Ontogeny of extant spinose planktonic foraminifera (Globigerinidae): A concept exemplified byGlobigerinoides sacculifer (Brady) andG. Ruber (d'Orbigny)

Brummer, Geert-Jan A; Hemleben, Christoph; Spindler, Michael

doi:10.1016/0377-8398(87)90028-4

Cited by 99 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Changes in wall texture, apertural morphology and position, and chamber arrangement that characterize the growth stages of both forms occur at somewhat variable chamber numbers in the ontogeny, and their morphologic expression is indistinguishable. Our observations generally confirm the size and chamber ranges for growth stage transitions in G. siphonifera that were outlined by Brummer et al (1987). We found that for both Type I and II forms, onset of the juvenile stage (immediately following the prolocular stage) occurs at test diameters between 20 and 30 jjum, onset of the neanic growth stage occurs between the sixth and eighth chambers, at test diameters between about 60 and 100 jJim, and onset of the adult stage occurs between the tenth and thirteenth chamber, at test diameters between about 180 and 300 ixm.…”

Section: ^Lsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…According to Brummer et al (1987), ontogenetic stage transitions in spinose planktonic foraminifera occur during distinct transitions in vital behavior The prolocular stage is initiated by zygote formation and is probably very short-lived. The wall cormecting the proloculus and deuteroconch (second chamber) is concave in both morphotypes of G. siphonifera (Fig.…”

Section: Ontogenetic Growth Stagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cryptic speciation in the living planktonic foraminiferGlobigerinella siphonifera(d'Orbigny)

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.-Two living forms of Globigerinella siphonifera (d'Orbigny), presently identified as Type I and Type II, can easily be distinguished and collected by SCUBA divers because of differences in appearance, arrangement of the rhizopodial network, and the presence or absence of commensals. Additional biological differences are apparent from laboratory culture experiments; Type I individuals survive significantly longer than Type II under conditions of darkness and starvation and have significantly slower chamber formation rates. Stable isotopic analyses of Types I and II also reveal notable differences, with Type I consistently yielding more negative S'^O and 8"C values. Results of Mg / Ca ratio analyses indicate that Type II specimens precipitated their shells in slightly cooler (deeper) surface waters than Type I specimens. These observations and results from DNA sequencing unequivocally demonstrate that G. siphonifera Types I and II should be regarded as biological sister species.Contrarily, biometric analysis of the empty shells reveals few significant differences between G. siphonifera Types I and II. Of all the features measured from X-ray and SEM images of serially dissected specimens, only shell porosity yields readily discernible differences, with Type I adult chambers averaging 10-20% porosity and Type II adult chambers averaging 4-7% porosity. Statistically significant differences between Type I and II populations are revealed in maximum test diameter (Type I is typically larger) and coiling (Type I is typically more evolute), but these differences do not justify species level distinction of Types I and II using traditional paleontological species concepts.On the basis of the above evidence, and since all specimens were collected at the same location at ~ 3-8 m water depth, we conclude that G. siphonifera Types I and II are living examples of cryptic speciation, whereby biological speciation has occurred in the absence of discernable change in shell morphology. However, it is not clear when or where this speciation took place. Preliminary study of deep-sea cores from the Caribbean and Pacific sides of the Isthmus of Panama reveals a predominance of specimens with Type II porosity values, with rare occurrence of specimens yielding Type I porosity values. Systematic downcore measurement of shell porosity and tightness of coiling needs to be extended back to the middle Miocene, when G. siphonifera first appeared, to determine the timing of the Type I and II morphological divergence.Postulated mechanisms for reproductive isolation and speciation of Types I and II include alloparapatric, depth parapatric, and sympatric speciation. These models could be tested if further analysis of fossil G. siphonifera shells allows determination of the timing of speciation, the preferred depth distribution, and the history of geographic distribution of Types I and II.

show abstract

Section: ^Lsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Ontogenetic Growth Stagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cryptic speciation in the living planktonic foraminiferGlobigerinella siphonifera(d'Orbigny)

