Permian macroburrows as microhabitats for meiofauna organisms: an ancient behaviour common in extant organisms

Villegas‐Martín, Jorge; Netto, Renata Guimarães

doi:10.1111/let.12288

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The organisms responsible for Palaeophycus constitute a eurybathic, facies-crossing ichnogenus, which occurs in a wide range of marine and non-marine settings. Palaeophycus itself represents a combined feeding/temporary dwelling burrow made by organisms with filter-, suspensive- and carnivore-feeding behaviors 20,26 . Their presence suggests high rates of organic matter transport to the sediment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lateral variability of ichnological content in muddy contourites: Weak bottom currents affecting organisms’ behavior

Dorador

Rodrı́guez-Tovar

Mena

et al. 2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although bioturbation is commonly recognized in contourites, only a few studies have analyzed the ichnological content of these deposits in detail. These studies have mainly focused on meso-scale bigradational sequence (a coarsening upward followed by a fining-upward sequence resulting from variations in current velocity). Here we present data from gravitational cores collected along the NW Iberian Margin showing systematic variation in ichnological content across proximal to distal depocenters within a large-scale elongated contourite drift. Data demonstrate that tracemakers’ behavior varies depending on the distance relative to the bottom current core. Trace fossils are already known to be a useful tool for studying of contouritic deposits and are even used as criterion for differentiating associated facies (e.g., turbidites, debrites), though not without controversy. We propose a mechanism by which the distance to the bottom current core exerts tangible influence on specific macro-benthic tracemaker communities in contourite deposits. This parameter itself reflects other bottom current features, such as hydrodynamic energy, grain size, nutrient transport, etc. Ichnological analysis can thus resolve cryptic features of contourite drift depositional settings.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dense occurrences of Palaeophycus tubularis , and the absence of other macroburrows, have been interpreted as evidence of ecologically stressful conditions during substrate colonization including salinity fluctuations, oxygen depletion, and turbidity. These features can also indicate a change in sedimentation rate or other conditions 26 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lateral variability of ichnological content in muddy contourites: Weak bottom currents affecting organisms’ behavior

Dorador

Rodrı́guez-Tovar

Mena

et al. 2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consequently, recognition of meiofauna burrows in sedimentary rocks is in early development (see also McIlroy, 2022). In the small number of available publications (Knaust, 2007, 2010, 2021; Baliński et al ., 2013; McMenamin, 2016; Parry et al ., 2017; Villegas‐Martin & Netto, 2018; Biddle et al ., 2021), meiofauna burrows may be identified by their constant diameter and straight to sinusoidal character, with a producer being sometimes preserved at the end of the trace (Knaust, 2007, 2021). The traces generally have no ichnotaxonomic names, with only few exceptions that could be assigned to Cochlichnus , Trichichnus , Helminthopsis or Helminthoidichnites (Knaust, 2007; Villegas‐Martin & Netto, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the small number of available publications (Knaust, 2007(Knaust, , 2010(Knaust, , 2021Bali nski et al, 2013;McMenamin, 2016;Parry et al, 2017;Villegas-Martin & Netto, 2018;Biddle et al, 2021), meiofauna burrows may be identified by their constant diameter and straight to sinusoidal character, with a producer being sometimes preserved at the end of the trace (Knaust, 2007(Knaust, , 2021. The traces generally have no ichnotaxonomic names, with only few exceptions that could be assigned to Cochlichnus, Trichichnus, Helminthopsis or Helminthoidichnites (Knaust, 2007;Villegas-Martin & Netto, 2018). Features diagnostic of meiofauna tunnels (straight to sinusoidal shape, constant diameter) are seen in published photographs interpreted by some authors as keratose sponges (e.g.…”

Section: Endobenthosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Keratose sponges in ancient carbonates – A problem of interpretation

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reports of diverse vermiform and peloidal structures in Neoproterozoic to Mesozoic open marine to peritidal carbonates include cases interpreted to be keratose sponges. However, living keratose sponges have elaborate, highly elastic skeletons of spongin (a mesoscopic end‐member of a hierarchical assemblage of collagenous structures) lacking spicules, thus have poor preservation potential in contrast to the more easily fossilized spicule‐bearing sponges. Such interpreted fossil keratose sponges comprise diverse layered, network, amalgamated, granular and variegated microfabrics of narrow curved, branching, vesicular–cellular to irregular areas of calcite cement, thought to represent former spongin, embedded in microcrystalline to peloidal carbonate. Interpreted keratose sponges are presented in publications almost entirely in two‐dimensional (thin section) studies, usually displayed normal to bedding, lacking mesoscopic three‐dimensional views in support of a sponge body fossil. For these structures to be keratose sponges critically requires conversion of the spongin skeleton into the calcite cement component, under shallow‐burial conditions and this must have occurred prior to compaction. However, there is no robust petrographic–geochemical evidence that the fine‐grained carbonate component originated from sponge mummification (automicritic body fossils via calcification of structural tissue components) because in the majority of cases the fine‐grained component is homogenous and thus likely to be deposited sediment. Thus, despite numerous studies, verification of fossil keratose sponges is lacking. Although some may be sponges, all can be otherwise explained. Alternatives include: (i) meiofaunal activity; (ii) layered microbial (spongiostromate) accretion; (iii) sedimentary peloidal to clotted micrites; (iv) fluid escape and capture resulting in bird's eye to vuggy porosities; and (v) moulds of siliceous sponge spicules. Uncertainty of keratose sponge identification is fundamental and far‐reaching for understanding: (i) microfacies and diagenesis where they occur; (ii) fossil assemblages; and (iii) wider aspects of origins of animal clades, sponge ecology, evolution and the systemic recovery from mass extinctions. Thus, alternative explanations must be considered.

show abstract

“…Trace fossils of mesohaline and fully marine invertebrate organisms are common in the Rio Bonito (median and upper portions) and Palermo formations (e.g., Buatois et al, 2001a, 2001b, 2007; Gandini et al, 2010; Netto, 1994, 1998; Villegas‐Martín & Netto, 2019). Bioerosion structures have also been recorded in valves from mollusc‐dominated shell beds preserved in the transgressive deposits of the Rio Bonito Formation (Schmidt‐Neto et al, 2018).…”

Section: Geological and Geographical Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences between autogenic and allogenic expressions of the Glossifungites Ichnofacies in estuarine and shoreface deposits from the Permian of the Paraná Basin, Brazil

Villegas‐Martín¹,

Netto

Kern³

2020

Geological Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Glossifungites Ichnofacies is a substrate-controlled ichnofacies that occurs in omission surfaces and has been used in the identification and interpretation of stratigraphic discontinuities. The Early Permian Rio Bonito-Palermo sedimentary succession from the Paraná Basin (southern Brazil) offers an opportunity to discuss the genesis of the omission surfaces demarked by the occurrence of Glossifungites suites. These suites are composed of sharp, unlined burrows with irregular boundaries and passive infill by generally medium-to coarse-grained sandstones. Thalassinoides is the dominant component in the Glossifungites suites in the studied deposits, with local occurrences of Diplocraterion, Gyrolithes, and Skolithos. Based on the ichnological signatures of the distinct Glossifungites suites observed in these deposits and the characteristics of the facies in which they occur, the associated discontinuity surfaces were interpreted as autogenic or allogenic. The morphological distinction between allogenic and autogenic expressions of the Glossifungites Ichnofacies is observed. Glossifungites suites demarking autogenic surfaces are associated with dewatered muddy substrates from the estuarine settings. Glossifungites suites demarking allogenic surfaces are characterized by large vertical burrows and occur in association with a sequence boundary and coplanar surfaces registered in lower shoreface settings.

show abstract

Permian macroburrows as microhabitats for meiofauna organisms: an ancient behaviour common in extant organisms

Cited by 7 publications

References 64 publications

Lateral variability of ichnological content in muddy contourites: Weak bottom currents affecting organisms’ behavior

Lateral variability of ichnological content in muddy contourites: Weak bottom currents affecting organisms’ behavior

Keratose sponges in ancient carbonates – A problem of interpretation

Differences between autogenic and allogenic expressions of the Glossifungites Ichnofacies in estuarine and shoreface deposits from the Permian of the Paraná Basin, Brazil

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About