Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T18:27:21.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mixed assemblages of drilling predators and the problem of identity in the fossil record: A case study using the muricid gastropod Ecphora

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2015

Michelle M. Casey Open the ORCID record for Michelle M. Casey [Opens in a new window] ,
Úna C. Farrell ,
Gregory P. Dietl  and
David J. Veilleux
Michelle M. Casey
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, Murray State University, 334 Blackburn Science Building, Murray, Kentucky 42071, U.S.A. E-mail: mcasey5@murraystate.edu
Úna C. Farrell
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, U.S.A.
Gregory P. Dietl
Affiliation:
Paleontological Research Institution, 1259 Trumansburg Road, Ithaca, New York 14850, U.S.A. and Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853U.S.A.
David J. Veilleux
Affiliation:
NOAA, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Milford Laboratory, 212 Rogers Avenue, Milford, Connecticut 06460, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drillholes made by naticid and muricid gastropods are frequently used in evolutionary and ecological studies because they provide direct, preservable evidence of predation. The muricid Ecphora is common in many Neogene Atlantic Coastal Plain assemblages in the United States, but is frequently ignored in studies of naticid predation. We used a combination of Pliocene fossil, modern beach, and experimentally derived samples to evaluate the hypothesis that Ecphora was an important source of drillholes in infaunal bivalve prey shared with naticids. We focused on the large, thick-shelled venerid, Mercenaria, which is commonly drilled by naticids today. Laboratory experiments, modern beach samples, and the published literature confirm that naticids preferentially drill near the umbo (significant clumping of holes), show a significant correlation between prey size and predator size (estimated by outer borehole diameter), and prefer Mercenaria <50 mm antero-posterior width when other prey are present. Fossil samples containing Ecphora (with or without other large muricids) show no drillhole site stereotypy (no significant clumping, greater variability in placement), no significant predator: prey size correlation, drilled prey shells larger than the largest modern naticids could produce in an experimental setting, and drillholes larger in diameter than those estimated for the largest Pliocene naticids, thus supporting our hypothesis. Substantial overlap in the placement of holes drilled by naticids and muricids, however, made identifying predators from drillhole position problematic. The lack of overlapping ranges of prey shell thickness between fossil and other samples precluded the use of drillhole morphology to establish predator identity (e.g., ratio of inner borehole diameter to outer borehole diameter, drillhole angle). Whereas the difficulty in determining predator identity from drillholes limits the types of analyses that can be reliably performed in mixed-predator assemblages, recognizing Ecphora as a prominent drilling predator creates the opportunity to investigate previously unrecognized questions.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , September 2015 , pp. 680 - 696
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 The Paleontological Society. All rights reserved 

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

Alexander, R. R., Dietl, G. P., and Farrell, U. C.. 2007. Influence of intravalve variation in thickness on naticid borehole stereotypy. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 38:66.Google Scholar
Boggs, C. H., Rice, J. A., Kitchell, J. A., and Kitchell, J. F.. 1984. Predation at a snail's pace: What's time to a gastropod? Oecologia 62:13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data: Geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K..Google Scholar
Bricelj, V. M. 1992. Aspects of the biology of the northern quahog, Mercenaria, with emphasis on growth and survival during early life history. Pp. 29–61 in Proceedings of the 2nd Rhode Island Industry Conference, Narragansett, R.I.Google Scholar
Bromley, R. G. 1981. Concept in ichnotaxonomy illustrated by small round holes in shells. Acta Geologica Hispana 16:55–64.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. D. 1993. Pliocene molluscs from the Yorktown and Chowan River Formation in Virginia. Virginia Division of Mineral Resources Publication 127:1–259.Google Scholar
Carriker, M. R. 1951. Observations on the penetration of tightly closing bivalves by Busycon and other predators. Ecology 32:73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carriker, M. R 1955. Critical review of biology and control of oyster drills Urosalpinx and Eupleura. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report 148, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Carriker, M. R 1957. Preliminary study of behavior of newly hatched Oyster Drills, Urosalpinx cinerea (Say). Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 73:328–351.Google Scholar
Carriker, M. R 1961. Comparative functional morphology of boring mechanisms in gastropods. American Zoologist 1:263–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carriker, M. R 1981. Shell penetration and feeding by Naticacean and Muricacean predatory gastropods - A synthesis. Malacologia 20:403–422.Google Scholar
Carriker, M. R., and Gruber, G. L.. 1999. Uniqueness of the gastropod accessory boring organ (ABO): Comparative biology, an update. Journal of Shellfish Research 18:579–595.Google Scholar
