Stable Isotope Sclerochronology of Pleistocene and Recent Oyster Shells (Crassostrea virginica)

Kirby, Michael Xavier; Soniat, Thomas M.; Spero, Howard J.

doi:10.2307/3515347

Cited by 150 publications

(122 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

116

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although their mode of formation remains controversial (Carriker 1996), the contrast between the inner shell layer of foliated calcite and deposits of chalky material may indicate remote calcification of the latter, that is, biomineralization not strongly controlled by either the mantle edge or the inner mantle surface (Chinzei and Seilacher 1993;Chinzei 2013). Cyclical (usually seasonal) fluctuations in stable isotope ratios in the shell indicate that gigantic thick-shelled oysters grow substantially faster in both height and valve thickness than smaller, thinnershelled oysters with smaller chambers and fewer chalky deposits (Kirby et al 1998;Kirby 2000Kirby , 2001Kirby and Jackson 2004). The porous condition and remote calcification typical of very large oysters are therefore associated with rapid mineralization, especially in valve thickness.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The oyster enigma variations: a hypothesis of microbial calcification

Vermeij¹

2014

Paleobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oysters, whose inner shell layer contains chambers, vesicles, and sometimes chalky deposits, often have extraordinarily thick shells of large size, prompting the idea that there is something unusual about the process of shell fPormation in these and similarly structured bivalves with the oyster syndrome. I propose the hypothesis that calcifying microbes, especially sulfate-reducing bacteria growing on organic substrates in fluid-filled shell-wall chambers, are responsible for shell calcification away from the shell-secreting mantle of the host bivalve. Other phenomena, including the formation of cameral deposits in fossil cephalopods, the cementation of molluscs and barnacles to hard substrata, the formation of a calcified intriticalx on the shell's exterior, and cementation of objects by gastropods on the shell for camouflage, may also involve calcifying bacteria. Several lines of inquiry are suggested to test these hypotheses.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The oyster enigma variations: a hypothesis of microbial calcification

Vermeij¹

2014

Paleobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only left valves with a straight resilium were used in this study (41). Oyster shells were embedded and sectioned along a straight axis extending from the hinge to the growth edge through the resilium parallel to the axis of maximum growth (23,44).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within the Chesapeake Bay system, oyster shell growth occurs between~8 and 25°C (22). Each oyster shell contains a geochemical ( 18 O/ 16 O) record of growth, season of collection, estuarine temperatures and salinities (23,24) and information that can identify locations of source oyster reefs. The James River and watershed have changed dramatically between 1607 and the present in terms of terrestrial vegetation (25), land use (25,26), sedimentation rates (27,28), nutrient sources (29,30), and trophic structure (1,9,27,30,31).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconstructing early 17th century estuarine drought conditions from Jamestown oysters

Harding

Spero

Mann

et al. 2010

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oysters (Crassostrea virginica) were a central component of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem in 1607 when European settlers established Jamestown, VA, the first permanent English settlement in North America. These estuarine bivalves were an important food resource during the early years of the James Fort (Jamestown) settlement while the colonists were struggling to survive in the face of inadequate supplies and a severe regional drought. Although oyster shells were discarded as trash after the oysters were eaten, the environmental and ecological data recorded in the bivalve geochemistry during shell deposition remain intact over centuries, thereby providing a unique window into conditions during the earliest Jamestown years. We compare oxygen isotope data from these 17th century oyster shells with modern shells to quantify and contrast estuarine salinity, season of oyster collection, and shell provenance during Jamestown colonization (1609-1616) and the 21st century. Data show that oysters were collected during an extended drought between fall 1611 and summer 1612. The drought shifted the 14 psu isohaline above Jamestown Island, facilitating individual oyster growth and extension of oyster habitat upriver toward the colony, thereby enhancing local oyster food resources. Data from distinct well layers suggest that the colonists also obtained oysters from reefs near Chesapeake Bay to augment oyster resources near Jamestown Island. The oyster shell season of harvest reconstructions suggest that these data come from either a 1611 well with a very short useful period or an undocumented older well abandoned by late 1611.Chesapeake Bay | Crassostrea virginica | environmental reconstruction | oxygen isotope | scleroarchaeology

show abstract

“…Based on a sample of oyster shells from Georgia, Andrus and Crowe (2000) argued that while most increments seen in cross section were related to seasonal extremes, bands were also associated with nonseasonal events. Kirby, Soniat, and Spero (1998) found that ligamental increments were seasonal in Mississippi and Chesapeake Bay samples. Other studies in the Chesapeake Bay area have also shown regular banding (e.g., Kent, 1992;Herbert and Steponaitis, 1998).…”

Section: Oyster (Crassostrea Virginica)mentioning

confidence: 99%