2007
DOI: 10.1017/s1755691007080371
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bioerosion on brachiopod shells – a Cenozoic perspective

Abstract: This study describes bioerosion traces ascribed to either predation or endo- and epibiont activity in twenty assemblages from the Mediterranean region and Paratethys, spanning in age from Eocene to Recent. Statistical analysis of the distribution of bioerosion traces among genera and assemblages revealed that there is higher drilling predation intensity on smaller species. Larger species seem to be primarily affected by non-drilling predators. Greatest variety in types of bioerosion could be related to species… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
(7 reference statements)
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We did not quantify the percentage of Terebratula shells affected by pedicle attachment traces ( P. obliquus ), but this trace is rare. This matches previous reports on several species of Terebratula , in which 1% or less were affected by P. obliquus (Taddei Ruggiero and Bitner 2008). Other members of Terebratulinae are known to facultatively form clusters, such as Pliothyrina (Bell and Bell 1872; Rudwick 1961) and Liothyrella (Foster 1974; Richardson 1981; Peck et al 1997).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…We did not quantify the percentage of Terebratula shells affected by pedicle attachment traces ( P. obliquus ), but this trace is rare. This matches previous reports on several species of Terebratula , in which 1% or less were affected by P. obliquus (Taddei Ruggiero and Bitner 2008). Other members of Terebratulinae are known to facultatively form clusters, such as Pliothyrina (Bell and Bell 1872; Rudwick 1961) and Liothyrella (Foster 1974; Richardson 1981; Peck et al 1997).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Although disintegration half‐life of the smaller specimens is shorter than the half‐life for larger shells, juveniles also disintegrate at a slow (multi‐centennial) rate and are durable enough to accrue bioerosion, encrustation, discolouration or staining. The cohort‐level taphonomic clock and multivariate analyses indicate that even sediment‐filled shells eventually disarticulate and disintegrate by sponge bioerosion (with Entobia contributing to bioerosion observed in other brachiopods, Taddei Ruggiero & Bitner 2007; Bromley et al . 2008; Taddei Ruggiero & Raia 2010), wear related to exhumation, and/or by collapse of the secondary layer along the anterior margins (Gaspard 1989; Emig 1990) when residence time of specimens in the TAZ increases beyond a few millennia and both small and large specimens progress towards more worn and stained states.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, similar shaped and sized damages are known on brachiopod shells (Ruggiero and Raia 2014) from shallow marine Pleistocene sediments in Italy. These kind of epibiont injuries are concentrated either shallow marine or mud-dwelling brachiopods as Taddei- Ruggiero and Bitner (2008) discussed for Cenozoic brachiopods. Therefore, this is also unlikely.…”
Section: Palaeopathological Observationsmentioning
confidence: 99%