Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T18:09:26.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paleoecology of suspension-feeding echinoderm assemblages from the Upper Ordovician (Katian, Shermanian) Walcott-Rust Quarry of New York

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

James C. Brower
James C. Brower*
Affiliation:
Heroy Geology Laboratory, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244-1070
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Walcott-Rust Quarry echinoderm fauna lived at the base of a carbonate ramp in moderately deep water (Benthic Assemblage 5 of Boucot and others) below wave base for all or most storms but within the photic zone. The inhabitants of the soft substrate were buried rapidly by distal carbonate turbidity currents or mudflows. Because of the episodic sedimentation, the organisms were opportunistic. The suspension-feeding echinoderms include nine crinoids, a rhombiferan, and a paracrinoid. They occur with a variety of filter-feeding bryozoan colonies, a few brachiopods, and numerous trilobites. Most suspension-feeding echinoderms were attached by small holdfasts to hard shelly substrates. Some of these substrates lay on the seafloor, whereas others may have been elevated when the larvae settled. Other types of holdfasts are distal stems that are tightly and permanently coiled around crinoid stems, open distal stem coils that lay on the substrate or were wrapped around soft objects, and recumbent stems running along the seafloor. The echinoderms occupied levels from the seafloor to almost a meter above it, whereas the bryozoans and brachiopods ranged from the seabed to a maximum height of about 10 cm. The sizes of the echinoderm food grooves and comparisons with their modern analogues along with filtration theory indicate that they ate food particles that were mostly larger than those taken by bryozoans. In general, the different taxa of suspension-feeding echinoderms living at the same elevation above the seafloor collected food particles of different maximum sizes and different mean sizes; however, they overlapped greatly with respect to smaller food items. The various crinoid species were able to feed at different ranges of ambient current velocities, which also tended to separate them ecologically. Crinoids having narrow food grooves were restricted to feeding on small food particles but they caught food items over a wide range of current velocities; the converse is also true, which suggests an evolutionary or behavioral tradeoff. As in most Ordovician crinoid communities, predation was comparatively low. Regenerated arms in crinoids reflect predation on about 1.8% of the individuals in the fauna and the most likely fossilized culprits are trilobites and straight nautiloids. Competition for space and attachment sites within and between species of the Walcott-Rust Quarry crinoid and rhombiferan assemblages does not seem to have been significant in regulating their ecological structure. Comparison with shallow-water crinoid assemblages of roughly the same age demonstrates that the Walcott-Rust Quarry faunas were less diverse and less complex. This could be caused by one or more of the following conditions that affected the Walcott-Rust fauna: lower average current velocities, the episodic sedimentological disturbances, higher suspended sediment content in the water, and softer substrates.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 85 , Issue 2 , March 2011 , pp. 369 - 391
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

Ausich, W. I. 1980. A model for differentiation in lower Mississippian crinoid communities. Journal of Paleontology, 54:273–288.Google Scholar
Ausich, W. I. and Sevastopuo, G. D.. 1994. Taphonomy of Lower Carboniferous crinoids from the Hook Head Formation, Ireland. Lethaia, 27:245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bambach, R. K. 1993. Seafood through time: Changes in biomass, energetics, and productivity in the marine ecosystem. Paleobiology, 19:372–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1993. Survivorship analysis of Paleozoic Crinoidea: Effect of filter morphology on evolutionary rates. Paleobiology, 19:304–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 1997. Crinoid functional morphology, p. 45–68. In Waters, J. A. and Maples, C. G. (eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms, Paleontological Society Papers, 3.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. 2008. Taphonomy as an indicator of behavior among fossil crinoids, p. 7–20. In Ausich, W. I., and Webster, G. D. (eds.), Echinoderm Paleobiology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. and Gahn, F. J.. 2003. Chapter 10, Predation on crinoids, p. 263–278. In Kelley, P. H., Kowalewski, M., and Hansen, T. A. (eds.), Predator-prey Interactions in the Fossil Record. Topics in Geobiology, Vol. 20. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumiller, T. K. and Gahn, F. J.. 2004. Testing predator-driven evolution with Paleozoic crinoid arm regeneration. Science, 305:1543–1455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benton, M. J. 2005. Vertebrate Palaeontology, third edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited, Victoria, Australia, xi and 455 p.Google Scholar
Billings, E. 1854. On some new genera and species of Cystidea from the Trenton Limestone. Canadian Journal, 2:215–219, 250-253, 268-274.Google Scholar
Billings, E. 1857. New species of fossils from Silurian rocks of Canada. Canada Geological Survey Report of Progress 1853-1856, Report for the year 1856, p. 247–345.Google Scholar
