Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-8r4lv Total loading time: 0.279 Render date: 2021-08-06T04:46:15.625Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

Arm regeneration in mississippian crinoids: evidence of intense predation pressure in the Paleozoic?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Forest J. Gahn
Affiliation:
Department of Paleobiology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012. E-mail: gahn.forest@nmnh.si.edu
Tomasz K. Baumiller
Affiliation:
Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1079. E-mail: tomaszb@umich.edu
Corresponding

Abstract

Although direct predator-prey interactions are unobservable in the fossil record, predation has been used to explain many evolutionary trends. Evidence of predation supporting such hypotheses is often presented as isolated instances of preserved sublethal damage, and less commonly, as the frequency of such injuries. For instance, numerous morphological and ecological trends and innovations observed in Phanerozoic crinoids have been causally linked to predation, and whereas the high frequency of arm regeneration in living crinoids is generally assumed to represent intense predation, attempts to assess regeneration frequency and patterns in paleontological samples are few. Can the frequency of fossil injuries be assessed to test hypothesized predation-driven trends, or are such data unavailable?

To address this question, we analyzed regeneration in crinoids from the lower Mississippian (Kinderhookian) Maynes Creek Formation near Le Grand, Iowa, a locality renowned for the preservation of thousands of crinoids in tangled masses of crowns, stalks, and holdfasts. Nine percent of the specimens that we examined contained at least one regenerating arm; however, whereas some species lacked evidence of regeneration, others preserved up to 27% arm regeneration. Furthermore, we observed specimens with all arms regenerating, multiple adjacent arms regenerating from the same place along the arm, and a specimen with a damaged and regenerated primaxil and anal sac.

The highest regeneration frequency was observed in the most abundant species, Rhodocrinites kirbyi, a significantly higher value than expected under a model of no taxonomic selectivity (binomial: p < 0.05). Furthermore, bootstrapped simulations of the probable number of regenerated individuals suggest that the number of regenerated arms observed in our sample is two to three times less than what existed in the living population. Rhodocrinites kirbyi constituted over 40% of the individuals in the Le Grand crinoid fauna and had the longest stalk of the studied species. In addition, regeneration in R. kirbyi is size related, with individuals above median dorsal cup height (7 mm) displaying nearly 50% regeneration, and smaller individuals only 2% (a statistically significant difference; χ2 test: p < 0.001). The regeneration patterns in R. kirbyi are consistent with predatory attacks that target the most apparent prey. Moreover, this study suggests that predation is the most likely explanation for the regeneration patterns observed in Le Grand crinoids, and that the fossil record potentially provides a valuable, yet overlooked, data source for testing hypotheses pertinent to the role of predation in the evolution of Phanerozoic marine life.

