Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Tomasovych, A. Articles by Olszewski, T. D. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Modeling shelliness and alteration in shell beds: variation in hardpart input and burial rates leads to opposing predictions

Adam Tomaovch^1,3, Franz T. Fürsich¹ and Thomas D. Olszewski²

¹ Adam Tomaovch and Franz T. Fürsich. Institut für Paläontologie, Würzburg Universität, Pleicherwall 1, 97070 Würzburg, Germany. adam.tomasovych{at}mail.uni-wuerzburg.de, franz.fuersich{at}mail.uni-wuerzburg.de
² Thomas D. Olszewski. Department of Geology and Geophysics and Faculty of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843. tomo{at}geo.tamu.edu
³ Present address: Geological Institute of Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dúbravska cesta 9, 84005 Bratislava, Slovakia

Distinguishing the differential roles of hardpart-input rates and burial rates in the formation of shell beds is important in paleobiologic and sedimentologic studies, because high shelliness can reflect either high population density of shell producers or lack of sediment. The modeling in this paper shows that differences in the relative importance of burial rates and hardpart-input rates lead to distinct patterns with respect to the degree of shelliness and taphonomic alteration in shell beds. Our approach substantially complements other models because it allows computation of both shelliness and assemblage-level alteration. To estimate shelliness, we dissected hardpart-input rates into dead-shell production and shell destruction rates. To estimate assemblage-level alteration, we computed an alteration rate that describes how rapidly shells accrue postmortem damage. Under decreasing burial rates but constant hardpart-input rates, a positive correlation between alteration and shelliness is expected (Kidwell's R-sediment model). In contrast, under decreased destruction rates and/or increased dead-shell production rates and constant burial rates (Kidwell's R-hardpart model), a negative correlation between shelliness and alteration is expected. The contrasting predictions thus provide a theoretical basis for distinguishing whether high shell density in shell beds reflects passive shell accumulation due to a lack of sediment dilution or whether it instead reflects high shell input from a life assemblage. This approach should be applicable for any fossil assemblages that vary in shell density and assemblage-level alteration. An example from the Lower Jurassic of Morocco, which has shell-rich samples less altered than shell-poor samples, suggests that the higher shelliness correlates with higher community-level abundance and lower proportion of juveniles of the main shell producer, supporting the driving role of hardpart-input rates in the origin of the shell-rich samples in this case. This is of significance in paleoecologic analyses because variations in shelliness can directly reflect fluctuations in population density of shell producers.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Tomasovych and J. Schlogl Analyzing Variations in Cephalopod Abundances in Shell Concentrations: The Combined Effects of Production and Density-Dependent Cementation Rates Palaios, October 1, 2008; 23(10): 648 - 666. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]