Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:39:26.749Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paleoecology of echinoderm assemblages from the Upper Ordovician (Katian) Dunleith Formation of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

James C. Brower
James C. Brower*
Affiliation:
Heroy Geology Laboratory, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-1070, USA,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Dunleith Formation echinoderms lived on a shallow water carbonate platform (Benthic Assemblages outer 2 and 3 during the latter part of the Dunleith Regressive Cycle). The echinoderms were buried rapidly by storms or a volcanic ash bed in one example. The presence of complete specimens, entire crowns, attachment structures, and excellent preservation strongly suggests that these assemblages reflect in situ communities on the seafloor that have not been significantly mixed, transported, or concentrated in time. Most taxa are suspension feeders, namely 21 crinoids, one glyptocystitid rhombiferan, a paracrinoid, and two edrioasteroids, but a deposit feeding pleurocystitid rhombiferan is also common. Three assemblages are recognized and defined by their dominant taxa; in order of increasing depth, these are the Cotylacrinna sandra, Pleurocystites strimplei, and Cupulocrinus crossmani assemblages. Substrates ranged from hard- or firm-ground carbonates to soft carbonate and siliciclastic muds. Diverse attachment structures are recognized: the recumbent stems of calceocrinids, lichenocrinids on shells, small distal stem tips, and round to lobate calcite pads cemented to shells or the substrate, open distal stem coils directly on the seabed or coiled around soft objects thereon, and large conical and highly modified cirrus holdfasts on hard- or firm-grounds. The echinoderms were located at levels ranging from the seafloor to almost a meter above, with maximum diversity at about 50 mm above the seafloor. The size frequency distributions of food particles and the ranges of ambient current velocities for successful feeding by the juveniles and adults of the common crinoids are modeled using filtration theory. The food particle size distributions and the current velocities for feeding are correlated with the arm or filtration fan morphology of the crinoids. Differences between these parameters tend to partially separate the feeding ecologies of species located at the same elevation. Nevertheless, considerable overlap remains between species for small sized food particles and the lower ranges of ambient current velocities for feeding. Except for the Cotylacrinna sandra Assemblage, competition for space does not seem to have been important in regulating the ecological structure of the Dunleith crinoids. However, the deposit feeding pleurocystitids possibly competed for food and space in one example. The Dunleith assemblages are much more diverse with greater ecological complexity than seen in the relatively deep water fauna from the Upper Ordovician Trenton Group of the Walcott-Rust Quarry in New York (Benthic Assemblage 5).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 87 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 16 - 43
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

Ausich, W. I. 1980. A model for differentiation in lower Mississippian crinoid communities. Journal of Paleontology, 54:273–288.Google Scholar
Bambach, R. K. 1993. Seafood through time: changes in biomass, energetics, and productivity in the marine ecosystem. Paleobiology, 19:372–397.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1993. Survivorship analysis of Paleozoic Crinoidea: effect of filter morphology on evolutionary rates. Paleobiology, 19:304–321.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1997. Crinoid functional morphology, p. 45–68. InWaters, J. A. and Maples, C. G.(eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms, Paleontological Society Papers, 3.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. and Gahn, F. J. 2003. Chapter 10, Predation on crinoids, p. 263–278. InKelley, P. H., Kowalewski, M., and Hansen, T. A.(eds.), Predator-Prey Interactions in the Fossil Record. Topics in Geobiology, Volume 20, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. and Gahn, F. J. 2004. Testing predator-driven evolution with Paleozoic crinoid arm regeneration. Science, 305:1543–1455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumiller, T. K., Gahn, F. J., Hess, H., and Messing, C. G. 2008. Taphonomy as an indicator of behavior among fossil crinoids, p. 7–20. InAusich, W. I. and Webster, G. D.(eds.), Echinoderm Paleobiology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Billings, E. 1857. New species of fossils from Silurian rocks of Canada. Canada Geological Survey Report of Progress 1853–1856, Report for the year 1856, p. 247–345.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J. 1975. Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. Developments in Palaeontology and Stratigraphy 1, xv+ 426 p.Google Scholar
