Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T10:21:06.629Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evolutionary paleoecology of dense ophiuroid populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2017

Richard B. Aronson  and
Daniel B. Blake
Richard B. Aronson
Affiliation:
Dauphin Island Sea Lab, Dauphin Island, Alabama 36528, USA
Daniel B. Blake
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA
Get access

Abstract

Issues of scale are becoming increasingly important to paleobiological interpretations of the fossil record. Nevertheless, a number of biological processes display scale-independent behaviors. The effects of predation on the distribution of dense populations of epifaunal, suspension-feeding ophiuroids are scale-independent, at scales ranging from the microecological to the macroevolutionary. On a microecological scale (meters to kilometers, hours to days), dense ophiuroid populations are limited in shallow-water environments by predatory fishes and crabs. On a larger, ecological scale (tens to hundreds of kilometers, decades to centuries), circumstantial evidence indicates that oceanographically driven, multidecadal cycles of predator abundance determine the abundance of ophiuroids throughout the western English Channel. On a macroevolutionary scale (millions to tens of millions of years, global spatial scale), dense, autochthonous assemblages of ophiuroids declined in conjunction with the Mesozoic diversification of modern shell-crushing predators: teleostean fishes, decapod crustaceans, and neoselachian sharks. The sporadic reappearance of dense ophiuroid populations in a late Eocene, shallow marine deposit in Antarctica suggests that predator-prey relationships were disrupted as temperatures declined in the region at that time. Scale-independence is a useful model for explaining and predicting patterns of distribution of dense ophiuroid populations in time and space.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Paleontological Society Papers , Volume 3: Geobiology of Echinoderms , October 1997 , pp. 107 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by 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

Aronson, R. B. 1987. Predation on fossil and Recent ophiuroids. Paleobiology, 13:187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, R. B. 1989a. A community-level test of the Mesozoic marine revolution theory. Paleobiology, 15:20–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, R. B. 1989b. Brittlestar beds: low-predation anachronisms in the British Isles. Ecology, 70:856–865.Google Scholar
Aronson, R. B. 1991. Predation, physical disturbance, and sublethal arm damage in ophiuroids: A Jurassic–Recent comparison. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 74:91–97.Google Scholar
Aronson, R. B. 1992a. Biology of a scale-independent predator-prey interaction. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 89:1–13.Google Scholar
Aronson, R. B. 1992b. The effects of geography and hurricane disturbance on a tropical predator-prey interaction. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 162:15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, R. B. 1994. Scale-independent biological processes in the marine environment. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review, 32:435–460.Google Scholar
Aronson, R. B. and Harms, C. A. 1985. Ophiuroids in a Bahamian saltwater lake: the ecology of a Paleozoic-like community. Ecology, 66:1472–1483.Google Scholar
Aronson, R. B., and Heck, K. L. Jr. 1995. Tethering experiments and hypothesis testing in ecology. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 121:307–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, R. B., and Sues, H.-D. 1987. The paleoecological significance of an anachronistic ophiuroid community. In Kerfoot, W. C. and Sih, A. (eds.), Predation: Direct and Indirect Impacts on Aquatic Communities. University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire, p. 355–366.Google Scholar
Bottjer, D. J., and Jablonski, D. 1988. Paleoenvironmental patterns in the evolution of post-Paleozoic benthic marine invertebrates. Palaios, 3:540–560.Google Scholar
Bowmer, T., and Keegan, B. F. 1983. Field survey of the occurrence and significance of regeneration in Amphiura filiformis (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea) from Galway Bay, west coast of Ireland. Marine Biology, 74:65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, C. E., Moffat, H. A., and Taylor, W. L. 1997. Echinoderm taphonomy, taphofacies, and Lagerstätten, p. 147–190. In Waters, J. A. and Maples, C. G. (eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms. Paleontological Society Papers, 3.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. B. 1964. A comparative study of some features of the biology of Amphiura filiformis and Amphiura chiajei [Ophiuroidea] considered in relation to their distribution. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 44:565–576.Google Scholar