Billings, E. 1859. On the Crinoideae of the Lower Silurian rocks of Canada, Figures and Descriptions of Canadian Organic Remains, Decade IV:7–66.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J. 1975. Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. Developments in Palaeontology and Stratigraphy 1, xv and 426 p.Google Scholar
Brenchley, P. J. and Harper, D. A. T.. 1998. Palaeoecology: Ecosystems, Environments and Evolution. Chapman & Hall, London, 402 p.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E. 1999. Chapter 6, Middle Ordovician Trenton Group of New York, USA, p. 63–67. In Hess, H., Ausich, W. I., Brett, C. E., and Simms, M. J. (eds.), Fossil Crinoids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, C. E. and Baird, G. C.. 2002. Revised stratigraphy of the Trenton Group in its type area, central New York State: sedimentology and tectonics of a Middle Ordovician shelf-to-basin succession. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 27:231–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, C. E., Deline, B. L., and McLaughlin, P. I.. 2008. Attachment, facies distribution, and life history strategies in crinoids from the Upper Ordovician of Kentucky, p. 22–52. In Ausich, W. I., and Webster, G. D. (eds.), Echinoderm Paleobiology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Brett, C. E., Moffat, H. A., and Taylor, W. L.. 1997. Echinoderm taphonomy, taphofacies, and lagerstätten, p. 147–190. In Waters, J. A. and Maples, C. G. (eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms. Paleontological Society Papers, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, C. E., Whiteley, T. E., Allison, P. A., and Yochelson, E. L.. 1999. The Walcott-Rust Quarry: Middle Ordovician trilobite Konservat-Lagerstätten. Journal of Paleontology, 73:288–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1973. Crinoids from the Girardeau Limestone (Ordovician). Palaeontographica Americana, 7:261–499.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1987. The relations between allometry, phylogeny and functional morphology in some calceocrinid crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 61:999–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1992a. Cupulocrinid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 66:99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1992b. Hybocrinid and disparid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 66:973–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1994. Camerate crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 68:570–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1995. Eoparisocrinid crinoids from the Middle Ordovician (Galena Group, Dunleith Formation) of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 69:351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1999. A new pleurocystitid echinoderm from the Middle Ordovician Galena Group of northern Iowa and southern Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology, 73:129–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 2002a. Cupulocrinus angustatus (Meek and Worthen), a cladid crinoid from the Upper Ordovician Maquoketa Formation of the northern midcontinent. Journal of Paleontology, 76:109–122.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 2002b. Quintuplexacrinus, a new cladid crinoid genus from the Upper Ordovician Maquoketa Formation of the northern midcontinent of the United States. Journal of Paleontology, 76:993–1006.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 2005. The paleobiology and ontogeny of Cincinnaticrinus varibrachialus Warn and Strimple, 1977 from the Middle Ordovician (Shermanian) Walcott-Rust Quarry of New York. Journal of Paleontology, 79:152–174.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 2006. Ontogeny of the food-gathering system in Ordovician crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 80:430–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 2007. The application of filtration theory to food gathering in Ordovician crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 81:1284–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 2008. Some disparid crinoids from the Upper Ordovician (Shermanian) Walcott-Rust Quarry of New York. Journal of Paleontology, 82:57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. 2010. Camerate and cladid crinoids from the Upper Ordovician (Katian, Shermanian) Walcott-Rust Quarry of New York. Journal of Paleontology, 84:626–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, J. C. and Kile, K. M.. 1994. Paleoautecology and ontogeny of Cupulocrinus levorsoni Kolata, a Middle Ordovician crinoid from the Guttenberg Formation of Wisconsin, p. 25–44. In Landing, E. (ed.), Studies in Stratigraphy and Paleontology in Honor of Donald W. Fisher. New York State Museum Bulletin, 481.Google Scholar
Byrne, M. and Fontaine, A. R.. 1983. Morphology and function of the tube-feet of Florometra serratissima (Echinodermata: Crinoidea). Zoomorphology, 102:175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, P. H. 1881. The Comatululae of the Leyden Museum. Notes from the Leyden Museum, 3:173–217.Google Scholar
Conrad, T. A. 1838. Report on the Palaeontological Department of the Survey. New York State Geological Survey Annual Report 2:107–119.Google Scholar
Conrad, T. A. 1841. Description of new genera and species of organic remains, Crustacea. New York Geological Survey, 5th Annual Report of the State Paleontologist, p. 25–57.Google Scholar
Dalman, J. W. 1828. Upställning och Beskrifning af de I sverige funne Terebratuliter. Kongliga Vetenskapsakademien Handlingar för År, 1827:85–155.Google Scholar
Davis, J. C. 1986. Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology (second edition). John Wiley & Sons, New York, x and 646 p.Google Scholar
