Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-24hb2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T14:20:02.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Increase of shell-crushing predation recorded in fossil shell fragmentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Tatsuo Oji
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113–0033, Japan. E-mail: oji@eps.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Chigusa Ogaya
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113–0033, Japan. E-mail: oji@eps.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Takehiro Sato
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Kanagawa Prefectural Museum of Natural History, Odawara, Kanagawa 250–0031, Japan. E-mail: taks@yk.rim.or.jp

Abstract

The Mesozoic marine revolution focuses on increased predation by durophagous (shell-crushing) predators and the concomitant evolution of prey organisms that occurred in the Mesozoic. Evidence of this predator/prey revolution is found in the appearance and increase of new types of predators that can crush hard shells of prey organisms, and is also found in the morphological changes of prey organisms, such as the appearance of a protective shell morphology of gastropods. We present new data based on the occurrence of shell fragments that indicate a slower increase in durophagous predation than has been considered previously.

The results of an experiment on shell abrasion, in which shells were tumbled in barrels with sediments, indicate that incomplete bivalves and gastropods with angular margins from shallow-marine deposits can be considered as good evidence of durophagous predation. Such angular shell fragments are virtually absent from Japanese Mesozoic shell beds, whereas they are occasionally or commonly found in the Paleogene and are usually abundant in Neogene shell beds. The dominant occurrence of fossil shell fragments in the Cenozoic, as well as the data from shell abrasion experiments using tumbling barrels, indicates that wave agitation or currents do not produce shell fragments with angular margins. Such angular shell fragments are interpreted as the result of durophagous predation that has increased during Cenozoic time, and can be a useful tool in estimating durophagous predation in the fossil record. Revised data on the number of durophagous predator taxa (crustaceans and teleostean fishes) also support this conclusion.

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

Literature Cited

Briggs, D. E. G., Weedon, M. J., and Whyte, M. A. 1993. Arthropoda (Crustacea excluding Ostracoda). Pp. 321331in Benton, M. J., ed. The fossil record 2. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Cadée, G. C. 1994. Eider, shelduck, and other predators, the main producers of shell fragments in the Wadden Sea: palaeoecological implications. Palaeontology 37:181202.Google Scholar
Carter, R. M. 1968. On the biology and paleobiology of some predators of bivalved Mollusca. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 4:2965.Google Scholar
Cate, A. S., and Evans, I. 1994. Taphonomic significance of the biomechanical fragmentation of live molluscan shell material by a bottom-feeding fish (Pogonias cromis) in Texas coastal bays. Palaios 9:254274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driscoll, E. G. 1967. Experimental field study of shell abrasion. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 37:11171123.Google Scholar
Fürsich, F. T. 1995. Shell concentrations. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae 88:643655.Google Scholar
Fürsich, F. T., and Flessa, K. W. 1987. Taphonomy of tidal flat mollusks in the northern Gulf of California: Paleoenvironmental analysis despite the perils of preservation. Palaios 2:543559.Google Scholar
Fürsich, F. T., and Pandey, D. K. 1999. Genesis and environmental significance of Upper Cretaceous shell concentrations from the Cauvery Basin, southern India. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 145:119139.Google Scholar
Inoue, E. 1971. Fossil assemblages and depositional environments of the Kishima Formation, the Upper Oligocene Ashiya Group, in Northwest Kyushu. Pp. 91101in Commemorative publication for the retirement of Prof. Matsushita, H.Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.Google Scholar
Kamada, K., and Kawamura, T. 1988. Storm deposits of the lower Triassic in the southern Kitakami Mountains. The Earth Monthly (Gekkan Chikyu) 10:494498. [In Japanese.]Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. 1986. Models for fossil concentrations: Paleobiologic implications. Paleobiology 12:624.Google Scholar
Meldahl, K. H., and Flessa, K. W. 1990. Taphonomic pathways and comparative biofacies and taphofacies in a Recent intertidal/shallow shelf environment, Provincetown Harbor, northern Cape Cod, MA. Lethaia 23:4360.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1993. Osteichthyes: Teleostei. Pp. 621663in Benton, M. J., ed. The fossil record 2. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Sano, M., Shimizu, M., and Nose, Y. 1984. Food habits of teleostean reef fishes in Okinawa Island, southern Japan. University Museum, University of Tokyo, Bulletin 25.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1977a. Patterns in crab claw size: the geography of crushing. Systematic Zoology 26:138151.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1977b. The Mesozoic marine revolution: evidence from snails, predators, and grazers. Paleobiology 3:245258.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1983. Shell-breaking predation through time. Pp. 649669in Tevesz, M. J. S. and McCall, P. L., eds. Biotic interactions in Recent and fossil benthic communities. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and Escalation: An Ecological History of Life. Princeton University Press, N.J.CrossRefGoogle Scholar