Conway Morris, S. 1995. Ecology in deep time. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10:290–294.Google Scholar
Dearborn, J. H. 1977. Foods and feeding characteristics of antarctic asteroids and ophiuroids, p. 293–326. In Llano, G. A. (ed.), Adaptations Within Antarctic Ecosystems: Proceedings of the Third SCAR Symposium on Antarctic Biology. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Dell, R. K. 1972. Antarctic benthos. Advances in Marine Biology, 10:1–216.Google Scholar
Diester-Haass, L., and Zahn, R. 1996. Eocene–Oligocene transition in the Southern Ocean: history of water mass circulation and biological productivity. Geology, 24:163–166.Google Scholar
Duineveld, G. C. A., and Van Noort, G. J. 1986. Observations on the population dynamics of Amphiura filiformis (Ophiuroidea: Echinodermata) in the southern North Sea and its exploitation by the dab, Limanda limanda. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 20:85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erwin, D. H. 1990. The end-Permian mass extinction. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 21:69–91.Google Scholar
Fell, H. B. 1961. The fauna of the Ross Sea. Part 1. Ophiuroidea. New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research Bulletin, 142:1–79.Google Scholar
Fell, H. B., Holzinger, T., and Sherraden, M. 1969. Ophiuroidea, p. 42–43. In Bushnell, V. C., and Hedgpeth, J. C. (eds.), Antarctic Map Folio Series, Folio 11. American Geographical Society, New York.Google Scholar
Fratt, D. B., and Dearborn, J. H. 1984. Feeding biology of the Antarctic brittle star Ophionotus victoriae (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea). Polar Biology, 3:127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujita, T., and Ohta, S. 1990. Size structure of dense populations of the brittle star Ophiura sarsii (Ophiuroidea: Echinodermata) in the bathyal zone around Japan. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 64:113–122.Google Scholar
Gage, J. D., and Tyler, P. A. 1991. Deep-Sea Biology: a Natural History of Organisms at the Deep-Sea Floor. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 504 p.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1985. The paradox of the first tier: an agenda for paleobiology. Paleobiology, 11:2–12.Google Scholar
Hily, C. 1991. Is the activity of suspension feeders a factor controlling water quality in the Bay of Brest? Marine Ecology Progress Series, 69:179–188.Google Scholar
Hoffman, A. 1989. Arguments on Evolution: a Paleontologist's Perspective. Oxford University Press, New York, 274 p.Google Scholar
Holme, N. A. 1984. Fluctuations of Ophiothrix fragilis in the western English Channel. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 64:351–378.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. N. and Elner, R. W. 1979. Tactics of a predator, Carcinus maenas, and morphological responses of the prey, Nucella lapillus. Journal of Animal Ecology, 48:65–78.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1986. Background and mass extinctions: the alternation of macroevolutionary regimes. Science, 231:129–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J. M. (eds.). 1982. Echinoderm Nutrition. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 654 p.Google Scholar
Kennett, J. P., and Warnke, D. A. (eds.). 1992. The Antarctic Paleoenvironment: a Perspective on Global Change, Part 1. Antarctic Research Series, 56. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., 384 p.Google Scholar
Kesling, R. V., and Le Vasseur, D. 1971. Strataster ohioensis, a new Early Mississippian brittle-star, and the paleoecology of its community. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, 23:305–241.Google Scholar
Kitching, J. A., and Lockwood, J. 1974. Observations on shell form and its ecological significance in thaisid gastropods of the genus Lepisella in New Zealand. Marine Biology, 28:131–144.Google Scholar
Levin, S. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology, 73:1943–1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinton, J. 1988. Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 637 p.Google Scholar
Mackensen, A., and Ehrmann, W. U. 1992. Middle Eocene through early Oligocene climate history and paleoceanography in the Southern Ocean: stable oxygen and carbon isotopes from ODP sites on Maud Rise and Kerguelen Plateau. Marine Geology, 108:1–27.Google Scholar