Dekay, J. E. 1824. Observations on the structure of trilobites, and description of an apparently new genus. With notes on the geology of Trenton Falls by J. Renwick. Annales of the Lyceum of Natural History New York, 1:174–189.Google Scholar
Dodd, J. R. and Stanton, R. J. Jr. 1981. Paleoecology, Concepts and Applications, first edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, xiv and 559 p.Google Scholar
Dodd, J. R. and Stanton, R. J. Jr. 1990. Paleoecology Concepts and Applications, second edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, ix and 502 p.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. and Owens, R. M.. 1999. Feeding habits in trilobites. Palaeontology, 42:429–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gage, J. D. 2003. Growth and production of Ophiocten gracilis (Ophiuroidea: Echinodermata) on the Scottish continental slope. Marine Biology, 143:85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, A., Ausich, W. I., and Copper, P.. 2003. New cyclocystoid (Phylum Echinodermata) from Anticosti Island, Quebec, and its bearing on cyclocystoid life modes. Journal of Paleontology, 77:949–957.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. 1832. A Monograph of the Trilobites of North America with Colored Models of the Species. Philadelphia, Joseph Brano, 93 p.Google Scholar
Guensburg, T. E. 1991. The stem and holdfast of Amygdalocystites florealis Billings, 1854 (Paracrinoidea): lifestyle implications. Journal of Paleontology, 65:693–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. 1847. Palaeontology of New York, v. 1, containing descriptions of the organic remains of the lower division of the New-York system (equivalent of the Lower Silurian rocks of Europe). Natural History of New York, Pt. 6. D. Appleton & Company and Wiley & Putnam (New York); Gould, Kendall, & Lincoln (Boston); Charles van Benthuysen (Albany), 338 p.Google Scholar
Holland, S. M., Miller, A. I., Meyer, D. L., and Dattilo, B. F.. 2001. The detection and importance of subtle biofacies within a single lithofacies: The Upper Ordovician Kope Formation of the Cincinnati, Ohio Region. Palaios, 16:205–217.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holterhoff, P. E. 1997. Paleocommunity and evolutionary ecology of Paleozoic crinoids, p. 69–106. In Waters, J. A. and Maples, C. G. (eds.), Geobiology of echinoderms. Paleontological Society Papers, 3.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W. 1985. Aerosol filtration theory applied to Mississippian deltaic crinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 59:551–560.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W. and Ausich, W. I.. 1987. Aerosol suspension feeding and current velocities: Distributional controls for late Osagian crinoids. Paleobiology, 13:379–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolata, D. R. 1975. Middle Ordovician echinoderms from northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin. Paleontological Society Memoir 7 (Journal of Paleontology, 49 [3] Supplement), 74 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolata, D. R., Strimple, H. L., and Levorson, C. O.. 1977. Revision of the Ordovician carpoid family Iowacystidae. Palaeontology, 20:529–557.Google Scholar
Lahaye, M. C. and Jangoux, M.. 1985. Functional morphology of the podia and ambulacral grooves of the comatulid crinoid Antedon bifida (Echinodermata). Marine Biology, 86:307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, A. B., Strickler, J. R., and Holland, N. D.. 1988. Effects of current speed on filtration during suspension feeding in Oligometra serripinna (Echinodermata: Crinoidea). Marine Biology, 97:111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loo, L.-O., Jonnsson, P. R., Sköld, M., and Karlsson, Ö.. 1996. Passive suspension feeding in Amphiuria filiformis (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea): Feeding behavior in flume flow and potential feeding rate of field populations. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 139:143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loo, L.-O. and Rosenberg, R.. 1996. Production and energy budget in marine suspension feeding populations: Mytilus edulis, Cerastoderma edule, Mya arenaria and Amphiura filiformis. Journal of Sea Research, 35:199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magurran, A. E. 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, p. 1–256.Google Scholar
Martin, R. E. 1998. One Long Experiment: Scale and Process in Earth History. Columbia University Press, New York, p. 1–262.Google Scholar
McCammon, H. M. 1969. The food of articulate brachiopods. Journal of Paleontology, 43:976–985.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. K. and Jackson, J. B. C.. 1989. Bryozoan Evolution. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 238 p.Google Scholar
Meek, F. B. and Worthen, A. H.. 1865. Descriptions of new species of Crinoidea, &c., from the Palaeozoic rocks of Illinois and some of the adjoining states. Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences Proceedings, 17:143–155.Google Scholar
Messing, C. G. 1997. Living comatulids, p. 3–30. In Waters, J. A. and Maples, C. G. (eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms, Paleontological Society Papers, 3.Google Scholar
