Pre-burial taphonomic imprints on drilling intensity: a case study from the recent molluscs of Chandipur, India

Accounting for uncertainty from zero inflation and overdispersion in paleoecological studies of predation using a hierarchical Bayesian framework

“…Both assumptions rest on the shared premise that the sample taken is representative of the potential individuals that were available (i.e., living in the community) for sampling. Convenient as it is to make this assumption in paleoecological studies, several studies on drilling predation have cast doubt on its validity, at least when drill holes are involved (e.g., Roy et al 1994; Klompmaker 2009; Smith et al 2019; Sarkar et al 2020).…”

“……equally likely to be sampled in the death assemblage. et al 2004;Behrensmeyer et al 2005;Olszewski and Kidwell 2007;Klompmaker 2009;Kosnik et al 2009;Tomašovỳch and Kidwell 2010;Olszewski 2012;Bürkli and Wilson 2017;Dyer et al 2018;Smith et al 2019;Sarkar et al 2020). The consequences of these factors have not been considered, however, with respect to overdispersion and zero inflation as related to paleoecological predator-prey interactions (for a review of existing methods used in paleoecological studies of predation, see Klompmaker et al [2019]).…”

“…1). Independently, and in association with each other, the effects of preservational bias and time averaging have been the topic of many studies (e.g., Kidwell and Bosence 1991; Flessa et al 1993; Kowalewski et al 1994, 1998; Roy et al 1994; Kidwell 2001, 2007, 2013; Goodwin et al 2004; Behrensmeyer et al 2005; Olszewski and Kidwell 2007; Klompmaker 2009; Kosnik et al 2009; Tomašovỳch and Kidwell 2010; Olszewski 2012; Bürkli and Wilson 2017; Dyer et al 2018; Smith et al 2019; Sarkar et al 2020). The consequences of these factors have not been considered, however, with respect to overdispersion and zero inflation as related to paleoecological predator–prey interactions (for a review of existing methods used in paleoecological studies of predation, see Klompmaker et al [2019]).…”

“…The effects of time averaging on drill hole counts are similar to those for specimen counts; however, drill holes introduce an additional element on which preservational bias can act. Shells with drill holes may be more susceptible to breakage compared with their undrilled counterparts (e.g., Roy et al 1994; Sarkar et al 2020), though other studies have found a negligible effect of drill holes on preservational potential (e.g., Kelley 2008; Dyer et al 2018). The effects of drill holes on shell strength and preservation remain a topic of debate and are likely to vary by prey type, based on other underlying characteristics of the shell (e.g., size, thickness) and depositional environment (e.g., sedimentation rate, wave-energy exposure).…”

High biogeographic and latitudinal variability in gastropod drilling predation on molluscs along the eastern Indian coast: Implications on the history of fossil record of drillholes

“…Moreover, samples have smaller as well as larger size classes, suggesting no significant size sorting. Under these minimum biostratinomic biases, drilled shells are less likely to be preferentially removed by taphonomic agents [ 50 – 52 and discussion therein]. Moreover, in our samples, shell fragments with identifiable naticid holes were observed on rare occasions (only 20 shells, <0.05% of total bivalve specimens studied), but breaks never passing through the drill hole, suggesting that the presence of hole did not weaken the shells, at least under low biostratinomic regimes [ 50 and references therein].…”