Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T16:06:14.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Using numerical models to evaluate the consequences of time-averaging in marine fossil assemblages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2017

Arnold I. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Geology (ML 13), University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0013
Hays Cummins
Affiliation:
School of Interdisciplinary Studies, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 45056

Extract

Taphonomic studies of marine fossil assemblages have achieved new levels of sophistication in the past several years, but field-based investigations of time-averaged skeletal accumulations continue to suffer from an unavoidable problem: to date, a time machine has yet to be invented that would permit the researcher to observe directly the formation of the assemblage under study. Even when working with Recent subfossil accumulations on the sea floor, where it is theoretically possible to view the activity of (possibly myriad) taphonomic processes, practical considerations prevent the extensive, day-to-day monitoring that would be required to “bear witness”, in a kinetic sense, to the formation of skeletal assemblages. At best, we are sometimes provided with opportunities for comparative glimpses of skeletal accumulations before and after events of potential taphonomic significance, such as hurricanes (e.g., Miller et al., 1992).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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

Allison, P.A. 1988. The role of anoxia in the decay and mineralization of proteinaceous macrofossils. Paleobiology, 14:139154.Google Scholar
Ausich, W.I., and Bottjer, D.J. 1982. Tiering in suspension feeding communities on soft substrata throughout the Phanerozoic. Science, 216:173174 Google Scholar
Ausich, W.I., and Bottjer, D.J. 1985. Phanerozoic tiering in suspension feeding communities on soft substrata: Implications for diversity, p. 255274. In Valentine, J.W. (ed.), Phanerozoic Diversity Patterns: Profiles in Macroevolution. American Associatio for the Advancement of Science, Pacific Division, and Princeton University Pres Princeton.Google Scholar
Bambach, R.K. 1977. Species richness in marine benthic habitats through the Phanerozoic. Paleobiology, 3:152167.Google Scholar
Bottjer, D.J., and Ausich, W.I. 1986. Phanerozoic development of tiering in soft substrata suspension-feeding communities. Paleobiology, 12:400420.Google Scholar
Cisne, J.L. and Rabe, B.D. 1978. Coenocorrelation: Gradient analysis of fossil communities and its applications to stratigraphy. Lethaia, 11: 341364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, H., Powell, E.N., Newton, H.J., Stanton, R.J. Jr., and Staff, G. 1986. Assessing transportation by the covariance of species with comments on contagious and random distributions. Lethaia, 19:122.Google Scholar
Cutler, A.H., and Flessa, K.W. 1990. Fossils out of sequence: Computer simulations and strategies for dealing with stratigraphic disorder. Palaios, 5:227235.Google Scholar
Greenstein, B.J. 1991. An integrated study of echinoid taphonomy: Predictions for the fossil record of four echinoid families. Palaios, 6:519540.Google Scholar
Johnson, R.G. 1964. The community approach to paleoecology, p. 107134. In Imbrie, and Newell, N. (eds.), Approaches to Paleoecology. John Wiley and Son New York.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S.M. 1991. The stratigraphy of shell concentrations, p. 211290. In Allison, P.A. and Briggs, D.E.G. (eds.), Taphonomy: Releasing the Data Locked in the Fossil Record. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S.M., and Baumiller, T. 1990. Experimental disintegration of regular echinoids: roles of temperature, oxygen, and decay thresholds. Paleobiology, 16:247271.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S.M., and Bosence, D.W.J. 1991. Taphonomy and time-averaging of marine shell faunas, p. 115209. In Allison, P.A. and Briggs, D.E.G. (eds.), Taphonomy: Releasing the Data Locked in the Fossil Record. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M. and Misniakiewicz, W. 1993. Reliability of quantitative data on fossil assemblages: a model, a simulation, and an example. Neues Jahrbuch fur Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, 187:243260.Google Scholar
Macarthur, R.H. 1957. On the relative abundance of bird species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 43:293295.Google Scholar
Macarthur, R.H. 1960. On the relative abundance of species. The American Naturalist, 94: 2536 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, A.I. in press. Counting fossils in a Cincinnatian storm bed: Spatial resolution in the Fossil Record. In Brett, C.E. (ed.). Paleontological Event Horizons: Ecological and Evolutionary Implications. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Miller, A.I., and Cummins, H. 1990. A numerical model for the formation of fossil assemblages: Estimating the amount of postmortem transport along environmental gradients. Palaios, 5:303316.Google Scholar
Miller, A.I., Llewellyn, G., Parsons, K.M., Cummins, H., Boardman, M.R., Greenstein, B.J., and Jacobs, D.K. 1992. The effect of Hurricane Hugo on molluscan skeletal distributions, Salt River Bay, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Geology, 20:2326.Google Scholar
Powell, E.N. 1992. A model for death assemblage formation: Can sediment shelliness be explained? Journal of Marine Research, 50:229265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, C.H. 1976. Relative abundances of living and dead molluscs in two California lagoons. Lethaia, 9:137148.Google Scholar
Peterson, C.H. 1977. The paleoecological significance of short-term temporal variability. Journal of Paleontology, 51:976981.Google Scholar
Preston, F.W. 1948. The commonness, and rarity, of species. Ecology, 29:254283.Google Scholar
Preston, F.W. 1962a. The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity: Part I. Ecology, 43:185215.Google Scholar
Preston, F.W. 1962b. The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity: Part II. Ecology, 43:410482.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M., Gould, S.J., Schopf, T.J.M., and Simberloff, D.S. 1973. Stochastic models of phylogeny and the evolution of diversity. Journal of Geology, 81:525542.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D.A., and Sepkoski, J.J. Jr. 1977. Species-abundance distributions in Phanerozoic marine communities. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 9:316.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J.J. Jr. 1981. A factor analytic description of the Phanerozoic marine fossil record. Paleobiology, 7:3653.Google Scholar
Springer, D.A., and Miller, A.I. 1990. Levels of spatial variability: The ‘community’ problem, p. 1330. In Miller, W. III (ed.), Paleocommunity Temporal Dynamics: The Long-Term Development of Multi species Assemblages. Paleontological Society Special Publication No. 5.Google Scholar
Staff, G.M., Stanton, R.J. Jr., Powell, E.N., and Cummins, H. 1986. Time-averaging, taphonomy, and their impacts on paleocommunity reconstruction: Death assemblages in Texas bays. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 97:428443.Google Scholar
Stanley, S.M., Signor, P.W. III, Lidgard, S., and Carr, A.F. 1981. Natural clades differ from ‘random’ clades: Simulations and analyses. Paleobiology, 7: 115127.Google Scholar
Walker, K.R., and Bambach, R.K. 1971. The significance of fossils from fine-grained sediments: Time-averaged communities. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 3:783784.Google Scholar
Warme, J.E., Ekdale, A.A., Ekdale, S.F., and Peterson, C.H. 1976. Raw material of the fossil record, p. 143170. In Scott, R.W. and West, R.R. (eds.), Structure and Classification of Paleocommunities. Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Stroudsburg.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R.H. 1975. Communities and Ecosystems. MacMillan, New York, 385p.Google Scholar