Type
Articles
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

Amemiya, S., and Oji, T. 1992. Regeneration in sea lilies. Nature 357:546547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, R. B. 1987. Predation on fossil and Recent ophiuroids. Paleobiology 13:187192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, R. B., and Blake, D. B. 2001. Global climate change and the origin of modern benthic communities in Antarctica. American Zoologist 41:2739.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. 1999. Lower Mississippian Hampton Formation at LeGrand, Iowa, USA. Pp. 135138in Hess, H., Ausich, W. I., Brett, C. E., and Simms, M. S., eds. Fossil crinoids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausich, W. I., and Baumiller, T. K., 1993. Column regeneration in an Ordovician Crinoid (Echinodermata): paleobiologic implications. Journal of Paleontology 67:10681070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausich, W. I., and Sevastopulo, G. D. 2001. The Lower Carboniferous (Tournaisian) crinoids from Hook Head, County Wexford, Ireland. Palaeontographical Society Monograph 617:1137.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I., Kammer, T. W., and Baumiller, T. K. 1994. Demise of the middle Paleozoic crinoid fauna: a single extinction event or rapid faunal turnover? Paleobiology 20:345361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 2003. Experimental and biostratinomic disarticulation of crinoids: taphonomic implications. Pp. 243248In Feral, J. P. and David, B., eds. Echinoderm research 2001. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., and Gahn, F. J. 2002. Record of parasitism on marine invertebrates with special emphasis on the platyceratid-crinoid interaction. In Kowalewski, M. and Kelley, P. H., eds. Fossil record of predation. Paleontological Society Special Papers 8:195209.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., and Gahn, F. J. 2003. Predation on crinoids. Pp. 263278In Kelley, P. H., Kowalewski, M., and Hansen, T. A., eds. Predator-prey interactions in the fossil record Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., Mooi, R., and Messing, C. G. 2001. Cidaroid-crinoid interactions as observed from a submersible. P. 3in Barker, M., ed. Echinoderms 2000. Balkema, Lisse.Google Scholar
Bottjer, D. J., and Jablonski, D. 1988. Paleoenvironmental patterns in the evolution of Post-Paleozoic Benthic Marine Invertebrates. Palaios 3:540560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, C. E., and Walker, S. E. 2002. Predators and predation in Paleozoic marine environments. In Kowalewski, M. and Kelley, P. H., eds. The fossil record of predation. Paleontological Society Papers 8:93118.Google Scholar
Brun, E. 1972. Food and feeding habits of Luidia cilaris (Echinodermata: Asteroidea). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 52:225236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. L. 1915. The comatulids of Torres Strait: with special reference to their habits and reactions. Papers from the Department of Marine Biology, Carnegie Institution of Washington 8:97125.Google Scholar
Cornell, H. V., and Hawkins, B. A. 2003. Herbivore responses to plant secondary compounds: a test of phytochemical revolution theory. American Naturalist 161:507522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, S. K., and Pawson, D. L. 1998. Proximal growth of the column in bathycrinid crinoids (Echinodermata) following decapitation. Bulletin of Marine Science 61:571579.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K., and Schmidt, D. A. 2001. Survival of crinoid stems following decapitation: evidence from the Ordovician and palaeobiological implications. Lethaia 34:263270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeny, P. 1976. Plant apparency and chemical defense. Recent Advances in Phytochemistry 10:140.Google Scholar
Feeny, P. 1990. Theories of plant chemical defense: a brief historical survey. Symposium Biologica Hungarica 39:163175.Google Scholar
Fishelson, L. 1974. Ecology of the northern Red Sea crinoids and their epi- and endozoic fauna. Marine Biology 26:183192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foerste, A. F. 1893. The reproduction of arms in crinoids. American Geologist 12:270271.Google Scholar
Gahn, F. J. 2002. Crinoid and blastoid biozonation and biodiversity in the Early Mississippian (Osagean) Burlington Limestone. Iowa Department of Natural Resources Guidebook 23:5374.Google Scholar
Gahn, F. J., and Baumiller, T. K. 2002. Taphonomic and paleoecologic significance of the “Le Grand Beds,” a crinoid-rich obrution deposit from the Lower Carboniferous (Tournaisian) of Iowa, USA. Geological Society of Australia 68:60. [Abstracts.]Google Scholar
