Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-7tdvq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-13T06:49:44.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taking advantage of time-averaging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Thomas Olszewski
Thomas Olszewski*
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802. E-mail: tomo@geosc.psu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the major obstacles in dealing with any form of data derived from fossils is the effects of time-averaging, which are the result of mixing the remains of organisms that did not live contemporaneously. Although this process results in loss of temporal resolution, it also serves to filter out short-term variations. Temporal resolution of a collection depends not only on the range of fossil ages, but also on their frequency distribution. Previous studies of marine molluscs indicate that most shells in an accumulation are relatively young. Such a distribution of shell ages can be fit by an exponential curve (assuming both a constant probability of shell loss and a constant rate of shell addition), which implies that 90% of the shells were added during the last 50% of the time interval represented by the collection. That is to say, differences between two collections can be discerned even if they overlap 50% in time, because the proportion of shells with shared ages is only 10%. Applying the exponential model to previously published data suggests that long-term rates of destruction are controlled by how frequently shells from the taphonomically active zone are re-exposed to rapid destruction. To take advantage of the “noise-filtering” property of time-averaging, samples need to be large enough to catch the full range of environmental variation recorded by an accumulation. A simple probability formula indicates that samples of easily achievable size can give satisfactory time-averaged results depending on the level of confidence and sampling density defined by the researcher.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , Spring 1999 , pp. 226 - 238
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

Aller, R. C. 1982. Carbonate dissolution in nearshore terrigenous muds: the role of physical and biological reworking. Journal of Geology 90: 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, L. C. and McBride, R. A. 1996. Taphonomic and paleoenvironmental evidence of Holocene shell-bed genesis and history on the northeastern Gulf of Mexico shelf. Palaios 11: 532–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canfield, D. E. and Raiswell, R. 1991. Carbonate precipitation and dissolution: its relevance to fossil preservation. Pp. 411–453. in Allison, P. A., Briggs, D.E.G. eds. Taphonomy: releasing the data locked in the fossil record. Plenum New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, H., Powell, E. N., Stanton, R. J. Jr., and Staff, G. 1986. The rate of taphonomic loss in modern benthic habitats: how much of the potentially preservable community is preserved? Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 52: 291–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A. H. and Flessa, K. W. 1990. Fossils out of sequence: computer simulations and strategies for dealing with stratigraphic disorder. Palaios 5: 227–235.Google Scholar
Davies, D. J., Powell, E. N., and Stanton, R. J. Jr. 1989. Relative rates of shell dissolution and net sediment accumulation—a commentary: can shell beds form by the gradual accumulation of biogenic debris on the sea floor? Lethaia 22: 207–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flessa, K. W. and Kowalewski, M. 1994. Shell survival and time-averaging in nearshore and shelf environments: estimates from the radiocarbon literature. Lethaia 27: 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flessa, K. W., Cutler, A. H., and Meldahl, K. H. 1993. Time and taphonomy: quantitative estimates of time-averaging and stratigraphic disorder in a shallow marine habitat. Paleobiology 19: 266–286.Google Scholar
Fürsich, F. T. and Aberhan, M. 1990. Significance of time-averaging for paleocommunity analysis. Lethaia 23: 143–152.Google Scholar
Johnson, T. C. 1975. The dissolution of siliceous microfossils in deep-sea sediments. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California San Diego.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. and Bosence, D. W. J. 1991. Taphonomy and time-averaging of marine shelly faunas. Pp. 115–209. in Allison, P. A., Briggs, D.E.G. eds. Taphonomy: releasing the data locked in the fossil record. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M. and Flessa, K. W. 1995. The quality of the fossil record: populations, species, and communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26: 269–299.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M. 1996. Time-averaging overcompleteness, and the geological record. Journal of Geology 104: 317–326.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M. 1997. The reciprocal taphonomic model. Lethaia 30: 86–88.Google Scholar
Kowalewski, M., Goodfriend, G. A., and Flessa, K. W. 1998. High-resolution estimates of temporal mixing within shell beds: the evils and virtues of time-averaging. Paleobiology 24: 287–304.Google Scholar
Martin, R. E., Wehmiller, J. F., Harris, M. S., and Liddell, W. D. 1996. Comparative taphonomy of bivalves and foraminifera from Holocene tidal flat sediments Bahia la Choya Sonora, Mexico (northern Gulf of California): taphonomic grades and temporal resolution. Paleobiology 22: 80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meldahl, K. H., Flessa, K. W., and Cutler, A. H. 1997. Time-averaging and postmortem skeletal survival in benthic fossil assemblages: quantitative comparisons among Holocene environments. Paleobiology 23: 207–229.Google Scholar
Olszewski, T. 1992. A model of idealized taphonomic decay: implications for use of relative abundance data to reconstruct paleoecological communities. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 24: 342–343.Google Scholar
Parsons, K. M. and Brett, C. E. 1991. Taphonomic processes and biases in modern marine environments: an actualistic perspective on fossil assemblage preservation. Pp. 22–65. in Donovan, S. K. ed. The processes of fossilization. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Peterson, C. H. 1977. The paleoecological significance of undetected short-term temporal variability. Journal of Paleontology 51: 976–981.Google Scholar
Powell, E. N. 1992. A model for death assemblage formation: can sediment shelliness be explained? Journal of Marine Research 50: 229–265.Google Scholar
Powell, E. N. and Davies, D. J. 1990. When is an “old” shell really old? Journal of Geology 98: 823–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, E. N., Logan, A., Stanton, R. J. Jr., Davies, D. J., and Hare, P. E. 1989. Estimating time-since-death from the free amino acid content of the mollusc shell: a measure of time averaging in modern death assemblages? Description of the technique. Palaios 4: 16–31.Google Scholar
Sadler, P. M. 1993. Models of time-averaging as a maturation process: how soon do sedimentary sections escape reworking? In Kidwell, S. M., Behrensmeyer, A. K. eds. Taphonomic approaches to time resolution in fossil assemblages. Short Courses in Paleontology 6: 188–209. Paleontological Society Knoxville, Tenn.Google Scholar
Stapor, F. W. Jr., Mathews, T. D., and Lindfors-Kearns, F. E. 1987. Episodic barrier island growth in southwest Florida: a response to fluctuating Holocene sea level? In Maurrasse, F.J.-M.R. ed. Symposium on south Florida geology. Miami Geological Society Memoir 3: 149–202.Google Scholar
Stapor, F. W. Jr., Mathnews, T. D., and Lindfors-kearns, F. E. 1991. Barrier island progradation and Holocene sea-level history in southwest Florida. Journal of Coastal Research 7: 815–838.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. V. H. 1988. Taphonomic processes: information loss and information gain. Geoscience Canada. 15: 131–148.Google Scholar
Wittink, D. R. 1988. Thelication of regression analysis. Allyn and Bacon Boston.Google Scholar