Menge, B. A., and Olson, A. C. 1990. Role of scale and environmental factors in regulation of community structure. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 5:52–57.Google Scholar
Messing, C. G. 1997. Living comatulids, p. 3–30. In Waters, J. A. and Maples, C. G. (eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms. Paleontological Society Papers, 3.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1985. Evolutionary implications of predation on Recent comatulid crinoids from the Great Barrier Reef. Paleobiology, 11:154–164.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1997. Implications of research on living stalked crinoids for paleobiology, p. 31–43. In Waters, J. A. and Maples, C. G. (eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms. Paleontological Society Papers, 3.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. and Ausich, W. I. 1983. Biotic interactions among Recent and among fossil crinoids, p. 377–427. In Tevesz, M. J. S. and McCall, P. L. (eds.), Biotic Interactions in Recent and Fossil Benthic Communities. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L., and Macurda, D. B. Jr. 1977. Adaptive radiation of the comatulid crinoids. Paleobiology, 3:74–82.Google Scholar
Oji, T. 1985. Early Cretaceous Isocrinus from northeast Japan. Palaeontology, 28:629–642.Google Scholar
Oji, T. 1996. Is predation intensity reduced with increasing depth? Evidence from the west Atlantic stalked crinoid Endoxocrinus parrae (Gervais) and implications for the Mesozoic marine revolution. Paleobiology, 22:339–351.Google Scholar
Oneill, R. V., Deangelis, D. L., Waide, J. B., and Allen, T. F. H. 1986. A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 253 p.Google Scholar
Schäfer, W. 1972. Ecology and Paleoecology of Marine Environments. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 568 p.Google Scholar
Seeley, R. H. 1986. Intense natural selection caused a rapid morphological transition in a living marine snail. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 83:6987–6901.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1991. Diversity in the Phanerozoic oceans: a partisan view, p. 210–236. In Dudley, E. C. (ed.), The Unity of Evolutionary Biology: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology, Volume 1. Dioscorides Press, Portland, Ore.Google Scholar
Stancyk, S. E., Feller, R. J., Aronson, R. B., Dobson, W. E., and McKenzie, J. D. 1994. Predation and regeneration of Ophiura sarsi on the US continental slope: use of a manned submersible to perform in situ experiments (abstract), p. 490. In David, B., Guille, A., Fral, J. -P., and Roux, M. (eds.), Echinoderms Through Time: Proceedings of the Eighth International Echinoderm Conference, Dijon. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Stilwell, J. D., and Zinsmeister, W. J. 1992. Molluscan Systematics and Biostratigraphy: Lower Tertiary La Meseta Formation, Seymour Island, Antarctic Peninsula. Antarctic Research Series, 55. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., 192 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thayer, C. W. 1983. Sediment-mediated biological disturbance and the evolution of marine benthos. In Tevesz, M. J. S. and McCall, P. L. (eds.), Biotic Interactions in Recent and Fossil Benthic Communities. Plenum Press, New York, p. 479–625.Google Scholar
Thies, D., and Reif, W.-E. 1985. Phylogeny and evolutionary ecology of Mesozoic Neoselachii. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, 169:625–643.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1977. The Mesozoic marine revolution: evidence from snails, predators and grazers. Paleobiology, 3:245–258.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1978. Biogeography and Adaptation: Patterns of Marine Life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 332 p.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and Escalation: an Ecological History of Life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 527 p.Google Scholar
Warner, G. F. 1971. On the ecology of a dense bed of the brittle-star Ophiothrix fragilis . Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 51:267–282.Google Scholar
Warner, G. F., and Woodley, J. D. 1975. Suspension-feeding in the brittle-star Ophiothrix fragilis. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 55:199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, K., Cohen, A., and Baron, M. 1991. Morphology and behavior of crabs and gastropods from Lake Tanganyika, Africa: implications for lacustrine predator-prey coevolution. Evolution, 45:589–607.Google ScholarPubMed
Zinsmeister, W. J., and Feldmann, R. M. 1984. Cenozoic high latitude heterochroneity of Southern Hemisphere marine faunas. Science, 224:281–283.Google Scholar