Bioerosion on Late Quaternary Planktonic Foraminifera Related to Paleoproductivity in the Western South Atlantic

Abstract

Planktonic Foraminifera are widely used in paleoceanographic reconstructions, although studies of their trophic interactions are still rare, especially those focusing on predation. Drilling holes are the most frequent traces of bioerosion in foraminifer tests, but environmental factors that control bioerosion are not yet understood. To determine if paleoceanographic variables are associated with bioerosion rates in late Quaternary planktonic foraminifers of the western South Atlantic, geochemical and assemblage analyses were made on a 46 kyr record from a piston core. An age model was constructed based on 10 AMS 14C dates. To reconstruct the paleoproductivity, δ13C, benthic/planktonic foraminifer and the relative abundances of Globigerina bulloides and Globigerinoides ruber (high and low productivity, respectively) were used. Bioeroded tests were counted and found in 21 of the 25 identified species, with frequencies ranging from 8.84% to 16.7%. Bioerosion was different in two groups identified by cluster analysis, with a higher intensity during glacial times, showing a strong correlation with paleoceanographic fluctuations. Paleoproductivity estimates and bioerosion rates show a significant correlation, suggesting that bioerosion is more frequent in eutrophic environments and more inhibited in oligotrophic conditions. However, even with a strong correlation between bioerosion and productivity, there is also a negative correlation with sea surface temperature in the study area. Since conditions that promote higher productivity are accompanied by a decrease in surface temperature, the precise distinction between the influence of both variables is hampered. Further research will allow us to explore the potential of planktonic foraminiferal bioerosion as a tool in paleoceanographic studies.

Calcium Carbonate Dissolution Triggered by High Productivity During the Last Glacial–Interglacial Interval in the Deep Western South Atlantic

“…We used a revised version of the Frozza et al (2020) age model, based on the rbacon package (Blaauw and Christen, 2011;version 2.4.2) for the R software (R Core Team, 2019). The age model (Supplementary Material) used the ten AMS radiocarbon dates presented by Frozza et al (2020), carried out on monospecific samples of planktonic Foraminifera, and the Laschamp geomagnetic excursion (J. Savian, personal communication, June 5, 2020) as an additional control point.…”

“…(δ 13 C Uvi ; Mackensen, 2008) were also used to infer the OM flux to the seafloor. Part of these data (relative abundances of G. bulloides and G. ruber, δ 13 C Uvi ) were previously published by Frozza et al (2020). For the δ 13 C Uvi measurements, approximately seven specimens of the benthic foraminiferal genus Uvigerina were selected from the 250 µm sediment fraction from each sample.…”

“…In the SBCM basins, the δ 13 C Uvi values have been used to infer oscillations of OM input (Toledo et al, 2007;Dias et al, 2018;Rodrigues et al, 2018;Frozza et al, 2020). Nevertheless, δ 13 C Uvi values are influenced by several factors, such as accumulation rates of organic carbon, regional changes of water masses, the global carbon cycle, photosynthesis respiration processes, temperature, and pH (Ravelo and Hillaire-Marcel, 2007;Hesse et al, 2014).…”

Lower Paleocene foraminiferal assemblages from the Tibeisale Formation in the Arctic region of Western Siberia

“…In the Russian-language literature, rare references to such structures can be found, but without detailed descriptions, systematization, or photographs (Maslakova, 1974). However, traces of lifetime damage on foraminiferal tests have been widely published on, for both benthic (Reyment, 1966;Collen, 1973;Hickman and Lipps, 1983;Nielsen, 2002;Malumian et al, 2007;Sengupta and Nielsen, 2009;Vohnik, 2021) and planktonic taxa Nielsen, 1999;Nielsen et al, 2003;Frozza et al, 2020). A classification of structures and their terminology has been developed, and possible means of formation of these structures have been proposed .…”

Bioerosion and fungal colonization of the invasive foraminiferan <i>Amphistegina lobifera</i> in a Mediterranean seagrass meadow

“…Fungi commonly colonize both abiotic and biotic (both living and dead) substrates and arguably represent the most understudied group of marine bioeroders, despite the fact that they are known from practically all marine habitats (e.g., Golubić et al, 2005;Gadd, 2011;Amend et al, 2019). While they may be the dominant microborers in the aphotic zone, they are also quite common in shallower depths where they colonize various biotic substrates like carapaces of crustaceans, shells of molluscs, submerged driftwood, thalli of calcareous algae, etc.…”