Carriker, M. R., and Yochelson, E. L.. 1968. Recent gastropod boreholes and Ordovician cylindrical borings. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 593-B, Washington, D.C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casey, M. M., and Chattopadhyay, D.. 2008. Clumping behavior as a strategy against drilling predation: Implications for the fossil record. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 367:174–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalcraft, D. R., and Resetarits, W. J.. 2003. Predator identity and ecological impacts: Functional redundancy or functional diversity? Ecology 84:2407–2418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chattopadhyay, D., Zuschin, M., and Tomašových, A.. 2014. Effects of a high-risk environment on edge-drilling behavior: Inference from Recent bivalves from the Red Sea. Paleobiology 40:34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietl, G. P., and Herbert, G. S.. 2005. Influence of alternative shell-drilling behaviours on attack duration of the predatory snail, Chicoreus dilectus. Journal of Zoology 265:201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietl, G. P., Herbert, G. S., and Vermeij, G. J.. 2004. Reduced competition and altered feeding behavior among marine snails after a mass extinction. Science 306:2229–2231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dietl, G. P., and Kelley, P. H.. 2004. Emergent effects of multiple predators on prey in the fossil record. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 36:480.Google Scholar
Dietl, G. P., and Kelley, P. H.. 2006. Can naticid gastropod predators be identified by the holes they drill? Ichnos 13(3), 103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietl, G. P. 2003. Coevolution of a marine gastropod predator and its dangerous bivalve prey. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 80:409–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edward, J. K. P., Ramesh, M. X., and Ayakkannu, K.. 1992. Comparative study of holes in bivalves, chipped and bored by the muricid gastropods Chicoreus ramosus, Chicoreus virgines and Murex tribulus. Phuket Marine Biology Centennial Special Publication 11:106–110.Google Scholar
Gordillo, S., and Amuchastegui, S. N.. 1998. Estrategias de depredacion del gastropodo perforador Trophon geversianus (Pallas) (Muricoidea: Trophonidae). Malacologia 39:83–91.Google Scholar
Gosner, K. L. 1979. A field guide to the Atlantic seashore: Invertebrates and seaweeds of the Atlantic coast from the Bay of Fundy to Cape Hatteras; text and illustrations. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Mass.Google Scholar
Hammer, Ø., and Harper, D. A. T.. 2006. Paleontological data analysis. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Mass.Google Scholar
Hammer, O., Harper, D. A. T., and Ryan, P. D.. 2001. PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologica Electronica 4(1), 9 pp.Google Scholar
Herbert, G. S., and Dietl, G. P.. 2002. Tests of the escalation hypothesis: The role of multiple predators. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 32:538–539.Google Scholar
Kabat, A. R. 1990. Predatory ecology of naticid gastropods with a review of shell boring predation. Malacologia 32:155–193.Google Scholar
Kelley, P. H. 1991. The effect of predation intensity on rate of evolution of five Miocene bivalves. Historical Biology 5:65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, P. H., and Hansen, T. A.. 2001. The role of ecological interactions in the evolution of naticid gastropods and their molluscan prey. Pp. 149–170in W. D. Allmon, and D. J. Bottejer, eds Evolutionary paleoecology; the ecological context of macroevolutionary change. Columbia University Press, N.Y..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, P. H., and Hansen, T. A.. 2003. The fossil record of drilling predation on bivalves and gastropods. Pp. 113–140in P. H. Kelley, M. Kowalewski, and T. A. Hansen, eds. Predator-prey interactions in the fossil record. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, N.Y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, P. H., and Hansen, T. A.. 2006. Comparisons of class- and lower taxon-level patterns in naticid gastropod predation, Cretaceous to Pleistocene of the US Coastal Plain. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 236:302–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitchell, J. A. 1986. The evolution of predator-prey behavior: Naticid gastropods and their molluscan prey. Pp. 88–110in M. H. Nitecki, and J. A. Kitchell, eds. Evolution of animal behavior: Paleontological and field approaches. Oxford University Press, N.Y.Google Scholar
Kitchell, J. A., Boggs, C. H., Kitchell, J. F., and Rice, J. A.. 1981. Prey selection by naticid gastropods: Experimental tests and application to the fossil record. Paleobiology 7:533–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kojumdjeva, E. 1974. Les gastropodes perceurs et leurs victimes du Miocene de Bulgarie du nord-ouest. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulletin of the Geological Institute (Series Paleontology) 23:5–24.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M. 1993. Morphometric analysis of predatory drillholes. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 102:69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalewski, M 2002. The fossil record of predation: An overview of analytical methods. Pp. 3–42in M. Kowalewski, and P. H. Kelley, eds. The Fossil Record of Predation. The Paleontological Society, New Haven, Conn.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M 2004. Drill holes produced by the predatory gastropod Nucella lamellosa (Muricidae): Palaeobiological and ecological implications. Journal of Molluscan Studies 70:359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, C. L. 1977. Predation on hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) populations. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106:530–537.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, C. L., Morrison, A., Taylor, D. A., Burrell, V. G., Arnold, W. S., and Wakida-Kusunoki, A. T.. 2002. Quahogs in eastern North America: Part I, biology, ecology, and historical uses. Marine Fisheries Review 64:1–55.Google Scholar
