Predation in the marine fossil record: Studies, data, recognition, environmental factors, and behavior

Abstract

The fossil record is the primary source of data used to study predator-prey interactions in deep time and to evaluate key questions regarding the evolutionary and ecological importance of predation. Here, we review the types of paleontological data used to infer predation in the marine fossil record, discuss strengths and limitations of paleontological lines of evidence used to recognize and evaluate predatory activity, assess the influence of environmental gradients on predation patterns, and review fossil evidence for predator behavior and prey defense. We assembled a predation database from the literature that documents a steady increase in the number of papers on predation since the 1960s. These studies have become increasingly quantitative and have expanded in focus from reporting cases of predation documented by fossils to using the fossil record of predation to test ecological and evolutionary hypotheses. The data on the fossil record of predation amassed so far in the literature primarily come from trace fossils, mostly drill holes and, to a lesser extent, repair scars, derived predominantly from the Cenozoic of Europe and North America. Mollusks are the clade most often studied as prey and inferred predators. We discuss how to distinguish biotic from abiotic damage and predatory from parasitic traces, and how to recognize failed predation. Our data show that identifying the predator is easiest when predator and prey are preserved in the act of predation or when predators were fossilized with their gut contents preserved. However, determining the culprits responsible for bite traces, drill holes, and other types of predation traces can be more problematic.Taphonomic and other factors can distort patterns of predation, but their potential effects can be minimized by careful study design. With the correct identification and quantification of fossilized traces of predation, ecological trends in predator-prey interactions may be discerned along environmental gradients in water depth, habitat, and oxygen and nutrient availability.However, so far, these trends have not been explored adequately for the fossil record. We also

Exploring abnormal Cambrian-aged trilobites in the Smithsonian collection

“…Here, nine new examples of abnormal specimens from the Paleontological collection of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (USNM PAL) are presented; a collection from which abnormal trilobites have previously been reported (Babcock, 1993;Bicknell, Pates & Botton, 2018d). These specimens aid the recent pulse in documentation of Cambrian predation traces and other abnormalities (Fatka, Budil & Grigar, 2015;Bicknell, Pates & Botton, 2018d;Klompmaker et al, 2019;.…”

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

“…In addition to the aforementioned criteria, the selection of holes and pits with smooth and regular margins, circular to semicircular and oval to semioval, was used to distinguish traces of biotic origin from those caused by dissolution (Brom, 2014;Klompmaker et al, 2019;Kowalewski, 1993Kowalewski, , 2002 and references therein) (Figures 2c-2e). The trace characteristics were used solely as a record of interaction between two organisms, without discussion of the nature of the interaction, being outside the scope of the present report, but should be addressed in upcoming studies.…”

“…Bioerosion/predation in benthic and planktonic environments has been associated with productivity in some studies (e.g., Berger, 1971;Bohannan & Lenski, 2000;Leibold, 1989). This is observed because productivity is often the main factor influencing the size of the prey population; however, this is a complex relationship between variables that does not always correspond to the predicted model (Klompmaker et al, 2019). According to Hemleben et al (1989), there seem to be no exclusive consumers of planktonic foraminifers, so when productivity increases, it is likely that the natural number of possible predators will also increase, affecting the population of planktonic Foraminifera in that area by its consumption (Boltovskoy & Wrigth, 1976).…”

Effectiveness of micromorphy against drilling predation: Insights from early Miocene faunal assemblage of Quilon limestone, India

“…Drilling predation is one of the unique scenarios where the signature of the predatory event is preserved and various aspects of predator-prey dynamics can be reconstructed by evaluating non-random attacks based on species identity, ecological character, and size of the prey (see [9] for review). Such records are found in the recent [10–13] as well as in the fossil ecosystems dating as far back as Cambrian.…”

“…Such records are found in the recent [10–13] as well as in the fossil ecosystems dating as far back as Cambrian. The predation intensity varied during Phanerozoic, often in sync with diversity [14] and shows a significant increase from Late Mesozoic with the appearance of two modern predatory gastropod families, namely Muricid and Naticid [9, 15, 16].…”