Gahn, F. J., and Baumiller, T. K. 2004. A bootstrap analysis for comparative taphonomy applied to Early Mississippian (Kinderhookian) crinoids from the Wassonville Cycle of Iowa. Palaios 19:1738.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. 1861. Description of new species of Crinoidea from the Carboniferous rocks of the Mississippi Valley. Journal of the Boston Society of Natural History 7:261328.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H., Kowalewski, M., and Hansen, T. A. 2003. Predator-prey interactions in the fossil record. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalewski, M., and Kelley, P. H. 2002. The fossil record of predation. Paleontological Society Special Publication 8. Yale University Reprographics and Imaging Services, New Haven, Conn.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G. 1984. Predation and survival among inadunate crinoids. Paleobiology 10:453458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudon, L. R. 1931. Stratigraphy of the Kinderhook Series of Iowa. Iowa Geological Survey 35:1344.Google Scholar
Laudon, L. R. 1933. The stratigraphy and paleontology of the Gilmore City Formation of Iowa. University of Iowa Studies in Natural History 15:174.Google Scholar
Laudon, L. R. 1957. Crinoids. In Ladd, H. S., ed. Treatise on marine ecology and paleoecology 2. Geological Society of America Memoir 67:961972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudon, L. R., and Beane, B. H. 1937. The crinoid fauna of the Hampton Formation at LeGrand, Iowa. University of Iowa Studies in Natural History 17:226273.Google Scholar
Laudon, L. R., and Severson, J. L. 1953. New crinoid fauna, Mississippian, Lodgepole Formation, Montana. Journal of Paleontology 27:505536.Google Scholar
Laudon, L. R., Parks, J. M., and Spreng, A. C. 1952. Mississippian crinoid fauna from the Banff Formation, Sunwapta Pass, Alberta. Journal of Paleontology 26:544575.Google Scholar
Malzahn, E. 1968. Uber neue Funde von Janassa bituminosa (Schloth) im niederrheinischen Zechstein. Geologisches Jahrbuch 85:6796.Google Scholar
McClintock, J. B., Baker, B. J., Baumiller, T. K., and Messing, C. G. 1999. Lack of chemical defenses in two species of stalked crinoids: support for the predation hypothesis for Mesozoic bathymetric restriction. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 232:17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1985. Evolutionary implications of predation on Recent comatulid crinoids from the Great Barrier Reef. Paleobiology 11:154164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1988. Crinoids as renewable resources: rapid regeneration of the visceral mass in a tropical reef-dwelling crinoid from Australia. Pp. 519522in Burke, R. D., Mladenov, P. D., Lambert, P., and Parsley, R. L., eds. Echinoderm biology. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L., and Ausich, W. I. 1983. Biotic interactions among Recent and fossil crinoids. Pp. 377427in Tevesz, M. F. S. and McCall, P. L., eds. Biotic interactions in Recent and fossil benthic communities. Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. L., and Macurda, D. B. Jr. 1977. Adaptive radiation of comatulid crinoids. Paleobiology 3:7482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D L., and Oji, T. 1993. Eocene crinoids from Seymour Island, Antarctic Peninsula: paleobiogeographic and paleoecologic implications. Journal of Paleontology 67:250257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. L., LaHaye, C. A., Holland, N. D., Arenson, A. C., and Strickler, J. R. 1984. Time-lapse cinematography of feather stars (Echinodermata: Crinoidea) on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia: demonstrations of posture changes, locomotion, spawning and possible predation by fish. Marine Biology 78:179184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mladenov, P. V. 1983. Rate of arm regeneration and potential causes of arm loss in the feather star Florometra serratissima (Echinodermata: Crinoidea). Canadian Journal of Zoology 61:28732879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moy-Thomas, J. A., and Miles, R. S. 1971. Palaeozoic fishes. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, D. 1996. Evidence for a sacrificial response to predation in the reproductive strategy of the comatulid crinoid Antedon bifida from the English Channel. Oceanologica Acta 19:237240.Google Scholar
Nichols, D. 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 22:339351.Google Scholar
Nichols, D. 2001. Fossil record of echinoderm regeneration with special regard to crinoids. Microscopy Research and Technique 55:397402.Google Scholar
Oji, T., and Amemiya, S. 1998. Survival of crinoid stalk fragments and its taphonomic implications. Paleontological Research 2:6770.Google Scholar