Brenchley, P. J. and Harper, D. A. T. 1998. Palaeoecology: Ecosystems, Environments and Evolution. Chapman and Hall, London, 402p.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., Boucot, A. J., and Jones, B. 1993. Absolute depths of Silurian benthic assemblages. Lethaia, 26:25–40.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., Deline, B. L., and Mclaughlin, P. I. 2008. Attachment, facies distribution, and life history strategies in crinoids from the Upper Ordovician of Kentucky, p. 22–52. InAusich, W. I. and Webster, G. D.(eds.), Echinoderm Paleobiology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., Moffat, H. A., and Taylor, W. L. 1997. Echinoderm taphonomy, taphofacies, and lagerstätten, p. 147–190. InWaters, J. A. and Maples, C. G.(eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms. Paleontological Society Papers, 3.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1973. Crinoids from the Girardeau Limestone (Ordovician). Palaeontographica Americana, 7:261–499.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1977. Calceocrinids from the Bromide Formation (Ordovician) of southern Oklahoma. Oklahoma Geological Survey Circular, 78, 28p.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1987. The relations between allometry, phylogeny and functional morphology in some calceocrinid crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 61:999–1032.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1992a. Cupulocrinid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 66:99–128.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1992b. Hybocrinid and disparid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 66:973–993.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1994. Camerate crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 68:570–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1995a. Eoparisocrinid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 69:351–366.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1995b. Dendrocrinid crinoids from the Ordovician of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 69:939–960.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1996. Carabocrinid crinoids form the Ordovician of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 70:614–631.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1999. A new pleurocystitid echinoderm from the Middle Ordovician Galena Group of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 73:129–153.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 2005. The paleobiology and ontogeny of Cincinnaticrinus varibrachialus Warn and Strimple, 1977 from the Middle Ordovician (Shermanian) Walcott-Rust Quarry of New York. Journal of Paleontology, 79:152–174.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 2006. Ontogeny of the food-gathering system in Ordovician crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 80:430–446.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 2007a. Upper Ordovician crinoids from the Platteville Limestone of northeastern Iowa. Journal of Paleontology, 81:103–115.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 2007b. The application of filtration theory to food gathering in Ordovician crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 81:1284–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 2008. Some disparid crinoids from the Upper Ordovician (Shermanian) Walcott-Rust Quarry of New York. Journal of Paleontology, 82:57–77.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 2010. Camerate and cladid crinoids from the Upper Ordovician (Katian, Shermanian) Walcott-Rust Quarry of New York. Journal of Paleontology, 84:626–645.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 2011. Paleoecology of suspension feeding echinoderm assemblages from the Upper Ordovician (Katian, Shermanian) Walcott-Rust Quarry of New York. Journal of Paleontology, 85:369–391.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. and Kile, K. M. 1994. Paleoautecology and ontogeny of Cupulocrinus levorsoni Kolata, a Middle Ordovician crinoid from the Guttenberg Formation of Wisconsin, p. 25–44. InLanding, E.(ed.), Studies in Stratigraphy and Paleontology in Honor of Donald W. Fisher. New York State Museum Bulletin 481.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. and Strimple, H. L. 1983. Ordovician calceocrinids from northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 57:1261–1281.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. and Veinus, J. 1974. Middle Ordovician crinoids from southern Virginia and eastern Tennessee. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 66 (283):1–125.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. and Veinus, J. 1978. Middle Ordovician crinoids from the Twin Cities area of Minnesota. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 74 (304):372–506.Google Scholar
Byrne, M. and Fontaine, A. R. 1983. Morphology and function of the tube-feet of Florometra serratissima (Echinodermata: Crinoidea). Zoomorphology, 102:175–187.Google Scholar
Davis, J. C. 1986. Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology, second edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, x+646 p.Google Scholar
Davis, R. A. Jr., Knowles, S. C., and Baird, M. J. 1989. Role of hurricanes in the Holocene stratigraphy of estuaries: examples from the Gulf Coast of Florida. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 59:1052–1061.Google Scholar
Dodd, J. R. and Stanton, R. J. Jr. 1990. Paleoecology Concepts and Applications, second edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, ix+502 p.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K., Paul, C. R. C., and Lewis, D. N. 1996. Chapter 13, Echinoderms, p. 202–267. InHarper, D. A. T. and Owen, A. W.(eds.), Fossils of the Upper Ordovician, Palaeontological Association Field Guides to Fossils, Number 7. Palaeontological Association, London.Google Scholar
