Construction of the earliest stromatoporoid framework: Labechiid reefs from the Middle Ordovician of Korea

Hong, Jongsun; Choh, Suk Joo; Park, Jino; Lee, Dong Jin

doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2017.01.017

Cited by 12 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But larger lithistid sponges grew to ~2 cm wide during the Miaolingian of China (Lee et al 2016) and even larger in Iran and the western United States by the late Cambrian (Shapiro and Rigby 2004; Kruse and Zhuravlev 2008; Lee and Riding 2018). Pulchrilaminids and stromatoporoids (Early and Middle Ordovician, respectively) later occurred in reefs, and they too were larger than early Cambrian archaeocyaths (Li et al 2016; Hong et al 2017). Thus, it seems that archaeocyaths had a limited size range and morphological disparity, which was unique for reef-building sponges in the early Paleozoic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, Triassic examples of chambered “sphinctozoan” sponges also show a convergent robust calcareous skeleton and rarely measure above 130 mm, with most being far smaller (see Senowbari-Daryan and Stanley 1992; Senowbari-Daryan and Zamparelli 2003). In contrast, hypercalcifying labechiid stromatoporoid sponges also lacked spicules, but could achieve large body sizes up to 15 cm across (Stern et al 1999; Hong et al 2017). Stromatoporoid sponges do not contain the same double-walled structure and instead have more densely packed, but thin, laminae and pillars (Wolniewicz 2009) and astrorhizal canals that provide a more distributed and energetically efficient fluid-entrainment system (Boyajian and LaBarbera 1987; LaBarbera and Boyajian 1991; LaBarbera 1993).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Restricted morphospace occupancy of early Cambrian reef-building archaeocyaths

Cordie¹,

Dornbos²

2019

Paleobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evolution of novel morphologies can signify expansion of a clade into new niches. This can be studied in the fossil record by investigating the morphospace occupancy of organisms, with small morphospaces signifying low morphological disparity and more diffuse morphospaces suggesting a broader range of morphologies adapted to different environments. Morphological disparity of many taxa (arthropods, crinoids, etc.) from the Cambrian to modern intervals have been studied in this manner. However, no study has investigated this in archaeocyaths, which, as reef builders, can have a disproportionate effect on early Cambrian biodiversity relative to their frequency. Here, we collect morphological data on archaeocyathan sponges, mostly from Laurentia. More than 600 museum specimens and 400 field samples were measured for traditional morphometric characters and discrete gross morphological characteristics. We find that archaeocyaths have an average cup/individual (body) diameter of 10.6 mm. This is significantly smaller than a selected group of modern demosponges and lithistid sponges that measure 94.1 mm and 66.8 mm in diameter, respectively, and each has a larger size variance. Archaeocyathan gross morphologies are also highly constrained to a few simple morphologies (three to six categories), while modern demosponges and lithistids are more diverse (nine categories each). These data indicate that Laurentian archaeocyaths were restricted in their morphological disparity, potentially due to limitations imposed by having a robust calcareous skeleton while still maintaining a large intervallum cavity space to facilitate passive entrainment. The fact that these Cambrian reef builders were restricted in their morphological complexity may have had a strong influence on the biodiversity of early Phanerozoic ecosystems. Furthermore, a clade limited to only a few specific morphologies is at an increased risk of extinction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restricted morphospace occupancy of early Cambrian reef-building archaeocyaths

Cordie¹,

Dornbos²

2019

Paleobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8C). Similar microfabrics associated with such ecological consortia could explain many Middle Ordovician and younger Phanerozic reefs (Desrochers et al 2007;Larmagnat and Neuweiler 2015;Hong et al 2017). In the intergrowing mode, the SLM acted as a substrate for the implementation of metazoan soft tissues or microbial films together with calcimicrobes such as Rothpletzella.…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

“…The early Ordovician reefs were microbialdominated but progressively displayed visible contributions from various metazoan groups including lithistid, calathid, and pulchrilaminid sponges, bryozoans, and echinoderms (Webby 2002;Hong et al 2015;Li et al 2015). The Middle and Late Ordovician reef builders were mainly bryozoans (e.g., McKinney and Webb 2001;Cuffey et al 2002;Cuffey 2006), tabulate corals (e.g., Hender et al 2006;Lee et al 2014), and stromatoporoids (Alberstadt et al 1974;Kapp and Stearn 1975;Kano and Fujishiro 1997;Khromych 2010;Webby and Kershaw 2011;Hong et al 2017). In addition, echinoderms and calathids (Alberstadt and Walker 1976;Kröger et al 2014b), and lithistid sponges (e.g., Klappa and James 1980;Rigby andDesrochers 1995, Kwon et al 2012) locally contributed to reef growth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Reengineering of Reef Habitats During the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event

Kröger

Desrochers

Ernst

2017

PALAIOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bryozoans, stromatoporoid sponges, and tabulate corals, all colonial metazoans with lamellar, encrusting growth forms, developed and simultaneously diversified during the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event (GOBE). After revisiting some classic Lower, Middle, and Upper Ordovician reef localities in Laurentia (Franklin Mountains, west Texas, Mingan Islands in eastern Canada, and Champlain Valley in northeastern United States) and Baltica (northern Estonia) and reviewing the literature, we demonstrate that during the Ordovician a newly emerging consortium of sheet-like bryozoans, stromatoporoid sponges, and tabulate corals locally bound together by microbes, automicrite, and cement and solidly rooted in sediment became the dominant reef-builders globally. The diversification of these sheet-like metazoans (SLM), however, clearly lagged behind the first appearance of their respective skeletal ancestors. Their habitat expansion can be exemplified as a case of simultaneous ecological fitting and 2 ecosystem engineering when the independently evolved shared traits were simultaneously coopted and became advantageous under globally different environmental conditions. This interaction led to the evolutionary diversification of colonial metazoans during the GOBE and to the expansion of novel reef habitats in previously soft-surface settings; a transformation that forever changed marine reefal ecosystems.

show abstract

“…Most investigated specimens are well preserved, though a few are either recrystallized or partly silicified. For these cases, the “white card technique” (Delgado, ; Folk, ; Zenger, ) was adopted to enhance the internal structure of stromatoporoids (e.g., Hong, Choh, Park, & Lee, ; Hong, Oh, Lee, Choh, & Lee, ; Oh, Choh, & Lee, ). The suprageneric assignments in this study are after Webby () and Nestor ().…”

Section: Geological Setting and Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Late Ordovician stromatoporoids from the Xiazhen Formation of South China: Paleoecological and paleogeographical implications

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Upper Ordovician Xiazhen Formation, which crops out in Zhuzhai, near the Jiangshan-Changshan-Yushan region of southeast China, consists of a variety of carbonate-siliciclastic lithofacies representing a shallow-water platform environment. A total of eleven stromatoporoid genera in two orders, comprising three clathrodictyid genera (Clathrodictyon, Ecclimadictyon, and Labyrinthodictyon) and eight labechiid genera (Cystostroma, Rosenella, Pseudostylodictyon, Aulacera, Stylostroma, Pachystylostroma, Labechia, and Labechiella), are recognized from 18 stratigraphic units representing a wide range of depositional environments in the formation. Clathrodictyon is the most abundant stromatoporoid genus, occupying a long stratigraphic range and a wide range of lithofacies. It also occurs as a major component of patch reefs throughout the formation. The labechiids, in contrast, are highly diverse but most genera have restricted stratigraphic distributions, occurring in a narrow range of depositional environments. The size and growth form of stromatoporoids in the formation are considered to be primarily intrinsic characteristics of each genus but in some cases also seem to be related to lithofacies: clathrodictyids exhibit a wide spectrum of growth forms and have broader ecological plasticity and more flexible growth strategies than do labechiids. The Late Ordovician stromatoporoids of the Xiazhen Formation exhibit close biogeographic affinities to those of central New South Wales and the Tasmanian shelf of Australia. The discovery herein of Labyrinthodictyon and Stylostroma from the Upper Ordovician of South China further supports this close relationship. The stromatoporoids from South China exhibited one of the highest diversities of all paleocontinents during the Late Ordovician, suggesting that South China, together with Australia, was a locus of Late Ordovician stromatoporoid diversification.

show abstract

Construction of the earliest stromatoporoid framework: Labechiid reefs from the Middle Ordovician of Korea

Cited by 12 publications

References 21 publications

Restricted morphospace occupancy of early Cambrian reef-building archaeocyaths

Restricted morphospace occupancy of early Cambrian reef-building archaeocyaths

The Reengineering of Reef Habitats During the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event

Late Ordovician stromatoporoids from the Xiazhen Formation of South China: Paleoecological and paleogeographical implications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About