Oji, T., and Okamoto, T. 1994. Arm autotomy and arm branching pattern as anti-predatory adaptations in stalked and stalkless crinoids. Paleobiology 20:2739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1991. The future of analytical paleobiology. In Gilinsky, N. L. and Signor, P. W., eds. Analytical paleobiology. Short Courses in Paleontology 4:207216. Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tenn.Google Scholar
Rhoades, D. F., and Cates, R. G. 1976. Toward a general theory of plant antiherbivore chemistry. Recent Advances in Phytochemistry 19:168213.Google Scholar
Sato, A., Saito, T., and Amemiya, S. 2003. Crown regeneration in two living sea lilies Metacrinus interruptus and Saracrinus nobilis. Eleventh International Echinoderm Conference, Munich, Abstracts and Programs (poster abstract 73, no pagination).Google Scholar
Schneider, J. A. 1988. Frequency of arm regeneration of comatulid crinoids in relation to life habit. Pp. 531538in Burke, R. D., Mladenov, P. V., Lambert, P., and Parsley, R. L., eds. Echinoderm biology. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Shibata, T. F., and Oji, T. 2003. Post-larval ontogeny of Oxycomanthus Japonicus (Crinoidea). Eleventh International Echinoderm Conference, Munich, Abstracts and Programs (no abstract number, no pagination).Google Scholar
Signor, P. W. III, and Brett, C. E. 1984. The mid-Paleozoic precursor to the Mesozoic marine revolution. Paleobiology 10:229245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strimple, H. L., and Beane, B. H. 1966. Reproduction of lost arms on a crinoid from Le Grand, Iowa. Oklahoma Geology Notes 26:3537.Google Scholar
Vail, L. 1987. Diel patterns of emergence of crinoids (Echinodermata) from within a reef at Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Marine Biology 93:551560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1977. The Mesozoic marine revolution: evidence from snails, predators, and grazers. Paleobiology 3:245258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1982. Unsuccessful predation and evolution. American Naturalist 120:701720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and escalation: an ecological history of life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1890. New species of crinoids and blastoids from the Kinderhook Group of the Lower Carboniferous rocks at Le Grand, Iowa. Illinois Geological Survey 8:1157.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F. 1897. The North American Crinoidea Camerata. Harvard College Museum of Comparative Zoology Memoir 20–21:1897.Google Scholar
Waters, J. W., and Maples, C. 1991. Mississippian pelmatozoan community reorganization: a predation mediated faunal change. Paleobiology 17:400410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, G. D. 1997. Lower Carboniferous echinoderms from northern Utah and Western Wyoming. Utah Geological Survey Bulletin 128, Paleontological Series, 1:165.Google Scholar
Weissmüller, A. 1998. Ein umfangreicher Fund von Encrinus liliiformis Lamarck im Oberen Muschelkalk (mo2) des Diemeltales (Nordhessen). Philippia 8:245270.Google Scholar
Whitfield, R. P. 1904. Notice of a remarkable case of reproduction of lost parts shown on a fossil crinoid. Bulletin American Museum Natural History 20:471472.Google Scholar
Witzke, B. J., and Bunker, B. J. 1996. Relative sea-level changes during Middle Ordovician through Mississippian deposition in the Iowa area, North American craton. In Witzke, B. J., Ludvigson, G. A., and Day, J., eds. Paleozoic sequence stratigraphy: views from the North American Craton. Geological Society of America Special Paper 306:307330.Google Scholar
Witzke, B. J., and Bunker, B. J. 2001. Bedrock stratigraphy in the Burlington area. Geological Society of Iowa Guidebook 71:919.Google Scholar
Witzke, B. J., and Bunker, B. J. 2002. Bedrock geology in the Burlington area, southeast Iowa. Pleistocene, Devonian, and Mississippian Stratigraphy of the Burlington, Iowa Area Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Bureau Guidebook Series 23:2348.Google Scholar
Zangerl, R., and Richardson, E. 1963. Paleoecological history of two Pennsylvanian black shales. Fieldiana Geology Memoirs 4:1352.Google Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Arm regeneration in mississippian crinoids: evidence of intense predation pressure in the Paleozoic?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Arm regeneration in mississippian crinoids: evidence of intense predation pressure in the Paleozoic?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Arm regeneration in mississippian crinoids: evidence of intense predation pressure in the Paleozoic?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *