Patterns of shell penetration by Chorus giganteus juveniles (Gastropoda: Muricidae) on the mussel Semimytilus algosus

Urrutia, G.; Navarro, Jorge M.

doi:10.1016/s0022-0981(00)00349-x

Cited by 35 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, drill hole site for naticids has been related to the way the predator manipulates a prey item (Ziegelmeier, 1954), which may be influenced by size and shape of the prey (Ansell, 1960;Stump, 1975;Kitchell, 1986;Reyment, 1999;Roopnarine and Willard, 2001). Drill hole position has been observed to shift with growth of the predator, reflecting ontogenetic change in its ability to manipulate prey, for some naticids (Calvet, 1992;Vignali and Galleni, 1986) and for the muricid Chorus giganteus (Urrutia and Navarro, 2001). The position of predatory drill holes has been linked to access to particular soft parts (Hughes and Dunkin, 1984;Arua and Hoque, 1989;Leighton, 200Ia), though this may be less important for naticids (and also large muricids; Dietl, pers.…”

Section: Data On Drilling Predation Extractable From the Fossil Recordmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Fossil Record of Drilling Predation on Bivalves and Gastropods

Kelley

Hansen

2003

Predator—Prey Interactions in the Fossil Record

132

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Data On Drilling Predation Extractable From the Fossil Recordmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Fossil Record of Drilling Predation on Bivalves and Gastropods

Kelley

Hansen

2003

Predator—Prey Interactions in the Fossil Record

132

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Efforts to mitigate identification errors have focused so far on two independent strategies: (1) the use of non-morphological criteria, such as evaluating holes for non-random (site-specific, size-selective, or taxonrestricted) distribution of traces (e.g., Sheehan and Lesperance, 1978;Kitchell et al, 1981;Kelley, 1988;Leighton, 2002;Hoffmeister et al, 2003) and (2) morphometric strategies focused on quantifying drill-hole shapes (e.g., Kowalewski, 1993;Urrutia and Navarro, 2001;Grey et al, 2005;Dietl and Kelley, 2006). Here, we explore a third approach based on physical and chemical microstructural criteria: micron-scale predatory signatures (predatory microtraces) of drill holes that can be recognized and examined through high-magnification, high-resolution imaging under field emission and environmental scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM and ESEM, respectively).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Microstructural Record of Predation: A New Approach for Identifying Predatory Drill Holes

Schiffbauer¹,

Yanes²,

Tyler³

et al. 2008

PALAIOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drill holes in prey skeletons are the most common source of data for quantifying predator-prey interactions in the fossil record. To be useful, however, such drill holes need to be identified correctly. Field emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM) and environmental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM) were applied to describe and quantify microstructural characteristics of drill holes. Various specimens, including modern limpets and mussels drilled by muricid snails in laboratory experiments, subfossil limpets collected from a tidal flat (San Juan Island, Washington state, USA), and various Miocene bivalves collected from multiple European sites, were examined for microstructural features. The microstructures observed are interpreted here as Radulichnus-like micro-rasping marks, or predatory microtraces, made by the radula of drilling gastropod predators. The mean adjacent spacing of these microtraces is notably denser than the spacing of muricid radular teeth determined by measurements taken from the literature. Because the radular marks typically overlie or crosscut each other, the denser spacing of predatory microtraces likely reflects superimposition of scratches from repeated passes of the radula. One incomplete drill hole showed a clear, chemically aided drilling dissolution signature around its outer margin, while a number of other specimens showed similar, but ambiguous, traces of dissolution. The range of organisms examined illustrates the utility of scanning electron microscopy (SEM) imaging for identifying micro-rasping marks associated with predatory drill holes in both modern and fossil specimens. These distinct microtraces offer promise for augmenting our ability to identify drill holes in the fossil record and to distinguish them from holes produced by non-predatory means.

show abstract

“…Predatory borings are generally defined as commonly single and unhealed perforations perpendicular to the valve surface, having circular to oval shapes, and regular outlines although irregular shapes and outlines have been also noted (compare figure 4 in [36]). Furthermore, the ratio of inner to outer diameter commonly exceeds 0.5 [8].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drill Holes and Predation Traces versus Abrasion-Induced Artifacts Revealed by Tumbling Experiments

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drill holes made by predators in prey shells are widely considered to be the most unambiguous bodies of evidence of predator-prey interactions in the fossil record. However, recognition of traces of predatory origin from those formed by abiotic factors still waits for a rigorous evaluation as a prerequisite to ascertain predation intensity through geologic time and to test macroevolutionary patterns. New experimental data from tumbling various extant shells demonstrate that abrasion may leave holes strongly resembling the traces produced by drilling predators. They typically represent singular, circular to oval penetrations perpendicular to the shell surface. These data provide an alternative explanation to the drilling predation hypothesis for the origin of holes recorded in fossil shells. Although various non-morphological criteria (evaluation of holes for non-random distribution) and morphometric studies (quantification of the drill hole shape) have been employed to separate biological from abiotic traces, these are probably insufficient to exclude abrasion artifacts, consequently leading to overestimate predation intensity. As a result, from now on, we must adopt more rigorous criteria to appropriately distinguish abrasion artifacts from drill holes, such as microstructural identification of micro-rasping traces.

show abstract

Patterns of shell penetration by Chorus giganteus juveniles (Gastropoda: Muricidae) on the mussel Semimytilus algosus

Cited by 35 publications

References 14 publications

The Fossil Record of Drilling Predation on Bivalves and Gastropods

The Fossil Record of Drilling Predation on Bivalves and Gastropods

The Microstructural Record of Predation: A New Approach for Identifying Predatory Drill Holes

Drill Holes and Predation Traces versus Abrasion-Induced Artifacts Revealed by Tumbling Experiments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About