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specimens of planktic foraminifera Globigerinoides ruber s.s (white) in the 250V300-Wm size fraction were picked from sieved sediments for isotopic analysis. Con¢ning the size of foraminiferal specimens in such a narrow range results in having picked specimens in the same ontogenetic stage (Brummer et al, 1987;Wei et al, 1992), thus excluding vital e¡ects in stable isotope signals. About eight specimens of Globigerinoides ruber were immersed in CH 3 OH and subjected to ultrasonic vibration for 6 s three times and then immersed in NaOCl for 24 h. After being cleaned by deionized water ¢ve times and dried, the specimens were reacted with 100% H 3 PO 4 at 70 ‡C to generate CO 2 gas in a Kiel Device ; then the CO 2 gas was sent into the Finnigan MAT Delta plus mass spectrometer to determine its N 18 O and N 13 C values.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward establishing a maritime proxy record of the East Asian summer monsoons for the late Quaternary

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In a number of species such as G. sacculifer, gametogenesis is preceded by the production of a layer of calcite covering spine holes and the terrace-like structures of inter-pore rims (Towe and Cifelli, 1967;Bé, 1980;Hemleben et al, 1985;Brummer et al, 1987). This GAM calcite veneer gives the foraminifera a smooth appearance by covering the rough topography of the shell surface and it has been suggested that it is enriched in some trace elements compared to the ontogenetic calcite (Hathorne et al, 2009).…”

Section: Overgrowth and Encrustingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the exact amount needed depends on shape, size and the thickness of the chamber wall (e.g. Brummer et al, 1987), juveniles of some species need 50-100 times their own cell volume to extract the Ca 2+ required to produce one new chamber (De Nooijer et al, 2009b ] if this anion is used exclusively. However, observations of high pH at the site of calcification (Erez, 2003;Bentov et al, 2009;De Nooijer et al, 2009a) as well as oxygen isotope data from laboratory experiments (Spero et al, 1997;Zeebe, 1999) suggest that foraminifera can convert CO 2 and/or HCO 3 − into the CO 3 2− needed for calcification.…”

Section: Ions For Calcificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomineralization in perforate foraminifera

Nooijer

Spero

Erez

et al. 2014

Earth-Science Reviews

201

190

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oIn this paper, we review the current understanding of biomineralization in perforate foraminifera. Ideas on the mechanisms responsible for the flux of Ca 2+ and inorganic carbon from seawater into the test were originally based on light and electron microscopic observations of calcifying foraminifera. From the 1980s onward, tracer experiments, fluorescent microscopy and high-resolution test geochemical analysis have added to existing calcification models. Despite recent insights, no general consensus on the physiological basis of foraminiferal biomineralization exists. Current models include seawater vacuolization, transmembrane ion transport, involvement of organic matrices and/or pH regulation, although the magnitude of these controls remain to be quantified. Disagreement between currently available models may be caused by the use of different foraminiferal species as subject for biomineralization experiments and/or lack of a more systematic approach to study (dis)similarities between taxa. In order to understand foraminiferal controls on element incorporation and isotope fractionation, and thereby improve the value of foraminifera as paleoceanographic proxies, it is necessary to identify key processes in foraminiferal biomineralization and formulate hypotheses regarding the involved physiological pathways to provide directions for future research.

show abstract

Ontogeny of extant spinose planktonic foraminifera (Globigerinidae): A concept exemplified byGlobigerinoides sacculifer (Brady) andG. Ruber (d'Orbigny)

Cited by 99 publications

References 24 publications

Cryptic speciation in the living planktonic foraminiferGlobigerinella siphonifera(d'Orbigny)

Cryptic speciation in the living planktonic foraminiferGlobigerinella siphonifera(d'Orbigny)

Toward establishing a maritime proxy record of the East Asian summer monsoons for the late Quaternary

Biomineralization in perforate foraminifera

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About