaia 37:417–427.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1982. The adequacy of the fossil record. Pp. 75–117in K. A. Joysey and A. E. Friday, eds. Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E. 2004a. Evenness of Cambrian-Ordovician benthic marine communities in North America. Paleobiology 30:325–346.Google Scholar
Peters, S. E 2004b. Relative abundance of Sepkoski’s evolutionary faunas in Cambrian–Ordovician deep subtidal environments in North America. Paleobiology 30:543–560.Google Scholar
Powell, M. G., and Kowalewski, M.. 2002. Increase in evenness and sampled alpha diversity through the Phanerozoic: comparison of early Paleozoic and Cenozoic marine fossil assemblages. Geology 30:331–334.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2011. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Rivadeneira, M. M. 2010. On the completeness and fidelity of the Quaternary bivalve record from the temperate Pacific coast of South America. Palaios 25:40–45.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1981. A factor analytic description of the Phanerozoic marine fossil record. Paleobiology 7:36–53.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1984. A kinetic model of Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity. III. Post-Paleozoic families and multiple equilibria. Paleobiology 10:246–267.Google Scholar
Sessa, J. A., Patzkowsky, M. E., and Bralower, T. J.. 2009. The impact of lithification on the diversity, size distribution, and recovery dynamics of marine invertebrate assemblages. Geology 37:115–118.Google Scholar
Signor, P. W. III, and Brett, C. E.. 1984. The mid-Paleozoic precursor to the Mesozoic marine revolution. Paleobiology 10: 229–245.Google Scholar
Smith, A. M., and Nelson, C. S.. 2003. Effects of early sea-floor processes on the taphonomy of temperate shelf skeletal carbonate deposits. Earth-Science Reviews 63:1–31.Google Scholar
Tomašových, A., and Schlögl, J.. 2008. Analyzing variations in cephalopod abundances in shell concentrations: the combined effects of production and density-dependent cementation rates. Palaios 23:648–666.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W., Jablonski, D., Kidwell, S., and Roy, K.. 2006. Assessing the fidelity of the fossil record by using marine bivalves. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103:6599–6604.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1977. The Mesozoic marine revolution: evidence from snails, predators, and grazers. Paleobiology 3:245–258.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J., Kosnik, M. A., and Lidgard, S.. 2006. Abundance distributions imply elevated complexity of post-Paleozoic marine ecosystems. Science 314:1289–1292.Google Scholar
Walter, L. M. 1985. Relative reactivity of skeletal carbonates during dissolution: implications for diagenesis. Pp. 3–16in N. Schneidermann, and P. M. Harris, eds. Carbonate cements. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Tulsa, Okla.Google Scholar
Wright, P., Cherns, L., and Hodges, P.. 2003. Missing molluscs: field testing taphonomic loss in the Mesozoic through early large-scale aragonite dissolution. Geology 31:211–214.Google Scholar