Frest, T. J., Brett, C. E., and Witzke, B. J. 1999. Chapter 45, Caradocian–Gedinnian echinoderm associations of central and eastern North America, p. 638–783. InBoucot, A. J. and Lawson, J. D.(eds.), Paleocommunities—A Case Study from the Silurian and Lower Devonian. Cambridge University Press, World and Regional Geology 11, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gage, J. D. 2003. Growth and production of Ophiocten gracilis (Ophiuroidea: Echinodermata) on the Scottish continental slope. Marine Biology, 143:85–97.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E. 1984. Echinodermata of the Middle Ordovician Lebanon Limestone, central Tennessee. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 86 (19):1–100.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E. 1992. Paleoecology of hardground and commensal crinoids, Middle Ordovician, Tennessee. Journal of Paleontology, 66:129–147.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1847. Palaeontology of New York, v. 1, containing descriptions of the organic remains of the lower division of the New York system (equivalent of the Lower Silurian rocks of Europe). Natural History of New York, Part 6, D. Appleton and Company and Wiley and Putnam, New York; Gould, Kendall, and Lincoln, Boston; Charles van Benthuysen, Albany, 338p.Google Scholar
Holterhoff, P. E. 1997. Paleocommunity and evolutionary ecology of Paleozoic crinoids, p. 69–106. InWaters, J. A. and Maples, C. G.(eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms, Paleontological Society Papers, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kammer, T. W. 1985. Aerosol filtration theory applied to Mississippian deltaic crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 59:551–560.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W. and Ausich, W. I. 1987. Aerosol suspension feeding and current velocities: distributional controls for late Osagian crinoids. Paleobiology, 13:379–395.Google Scholar
Kolata, D. R. 1975. Middle Ordovician echinoderms from northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin. Paleontological Society Memoir 7, Journal of Paleontology, 49:3Supplement, 74 p.Google Scholar
Kolata, D. R. 1986. Crinoids of the Champlainian (Middle Ordovician) Guttenberg Formation—upper Mississippi Valley region. Journal of Paleontology, 60:711–718.Google Scholar
Kolata, D. R., Huff, W. D., and Bergström, S. M. 1996. Ordovician K-bentonites of Eastern North America. Geological Society of America, Special Paper 313, v+84 p.Google Scholar
Kolata, D. R., Huff, W. D., and Bergström, S. M. 1998. Nature and regional significance of unconformities associated with the Middle Ordovician Hagan K-bentonite complex in the North American Midcontinent. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 110:723–739.Google Scholar
Kolata, D. R., Huff, W. D., and Bergström, S. M. 2001. The Ordovician Sebree Trough: an oceanic passage to the Midcontinent. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 113:1067–1078.Google Scholar
Lamarck, J. B. P. A.de M. de., 1816. Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans Vertébres : Vol. 2. Lamarck, Paris, 568p.Google Scholar
Lahaye, M. C. and Jangoux, M. 1985. Functional morphology of the podia and ambulacral grooves of the comatulid crinoid Antedon bifida (Echinodermata). Marine Biology, 86:307–318.Google Scholar
Levorson, C. O. and Gerk, A. J. 1972. A preliminary stratigraphic study of the Galena Group of Winneshiek County, Iowa. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science, 79:111–122.Google Scholar
Levorson, C. O., Gerk, A. J., Sloan, R. E., and Bisagno, L. A. 1987. General section of the Middle and Late Ordovician strata of northeastern Iowa, p. 25–39. InSloan, R. E.(ed.), Middle and Late Ordovician Lithostratigraphy and Biostratigraphy of the Upper Mississippi Valley. Minnesota Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 35.Google Scholar
Loo, L.-O., Jonnsson, P. R., Sköld, M. and Karlsson, Ö. 1996. Passive suspension feeding in Amphiuria filiformis (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea): feeding behavior in flume flow and potential feeding rate of field populations. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 139:143–155.Google Scholar
Loo, L.-O. and Rosenberg, R. 1996. Production and energy budget in marine suspension feeding populations: Mytilus edulis, Cerastoderma edule, Mya arenaria and Amphiura filiformis. Journal of Sea Research, 35:199–207.Google Scholar
Magurran, A. E. 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, p. 1–256.Google Scholar
Martin, R. E. 1998. One Long Experiment: Scale and Process in Earth History. Columbia University Press, New York, p. 1–262.Google Scholar
Meek, F. B. and Worthen, A. H. 1865. Descriptions of new species of Crinoidea, etc., from the Palaeozoic rocks of Illinois and some of the adjoining states. Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences Proceedings, 17:143–155.Google Scholar
Messing, C. G. 1997. Living comatulids, p. 3–30. InWaters, J. A. and Maples, C. G.(eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms, Paleontological Society Papers, 3.Google Scholar
Messing, C. G., Neumann, A. C., and Lang, J. C. 1990. Biozonation of deep-water lithoherms and associated hardgrounds in the Northeastern Straits of Florida. Palaios, 5:15–33.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1979. Length and spacing of the tube feet in crinoids (Echinodermata) and their role in suspension feeding. Marine Biology, 51:361–369.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1982a. Food and feeding mechanisms: Crinozoa, p. 25–42. InJangoux, M. and Lawrence, J. M.(editors), Echinoderm Nutrition, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1982b. Food composition and feeding behavior of sympatric species of comatulid crinoids from the Palau Islands (western Pacific), p. 43–49. InLawrence, J. M.(ed.), Echinoderms: Proceedings of the International Conference, Tampa Bay. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1997. Implications of research on living stalked crinoids for paleobiology, p. 31–43. InWaters, J. A. and Maples, C. G.(eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms, Paleontological Society Papers, 3.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. and Ausich, W. I. 1983. Chapter 9, Biotic interactions among Recent and among fossil crinoids, p. 377–427. InTevesz, 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., Miller, A. I., Holland, S. M., and Dattilo, B. F. 2002. Crinoid distribution and feeding morphology through a depositional sequence: Kope and Fairview formations, Upper Ordovician, Cincinnati Arch region. Journal of Paleontology, 76:725–732.Google Scholar