Ottens, K. J., Dietl, G. P., Kelley, P. H., and Stanford, S. D.. 2012. A comparison of analyses of drilling predation on fossil bivalves: Bulk- vs. taxon-specific sampling and the role of collector experience. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 319–320:84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, S., and Herbert, G. S.. 2014. Plio–Pleistocene drilling predation in Florida bivalves: Predator identity, competition, and biotic change. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 404:67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peharda, M., and Morton, B.. 2006. Experimental prey species preferences of Hexaplex trunculus (Gastropoda: Muricidae) and predator–prey interactions with the Black Mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis (Bivalvia: Mytilidae). Marine Biology 148:1011–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petuch, E. J. 1982. Notes on the molluscan paleontology of the Pinecrest Beds at Sarasota, Florida with the description of Pyruella, a stratigraphically important new genus. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 134:12–30.Google Scholar
Petuch, E. J 1987. A new Ecphora fauna from southern Florida. Nautilus 101:200–206.Google Scholar
Petuch, E. J 1988. Field Guide to the Ecphoras. Coastal Education & Research Foundation, Charlottesville, Va.Google Scholar
Petuch, E. J 1994. Atlas of Florida fossil shells: (Pliocene and Pleistocene marine gastropods). The Graves Museum of Archeology and Natural History, Dania, with Chicago Spectrum, Evanston, Ill.Google Scholar
Petuch, E. J 2004. Cenozoic Seas: The view from eastern North America. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
Petuch, E. J., and Roberts, C.. 2007. The geology of the Everglades and adjacent areas. CRC, Boca Raton, Fla.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, D. M., Palkovacs, E. P., Schielke, E. G., and Dodson, S. I.. 2008. Intraspecific variation in a predator affects community structure and cascading trophic interactions. Ecology 89:2019–2032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roopnarine, P. D., and Beussink, A.. 1999. Extinction and naticid predation of the bivalve Chione von Mühlfeld in the late Neogene of Florida. Palaeontologia Electronica 2(1), 33 pp.Google Scholar
Roopnarine, P. D., and Willard, S.. 2001. Bivalve prey morphology as a guide to drilling stereotypy of naticid and muricid gastropods: Venerids, naticids, and muricids in tropical America. PaleoBios 21(Supplementary to No. 2), 109–110.Google Scholar
SAS Institute, Inc. 2002–2008. SAS software, Version 9.2.Google Scholar
Stump, T. E. 1975. Pleistocene molluscan paleoecology and community structure of the Puerto Libertad region, Sonora, Mexico. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 17:177–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, K. 2008. Mudflat predation on bivalves and gastropods by Chicoreus capucinus (Neogastropoda: Muricidae) at Kungkrabaen Bay, Gulf of Thailand. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology Supplement 18:235–245.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. D. K. 1976. Gastropod predation on sympatric Neogene species of Glycymeris (Bivalvia) from the eastern United States. Journal of Paleontology 50:488–499.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and escalation: An ecological history of life. Princeton University Press, Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J 1995. Morphology and possible relationships of Ecphora (Cenozoic Gastropoda: Muricidae). Nautilus-Paper Edition 109:120–126.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J 2012. The evolution of gigantism on temperate seashores. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 106:776–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visaggi, C. C., Dietl, G. P., and Kelley, P. H.. 2013. Testing the influence of sediment depth on drilling behaviour of Neverita duplicata (Gastropoda: Naticidae), with a review of alternative modes of predation by naticids. Journal of Molluscan Studies 79:310–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, S. E. 2007. Traces of gastropod predation on molluscan prey in tropical reef environments. Pp. 324–344in W. C. Miller, ed. Trace Fossils: Concepts, Problems, Prospects. Elsevier, Boston, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, L. W. 1992. Molluscan biostratigraphy of the Miocene, Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain of North America. Memoir 2:1–159.Google Scholar
Wells, H. W. 1958. Feeding habits of Murex fulvescens. Ecology 39:556–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. 1983. The Lee Creek Enigma, Mclellania aenigma, a new taxon in fossil Cirrhipedia. Pp. 483–493in I. C. E. Ray, ed. Geology and Paleontology of the Lee Creek Mine, North Carolina. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, Washington, D.C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zullo, V. A., and Harris, W. B.. 1992. Sequence stratigraphy of the marine Pliocene and lower Pleistocene deposits of southwestern Florida: preliminary assessment. Pp. 27–40in T. Scott, and W. D. Allmon, eds. Plio-Pleistocene Stratigraphy and Paleontology of Southern Florida, Special Publication 36. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee.Google Scholar