The prevalence of invertebrate bioerosion on Mesozoic marine reptile bone from the Jurassic and Cretaceous of the United Kingdom: new data and implications for taphonomy and environment.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
  • Additional Information
    • Subject Terms:
    • Subject Terms:
    • Abstract:
      Invertebrate bioerosion on fossil bone can contribute to reconstructions of benthic taxonomic assemblages and inform us about oxygenation levels, water depth and exposure time on the seafloor prior to burial. However, these traces are not commonly described in the fossil record. To date, there have been only 13 published studies describing a total of 15 instances of invertebrate bioerosion on marine reptile fossil bones from the Mesozoic globally. We surveyed the collections of several UK museums with substantial occurrences of Mesozoic marine reptiles for evidence of invertebrate bioerosion. Here, we document 153 specimens exhibiting 171 newly recorded instances of invertebrate bioerosion on Jurassic and Cretaceous marine reptile bones. Several major bioeroding taxonomic groups are identified. Within the geological strata of the United Kingdom, there is a higher prevalence of bioerosion in the Cretaceous relative to the Jurassic, despite greater sampling of specimens from the Jurassic. Although biotic turnover and food web restructuring might have played a role, potentially pertaining to heightened productivity during the later stages of the Mesozoic Marine Revolution, we consider it more likely that this temporal change corresponds to differences in depositional environment and taphonomic history between the sampled rock units. In particular, the Cretaceous deposits are characterized by heightened oxygenation levels relative to their Jurassic counterparts, as well as reworking, which would have allowed two phases of bioerosion. A spatiotemporally broader dataset on invertebrate bioerosion on vertebrate bone will be important in further testing this and other hypotheses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
    • Abstract:
      Copyright of Geological Magazine is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)