Moore, R. C. and Laudon, L. R. 1943. Evolution and classification of Paleozoic crinoids. Geological Society of America Special Paper 46, 167p.Google Scholar
Parsley, R. L. and Mintz, L. W. 1975. North American Paracrinoidea: (Ordovician: Paracrinozoa, new, Echinodermata). Bulletins of American Paleontology, 68 (288):5–115.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. and Smith, A. B. 1984. The early radiation and phylogeny of echinoderms. Biological Reviews, 59:443–481.Google Scholar
Roux, M. 1987. Evolutionary ecology and biogeography of recent stalked crinoids as a model for the fossil record, p. 1–53. InJangoux, M. and Lawrence, J. M.(eds.), Echinoderm Studies, volume 2. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Skold, M., Josefson, A. B., and Loo, L.-O. 2001. Sigmoidal growth in the brittle star Amphiuria filiformis (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea). Marine Biology, 139:519–526.Google Scholar
Skold, M., Loo, L.-O., and Rosenberg, R. 1994. Production dynamics and demography of an Amphiura filiformis population. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 103:81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloan, R. E. 1987. Tectonics, biostratigraphy and lithostratigraphy of the Middle and Late Ordovician of the Upper Mississippi Valley, p. 7–20. InSloan, R. E.(ed.), Middle and Late Ordovician Lithostratigraphy and Biostratigraphy of the Upper Mississippi Valley. Minnesota Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 35.Google Scholar
Sloan, R. E. 2005. Minnesota Fossils and Fossiliferous Rocks. Privately published in an edition of 1000 copies, 218 p. Winona, Minnesota.Google Scholar
Sloan, R. E. and Desautels, D. A. 1987. The Wagner Quarry Cystoid Bed: a study in Prosser (Sherwood) paleoecology, p. 60–62. InSloan, R. E.(ed.), Middle and Late Ordovician Lithostratigraphy and Biostratigraphy of the Upper Mississippi Valley. Minnesota Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 35.Google Scholar
Sneath, P. H. A. and Sokal, R. R. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, xv+573 p.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1911. On a Trenton crinoid fauna at Kirkfield, Ontario. Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir 15-P, 47p.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J. 1982 a (editor). Echinoderm Faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1. University of Kansas, Lawrence, x+369 p.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J. 1982b. Echinoderm zones and faunas, p. 47–56. InSprinkle, J.(ed.), Echinoderm Faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1. University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J. and Guensburg, T. E. 1995. Origin of echinoderms in the Paleozoic Evolutionary Fauna: the role of substrates. Palaios, 10:437–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 2008. Predation defeats competition on the seafloor. Paleobiology, 34:1–21.Google Scholar
Strimple, H. L 1975. Introduction to a new series of studies of Ordovician echinoderms. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science, 82:124–125.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
Walcott, C. D. 1883, 1884. Descriptions of new species of fossils from the Trenton Group of New York. Thirty-fifth Annual Report of the New York State Museum of Natural History, p. 207–214(Advanced print, 15 October, 1883, p. 1–8).Google Scholar
Warn, J. M. and Strimple, H. L. 1977. The disparid inadunate superfamilies Homocrinacea and Cincinnaticrinacea (Echinodermata: Crinoidea), Ordovician–Silurian, North America. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 72:1–138.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. B. 1991. Methods for fitting Dominance/Diversity Curves. Journal of Vegetation Science, 2:35–46.Google Scholar
Witzke, B. J. and Bunker, B. J. 1996. Relative sealevel changes during Middle Ordovician deposition in the Iowa area, North American Craton, p. 307–330. InWitzke, B. J., Ludvigson, G. A., and Day, J.(eds.), Paleozoic Sequence Stratigraphy: Views from the Craton. Geological Society of America, Special Paper 306.Google Scholar
Witzke, B. J. and Kolata, D. E. 1989. Changing structural and depositional patterns: Ordovician Champlainian and Cincinnatian Series of Iowa–Illinois, p. 55–77. InLudvigson, G. A. and Bunker, B. J.(eds.), New Perspectives on the Paleozoic History of the Upper Mississippi Valley: An Examination of the Plum River Fault Zone. Guidebook Number 8, Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Guidebook for the 18th Annual Field Conference of the Great Lakes Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Second Edition.Google Scholar
Woodley, J. D. 1980. The biomechanics ophiuroid tube-feet, p. 293–299. InJangoux, M.(ed.), Echinoderms: Present and Past. Proceedings of the European Colloquium on Echinoderms, 3–8 September, 1979. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar