Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-h2zp4 Total loading time: 0.204 Render date: 2021-09-17T23:18:24.287Z 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

Reconstructing predation pressure on crinoids: estimating arm-loss rates from regenerating arms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Tomasz K. Baumiller
Affiliation:
Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1079, U.S.A. E-mail: tomaszb@umich.edu
Forest J. Gahn
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Brigham Young University-Idaho, Rexburg, Idaho 83460-0510, U.S.A.

Abstract

The regeneration abilities of crinoids not only are important to understanding crinoid ecology, but also can serve as the basis for assessing the pressure exerted on crinoids by predators both in the Recent and in the geologic past. This is especially true of regenerating arms, because arm loss, and subsequent regeneration, is thought to result from interactions with predators, primarily fish. However, the commonly used regeneration-based proxy for predation pressure (proportion of individuals with regenerating arms) does not provide a measure of the rate at which those events occurred. Here we present a method for reconstructing the arm-loss rate per individual, a more direct proxy of predation pressure. This metric accounts for differences in arm length, arm number, and branching pattern, features highly variable among taxa, among environments, and through geologic time. Normalizing for those characters permits the transformation of observed proportions of regenerating arms to rates that can be compared across samples of morphologically distinct crinoids. Applying this method to a Recent crinoid (Cenometra bella) reveals that this shallow-water comatulid loses arms at a rate of about once every ten days. The same approach reveals that Mississippian shallow-water crinoids (Rhodocrinites kirbyi) experienced arm loss much less frequently, approximately once every 36 days, suggesting that predation pressure on crinoids today is greater than it was in the Mississippian.

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

Aronson, R. B. 1987. Predation on fossil and Recent ophiuroids. Paleobiology 13:187192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, R. B. 1989. Brittlestar beds: low-predation anachronisms in the British Isles. Ecology 70:856865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, R. B. 1991. Predation, physical disturbance, and sublethal arm damage in ophiuroids: a Jurassic–Recent comparison. Marine Ecology Progress Series 74:9197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, R. B. 1992. Biology of a scale-independent predator prey interaction. Marine Ecology Progress Series 89:113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, R. B, Blake, D., and Oji, T. 1997. Retrograde community structure in the late Eocene of Antarctica. Geology 25:903906.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 2003. Experimental and biostratinomic disarticulation of crinoids: taphonomic implications. Pp. 243248inFeral, J.-P. and David, B., eds. Echinoderm research 2001. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., and Gahn, F. J. 2003. Predation on crinoids. Pp. 263278inKelley, 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., 2004. Testing predation-driven evolution using Mid-Paleozoic crinoid arm regeneration. Science 305:14531455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., Mooi, R., and Messing, C. G. 2008. Urchins in the meadow: paleobiological and evolutionary implications of cidaroid predation on crinoids. Paleobiology 34:2234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumiller, T. K., Salamon, M., Gorzelak, P., Mooi, R., Messing, C. G., and Gahn, F. J. 2010. Benthic predation drove early Mesozoic crinoid radiation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107:58935896.CrossRefGoogle 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. Pp. 93118inKowalewski, M. and Kelley, P. H. 2002.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 85:369391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brun, E. 1972. Food and feeding habits of Luidia ciliaris (Echinodermata: Asteroidea). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 52:255286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. H. 1910. The origin of the crinoidal muscular articulation. American Journal of Science 29:40–4.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1859. On the origin of species. John Murray, London.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R., and Krebs, J. R. 1979. Arms races between and within species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 205:489511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ehrlich, P. R., and Raven, P. H. 1964. Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18:586608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emson, R. H., and Wilkie, I. C. 1980. Fission and autotomy in echinoderms. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 18:155250.Google Scholar
Fishelson, L. 1974. Ecology of northern Red Sea crinoids and their epi- and endozoic fauna. Marine Biology 26:183192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gahn, F. J., and Baumiller, T. K. 2005. Arm regeneration in Mississippian crinoids: evidence of intense predation pressure in the Paleozoic? Paleobiology 31:151164.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gahn, F. J., 2010. Evolutionary morphology of regenerative abilities among crinoids: a paleontological perspective. Integrative and Comparative Biology 50:E58E58.Google Scholar
Gorzelak, P., Salamon, M. A., and Baumiller, T. K. 2012. Predator-induced macroevolutionary trends in Mesozoic crinoids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109:70047007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hess, H., and Messing, C. G. 2011. Comatulida. Pp. 70146inSelden, P. A., ed. Echinodermata 2, Crinoidea. Part T (revised) ofMoore, R. C. and Teichert, C., eds. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. University of Kansas Paleontological Institute, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Kesling, R. V. 1964. A new species of Melocrinites from the Middle Devonian Bell Shale of Michigan. Contributions of the Museum of Paleontology University of Michigan 19:87103.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M. 2002. The fossil record of predation: an overview of analytical methods. Pp. 342inKowalewski, M. and Kelley, P. H. 2002.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M., and Kelley, P. H., eds. 2002. The fossil record of predation. Paleontological Society Papers 8.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G. 1984. Predation and survival among inadunate crinoids. Paleobiology 10:453458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudon, L. R. 1957. Crinoids. InLadd, H. S., ed. Treatise on marine ecology and paleoecology 2. Geological Society of America Memoir 67:961972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messing, C. G. 2007. The crinoid fauna (Echinodermata: Crinoidea) of Palau. Pacific Science 61:91111.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., and Ausich, W. I. 1983. Biotic interactions among Recent and among fossil crinoids. Pp. 377427inTevesz, M. J. 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., 1980. Ecology and distribution of the shallow-water crinoids (Echinodermata) of Palau and Guam (Western Pacific). Micronesica 16:5999.Google 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
Minkert, W. 1905. Über regeneration bei Comatuliden nebst ausführungen über die auffassung und bedeutung der zyzygieen. Archiv Naturgesch 71:163244.Google 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
Murtaugh, P. A. 1981. Inferring properties of mysid predation from injuries to Daphnia. Limnology and Oceanography 26:811821.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
Oji, T. 1986. Skeletal variation related to arm regeneration in Metacrinus and Saracrinus, Recent stalked crinoids. Lethaia 19:355360.CrossRefGoogle 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 22:339351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oji, T. 2001. Fossil record of echinoderm regeneration with special regard to crinoids. Microscopy research and technique 55:397402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Roux, M. 1976. Aspects de la variabilité et de la croissance au sein d'une population de la Pentacrine actuelle: Annacrinus wyvillethomsoni Jeffreys (Crinoidea). Thalassia Jugoslavica 12:307320.Google Scholar
Sallan, L. C., Kammer, T. W., Ausich, W. I., and Cook, L. A. 2011. Persistent predator prey dynamics revealed by mass extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108:83358338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoener, T. W. 1979. Inferring the properties of predation and other injury-producing agents from injury frequencies. Ecology 60:11101115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, J. A. 1988. Frequency of arm regeneration of comatulid crinoids in relation to life habit. Pp. 531538inBurke, R. D., Mladenov, P. V., Lambert, P., and Parsley, R. L., eds. Echinoderm biology. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.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
Springer, F. 1920. The Crinoidea Flexibilia Vol. 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1926. Unusual forms of fossil crinoids. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum Article 9:167.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1953. Classe des Crinoides. Pp. 658773inPiveteau, J., ed. Traité de paléontologie. Masson, Paris.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
Vail, L. 1989. Arm growth and regeneration in Oligometra serripinna (Carpenter) (Echinodermata, Crinoidea) at Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 130:189204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1973. A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory 1:130.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and escalation: an ecological history of life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 2002. Evolution in the consumer age: predators and the history of life. Pp. 375393in Kowalewski and Kelley 2002.Google Scholar
Weissmüller, A. 1998. Ein umfangreicher Fund von Encrinus liliiformis Lamarck im Oberen Muschelkalk (mo2) es Diemeltales (Nordhessen). Phillipia 8:245270.Google Scholar
14
Cited by

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.

Reconstructing predation pressure on crinoids: estimating arm-loss rates from regenerating arms
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.

Reconstructing predation pressure on crinoids: estimating arm-loss rates from regenerating arms
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.

Reconstructing predation pressure on crinoids: estimating arm-loss rates from regenerating arms
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? *