Messing, C. G., Neumann, A. C., and Lang, J. C.. 1990. Biozonation of deep-water lithoherms and associated hardgrounds in the Northeastern Straits of Florida. Palaios, 5:15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1979. Length and spacing of the tube feet in crinoids (Echinodermata) and their role in suspension feeding. Marine Biology, 51:361–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1982a. Food and feeding mechanisms: Crinozoa, p. 25–42. In Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J. M. (eds.), Echinoderm Nutrition A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1982b. Food composition and feeding behavior of sympatric species of comatulid crinoids from the Palau Islands (western Pacific), p. 43–49. In Lawrence, J. M. (ed.), Echinoderms: Proceedings of the International Conference, Tampa Bay A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1997. Implications of research on living stalked crinoids for paleobiology, p. 31–43. In Waters, J. A. and Maples, C. G. (eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms, Paleontological Society Papers, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. L. and Ausich, W. I.. 1983. Chapter 9: Biotic interactions among Recent and among fossil crinoids, p. 377–427. In Tevesz, M. J. S. and McCall, P. L. (eds.), Biotic Interactions in Recent and Fossil Benthic Communities. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. L., Miller, A. I., Holland, S. M., and Dattilo, B. F.. 2002. Crinoid distribution and feeding morphology through a depositional sequence: Kope and Fairview Formations, Upper Ordovician, Cincinnati Arch region. Journal of Paleontology, 76:725–732.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, D. 1960. The histology and activities of the tube feet of Antedon bifida. Quarterly Journal of the Microscopical Society, 101:105–117.Google Scholar
Nicholson, H. A. and Etheridge, R.. 1877. On Prasopora grayae, a new genus and species of Silurian corals. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 20:388–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsley, R. L. and Mintz, L. W.. 1975. North American Paracrinoidea: (Ordovician: Paracrinozoa, new, Echinodermata). Bulletins of American Paleontology, 68(288):5–115.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. and Smith, A. B.. 1984. The early radiation and phylogeny of echinoderms. Biological Reviews, 59:443–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roux, M. 1987. Evolutionary ecology and biogeography of recent stalked crinoids as a model for the fossil record, p. 1–53. In Jangoux, M. and Lawrence, J. M. (eds.), Echinoderm Studies, Vol. 2 A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Schopf, T. J. M. 1969. Paleoecology of ectoprocts (bryozoans). Journal of Paleontology, 43:234–244.Google Scholar
Sköld, M., Josefson, A. B., and Loo, L.-O.. 2001. Sigmoidal growth in the brittle star Amphiuria filiformis (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea). Marine Biology, 139:519–526.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B. and Paul, C. R. C.. 1982. Revision of the class Cyclocystoidea (Echinodermata). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B. Biological Sciences, 296:577–684.Google Scholar
Sneath, P. H. A. and Sokal, R. R.. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, xv and 573 p.Google Scholar
Sowerby, J. De C. 1839. Mollusca and Conchifers, p. 577–768. In Murchison, R. I., The Silurian System, Pt. 2. John Murray, London.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J. 1982. Echinoderm zones and faunas, p. 47–56. In Sprinkle, J. (ed.), Echinoderm Faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1. University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 2008. Predation defeats competition on the seafloor. Paleobiology, 34:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. 1879. Descriptions of new genera and species of fossils from the Lower Silurian about Cincinnati. Cincinnati Society of Natural History Journal, 2:8–30.Google Scholar
Vogel, S. 1994. Life in Moving Fluids, Second Edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, xiii and 467 p.Google Scholar
Vogel, S. 2003. Comparative Biomechanics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, xii and 580 p.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J., Kosnik, M. A., and Lidgard, S.. 2006. Abundance distributions imply elevated complexity of Post-Paleozoic marine ecosystems. Science, 314:1289–1292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walcott, C. D. (1883) 1884. Descriptions of new species of fossils from the Trenton Group of New York. Thirty-fifth Annual Report of the New York State Museum of Natural History, p. 207–214(Advanced print, 15 October 1883, p. 1-8).Google Scholar
Warn, J. M. and Strimple, H. L.. 1977. The disparid inadunate superfamilies Homocrinacea and Cincinnaticrinacea (Echinodermata: Crinoidea), Ordovician-Silurian, North America. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 72:1–138.Google Scholar
Whittington, H. B. 1997. Mode of life, habits and occurrence, p. 138–169. In Kaesler, R. L. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. O, Arthropoda 1, Trilobita, Revised. Vol. 1. Introduction, Order Agnostida, Order Redlichiida. The Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Wildish, D. and Kristmanson, D.. 1997. Benthic Suspension Feeders and Flow. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 409 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. B. 1991. Methods for fitting Dominance/Diversity Curves. Journal of Vegetation Science, 2:35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winston, J. E. 1981. Feeding behavior of modern bryozoans, p. 1–21. In Dutro, J. T. and Boardman, R. S. (eds.), Lophophorates, Notes for a Short Course. University of Tennessee, Department of Geological Sciences, Studies in Geology 5.Google Scholar
Woodley, J. D. 1980. The biomechanics ophiuroid tube-feet, p. 293–299. In Jangoux, M. (ed.), Echinoderms: Present and Past. Proceedings of the European Colloquium on Echinoderms, 3-8 September 1979. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar