Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
q 2000 The Paleontological Society. All rights reserved. 0094-8373/00/2601-0006/$1.00
Paleobiology, 26(1), 2000, pp. 80–102
Bivalve taphonomy in tropical mixed siliciclastic-carbonatesettings. I. Environmental variation in shell condition
Mairi M. R. Best and Susan M. Kidwell
Abstract.—Contrary to the geological stereotype of pure-carbonate reef platforms, approximately50% of shallow shelf area in the Tropics is accumulating siliciclastic and mixed siliciclastic-car-bonate sediments. Taphonomic characterization of these settings is thus essential for assessing var-iation among major facies types within the Tropics, as well as for eventual comparison with higher-latitude settings. Our grab samples and dredge samples of bivalve death assemblages from ninestations in five subtidal habitats in a large marine embayment of Caribbean Panama (Bocas delToro) provide the first actualistic information on the taphonomic condition of shells in Recent trop-ical siliciclastic sediments. Focusing on unambiguous damage to bivalve shell interiors, we foundthat the quality of shell preservation in fine-grained siliciclastics is superb: commonly K10% ofspecimens are affected by encrustation, boring, edge-rounding, and fine-scale surface alterationvia dissolution, microbioerosion, and maceration. Pure-carbonate and mixed siliciclastic-carbonateenvironments containing hard substrata (patch reefs, Halimeda gravelly sand, mud among patchreefs) contain higher numbers of more severely damaged shells (generally .25%) and also higherdiversities of fossilizable encrusters and borers. Disarticulation and fragmentation are pervasiveacross all environments and are probably related to predation rather than to postmortem processes.As in other shallow subtidal study areas, the taxonomic compositions of death assemblages havenot been homogenized by postmortem transport but show high spatial fidelity to the distributionof living species. Assemblages from the five sedimentary environments have distinct taphonomicsignatures, but the strongest differences are between the two fine-grained, exclusively soft-sedi-ment siliciclastic environments on the one hand and the three environments containing hard sub-strata on the other. Experimental tests for rates and agents of damage, still in progress, indicatethat the most critical environmental variables are exhumation cycles and burial rate. Bivalve deathassemblages from Bocas del Toro demonstrate that damage levels in tropical fine-grained silici-clastic environments are much lower than in closely associated reefs and algal sands, and suggesta less filtered record of biological information.
Mairi M. R. Best and Susan M. Kidwell. Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago,Chicago, Illinois 60637. E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected]
Accepted: 29 June 1999
Introduction
One of the major unknowns in marine ta-phonomy is the effect of climate and latitude onpatterns of skeletal preservation. The physicalcondition of death assemblages has been stud-ied extensively in temperate latitudes, and anal-ogous information for tropical carbonates hasgrown rapidly, especially in the last decade(mollusk studies by Ekdale 1977; Tudhope andScoffin 1984; Miller 1988; Tudhope 1989; Par-sons 1989, 1993; Miller et al. 1992; Dent 1995,1996; Perry 1996, 1998; echinoderms by Nebel-sick 1992, 1995; Llewellyn and Messing 1993;Nebelsick et al. 1997; reef corals by Pandolfi andMinchin 1995; Greenstein and Moffat 1996;Greenstein and Pandolfi 1997; Pandolfi andGreenstein 1997a,b). However, although carbon-ate platforms and other sites of predominantlycarbonate accumulation constitute the geologi-
cal stereotype for low-latitude settings, they oc-cupy only about half of shallow tropical shelfarea, for example occupying ;45% in AmericanTropics (Best 1998a). Siliciclastic and mixed sil-iciclastic-carbonate sediments characterize theremaining shelf area. Tropical siliciclastics maydiffer from temperate-latitude analogues in to-tal input and seasonality of organic matter; ratesand seasonality in bioturbation and, thus, sed-iment aeration; types and quantities of dis-solved ions (tropical subaerial weathering); andthe composition, rate, and timing of skeletal car-bonate input (e.g., possible latitudinal differenc-es in shell robustness, body size, productivity).However, actualistic taphonomic data are lack-ing and even sedimentological information islimited for such environments, despite their ob-vious importance today and in the geologicpast.
81TROPICAL TAPHOFACIES
FIGURE 1. Bocas del Toro embayment of Caribbean Panama, showing location of sampling stations and regionalgeomorphology. Polygons enclose sampling area of multiple grabs and dredges per station.
There are many reasons to suspect funda-mental differences in the taphonomy of mac-roinvertebrate hard parts within tropical sili-ciclastic and carbonate sediments. Siliciclasticsediments are typically more abrasive, havemore turbid overlying waters, and, owing tothe presence of iron and other metals, mayhave less-saturated pore-water chemistriesthan in pure carbonate sediments (e.g., Aller1982; Walter and Burton 1990; Green et al.1996; but see Aller et al. 1996 for evidence ofoversaturation due to iron). Siliciclastic sedi-ments also typically support different benthiccommunities of shell producers and modifi-ers. The net effect of these physical, chemical,and biological factors on shell preservation intropical siliciclastics is unknown. Some ofthese environmental attributes might conveyadvantages to shell preservation in siliciclas-tics (e.g., less light penetration of water col-umn to support boring algae), whereas others
are expected to be disadvantageous. For ex-ample, oxidation of pyrite, which lowers pore-water pH and promotes shell-carbonate dis-solution in temperate latitudes (Aller 1982),could operate at even higher rates in the Trop-ics.
To examine these issues, we are investigat-ing siliciclastic and carbonate subtidal sea-floors along the Caribbean coast of Panamathrough taphonomic evaluation of death as-semblages, experimentation with arrays oftethered shells, sediment analysis, and pore-water geochemistry (Best and Kidwell 1995,1996; Best 1996a,b, 1998c; Ku and Walter 1998;Best et al. 1999). Here, we report results on bi-valve death assemblages from the Bocas delToro area of Panama (98N), a region of exten-sive, primarily siliciclastic sedimentation in arelatively deep (37 m), geomorphically com-plex embayment (Fig. 1). Taphonomic analysisfocused on bivalves because of their abun-
82 MAIRI M. R. BEST AND SUSAN M. KIDWELL
dance in both reef and nonreef tropical envi-ronments. The Caribbean coast of Panamaprovides sedimentary and climatic conditionstypical of the American Neotropics, and itsmodern fauna and fossil record are of partic-ular interest to studies of marine biodiversityand its response to Neogene uplift of the Pan-ama Isthmus (Jackson et al. 1997).
To identify postmortem damage unambig-uously, our analysis focuses exclusively ondamage to shell interiors. Most previous ta-phofacies studies have summed damage toshell interiors and exteriors, some of whichmay be acquired during the life of the shellproducer.
Geologic Setting
The Bocas del Toro embayment lies on theCaribbean coast of Panama near the Costa Ri-can border (Fig. 1) and is situated within thelate Cenozoic back-arc basin of the andesiticvolcanic arc that forms much of the Panaman-ian Isthmus. Outcrops of Neogene marine sil-iciclastic sediments, derived from the arc andnow uplifted along a network of small faults(Coates et al. 1992; Seyfried et al. 1994), forma series of mangrove-fringed peninsulas andislands within the embayment. These faultsare probably also a major control on local ba-thymetry (Greb et al. 1996). Windward cliffedshorelines are local sources of siliciclastic sed-iment, supplementing that derived from themainland watershed, which reaches elevationsof .2200 m. Along the coast immediately eastand west of the Bocas embayment, the openCaribbean reef front is attached to the main-land and occupies the inner edge of a sea-ward-dipping shelf. Across the broad mouthof the Bocas embayment, the reef front is at-tached to bedrock islands in the west (IslasColon and Bastimentos) and, in the east, con-tinues as a series of carbonate sand keys onsubmerged horsts (Cayos Zapatillas) (Greb etal. 1996). A deep natural channel (Canal delTigre) cuts across the reef front between Cay-os Zapatillas and the mainland Penınsula Val-iente, which defines the eastern edge of theBocas embayment.
Greb et al. (1996) surveyed the sedimentol-ogy and macrobenthic ecology of the shallow-water (,12 m) pure-carbonate environments
that fringe islands in the western sub-basin(Bahıa Almirante; Fig. 1), including data onthe Cayos Zapatillas reef platform. Sedimen-tologic and ecological information for the east-ern siliciclastic-dominated portion of Bocasdel Toro is limited to ecological surveys of fo-raminiferans and corals (Havach and Collins1997; Guzman and Guevara 1998a,b).
Hydrographic information for this part ofthe Caribbean coast is summarized by Greb etal. (1996). The prevailing regime is microtidal(0.3 m normal, 0.5 m spring tide), and the arealies outside Caribbean hurricane tracks. Al-though most of the Bocas embayment is pro-tected by the outer line of bedrock islands andcarbonate keys, wind-driven swells from thenortheast typically sweep directly into Canaldel Tigre, breaking on the north coast of CayoAgua and the tip of Penınsula Valiente (NEprevailing wind; storms from northwest dur-ing rainy season [Sadler et al. 1987]). Theseswells, combined with tidal exchange of alarge volume of water in Laguna de Chiriquı(max. depth 37 m), create substantial currentsthrough Canal del Tigre, especially at its nar-rowest segment along the eastern edge ofCayo Agua. A longshore current also sweepsthe Bocas del Toro coastline from the north-west. Whereas a part of this current is appar-ently deflected into Bahıa Almirante in thenorthwest (max. depth 24 m) (Greb et al.1996), it is probably less important in thesoutheastern portion of the embayment whereour work has concentrated.
Precipitation is strongly seasonal, rangingfrom virtually no rain in February and Marchto as much as 566 mm in November; the an-nual average is 3305 mm (Greb et al. 1996).Runoff during the fall rainy season, particu-larly from the Rios Guarumo, Guariviara, andCricamola, delivers a large but as yet unquan-tified volume of fine siliciclastic sedimentsfrom the mainland. Sediment plumes off theserivers can extend .30 km and persist for sev-eral days after major rains (Best and Kidwellpersonal observations 1994, 1995, 1997). Visi-bility measured with a Secchi disk during adry week in November 1994 was quite high(9–16 m; our data), with highest values on thewindward side of Cayo Agua where oceanicwaters enter the embayment via Canal del Ti-
83TROPICAL TAPHOFACIES
gre. Water temperatures are also seasonal,with the mean shifting from 28.08C during theMay–December wet season to 26.68C duringthe dry season off the Bocas coast (Sadler et al.1987). In November 1994, we measured tem-peratures of 28.38C throughout the water col-umn in stations adjacent to Canal del Tigre(12–29 meters) and found warmer surface wa-ter in protected backwater stations (30.08Csurface, 0.6–1.1 degrees higher than bottomwaters in 12–20 m depths). The exceptionswere an extreme backwater station (station 12in Fig. 1) where the entire water column hadbeen heated to 308C, and immediately off RioUyama (station 8) where the temperaturestratification was inverted, probably becauseof freshwater outflow. These measurementsare consistent with a larger hydrographic sur-vey conducted in 1997 by L. D’Croz (unpub-lished.).
Methods
The eastern embayment and adjacent shelfof Bocas del Toro were sampled from the RVUracca (Smithsonian Tropical Research Insti-tute) in November 1994 to explore sedimenttypes and molluscan assemblages at a rangeof depths and oceanographic facings. Sam-pling focused on areas .10 m both to take ad-vantage of the vessel and to examine environ-ments with stratigraphically significant rec-ords. Several subareas within the embaymentwere reoccupied for supplementary environ-mental information in June 1997, and at thattime we also sampled two cross-shelf tran-sects of the (siliciclastic) open shelf. This paperfocuses on taphonomic data from the nine sta-tions established within the embayment in1994 (nine nonconsecutively numbered poly-gons in Fig. 1).
We collected at least three dredge samplesand three Petersen grab samples at each sta-tion. Each was subsampled for sediment anal-ysis, and the remainder was wet-sievedthrough a 2-mm mesh. Live specimens wereremoved and preserved in alcohol. Death as-semblages were later wet-sieved with freshwater through 8-mm and 2-mm mesh. Afterair-drying, we determined the total volume of2–8-mm and .8-mm grains and the percent-age of bivalves, by volume and weight, within
the .8-mm fraction. Grain size (sedigraphand sieving), percent nitrogen, organic car-bon, and carbonate (total weight percent ni-trogen and carbon by elemental analysis, car-bonate by digestion, following Verardo et al.1990) were determined for bulk sedimentsamples by the Department of Geology,Northern Illinois University. For patch reefs,we tallied information from both loose bivalveshells within sediment and those attached toor wedged within dead coral rubble, whichdominated these remotely collected samples;this contrasts with previous workers (Parsons1993; Dent 1995), who sampled using SCUBAand examined shells exclusively from pocketsof sediment within reef frameworks.
In preliminary subsamples, we found thatsome kinds of taphonomic damage in deathassemblages were sensitive to shell size-class,as recognized previously in temperate deathassemblages (e.g., Boekschoten 1966; Bosence1979; but contra Davies et al. 1989; Staff andPowell 1990a,b), and thus we targeted thecoarsest fraction (.8 mm) where levels ofdamage were thought to be greatest andwhere species identification would be moststraightforward. The vast majority of theshells fell within a range of 8–20 mm. To fa-cilitate organization of the database, and to al-low information on specimens to be verified oraugmented at a later date, we gave each bi-valve shell or shell fragment a unique identi-fying number.
Interior surfaces of all bivalve specimenswere examined by 103 microscope, and re-sults for six major categories of damage are re-ported here: disarticulation, fragmentation,edge-rounding, and, based exclusively onshell interior surfaces, encrustation, nonpred-atory boring, and fine-scale alteration of sur-face texture. For each category of damage,both the specific type and extent of damageper specimen were tallied (Table 1), followinga protocol similar to that of other workers(e.g., Davies et al. 1989; Kowalewski et al.1995). Results are presented as a damage pro-file (bar graph), summarizing the percentageof shells that display fragmentation (any de-gree), rounding of the commissure, presenceof encrusters or borers, and relatively severe
84 MAIRI M. R. BEST AND SUSAN M. KIDWELL
TA
BL
E1.
Dat
aty
pes
per
shel
l.
Eco
log
ical
info
rmat
ion
Gen
us/
spec
ies
Min
erol
og
yR
obu
stn
ess
Lif
ep
osi
tion
Att
ach
men
tFe
edin
gst
rate
gy
Acc
ord
ing
toa
taxo
nli
stB
ased
onty
pe
spec
imen
sar
agon
ite
calc
ite
nac
reou
sar
agon
ite
thin
(,0.
5m
m)
thic
k( .
0.5
mm
)in
fau
nal
sem
i-in
fau
nal
epif
aun
al
free
-liv
ing
byss
ate
cem
ente
rb
orer
filt
erfe
eder
mix
edfe
eder
chem
osy
nth
etic
dep
osit
feed
erTa
ph
onom
icin
form
atio
nF
rag
men
tati
onan
dd
isar
ticu
lati
onE
ncr
ust
atio
nB
orin
gE
dg
e-ro
un
din
gF
ine-
scal
esu
rfac
eal
tera
tion
Val
ves
arti
cula
ted
Sin
gle
wh
ole
valv
eL
arg
efr
agm
ent
( .20
%va
lve)
Smal
lfr
agm
ent
( ,20
%va
lve)
no
encr
ust
atio
nfi
ne
wor
mtu
bes
serp
uli
d/
spir
orbi
dag
glu
tin
ated
wor
mtu
be
bar
nac
lesh
eet
bryo
zoan
net
bryo
zoan
no
bor
ing
spon
ge
wor
mbi
valv
ero
otet
chin
gg
razi
ng
bryo
zoan
un
mod
ified
edg
esch
ipp
eded
ges
rou
nd
eded
ges
thin
ned
edg
es
pri
stin
ed
ull
chal
kyp
itte
dch
alky
and
pit
ted
erod
ed
biva
lve
verm
etid
spon
ge
cora
lH
omot
rem
ad
isk
fora
mag
glu
tin
ated
fora
mca
lcar
eou
sal
gae
brac
hio
pod
85TROPICAL TAPHOFACIES
fine-scale damage (either chalky and pitted, oreroded).
In our protocol, fine-scale alteration refersto various degrees of degradation of originalluster; it may be due to any combination of mi-croboring and other microbioerosion, partialdissolution of mineral crystallites, macerationof shell organic matrix, and physical abrasion,which require a scanning electron microscope(SEM) to distinguish (see Cutler 1995; Bestand Kidwell 1996; Best 1998c; Best et al. 1999).This suite of damage types is grouped underthe general category of ‘‘dissolution’’ or ‘‘cor-rosion’’ in many other studies. Because visiblechalkiness can be produced by mantle anaero-biosis during the life of a bivalve (Crenshaw1980), we tallied fine-scale alteration usingonly the portion of the shell interior outsidethe pallial line, an area not prone to the arti-fact of in vivo dissolution and characterized ina given species by a single microstructuraltype. This latter point is important, becausestyles and rates of fine-scale alteration are al-most certainly a function of shell microstruc-ture (i.e., the size, shape, mineralogy, andpacking of mineral crystallites in organic ma-trix) (see Glover and Kidwell 1993) rather thanof environmental conditions alone. Our sub-division of shell interiors into microstructur-ally and physiologically distinct anatomicalsectors for taphonomic characterization con-trasts with division into geometric sectors re-lated to life position (e.g., Davies et al. 1989),which is most relevant for tallying damage toshell exteriors.
Sedimentary Environments
Our benthic surveys in the eastern two-thirds of the Bocas embayment indicate a mo-saic of largely siliciclastic sediments withpoint sources of carbonate production (Table2, Fig. 2). The geomorphic and hydrographiccomplexity of the embayment creates a mix-ture of low- and high-energy shallow-waterenvironments. Windward shorelines of bed-rock islands (including the western edges ofPenınsula Valiente) are characterized by pock-et beaches of lithic sand interspersed with oc-casional small patch reefs and isolated corals.These foreshore and shoreface sands gradeinto muddy sand and sandy mud at 20–30 m
depth. The largest and most extensive patchreefs rise up from shallow muddy seafloors onthe mangrove-rimmed lee sides of bedrock is-lands and in the muddy leeside of Cayos Za-patillas. These reefs include both live and rel-ict material, are 5–10 m diameter, and have ;5m relief. They are the primary sources of car-bonate sediment, along with small meadowsof occasionally coral-rich Halimeda gravellysand (e.g., rimming the constricted portion ofCanal del Tigre east of Cayo Agua) and car-bonate sand and seagrass beds (leeside ofCayos Zapatillos). The embayment is domi-nated by green, gray, and brown clayey silici-clastic muds, which surround patch reefs andalso form a low-relief plain in the innermostembayment (Laguna de Chiriquı). Muds in-crease in carbonate-mud content toward theopen sea (to ;50%), and contain only a fewpercent skeletal debris .2 mm.
Five distinct sedimentary environmentscharacterize waters .10 m (Table 2, Fig. 2).Three of these include hard substrata (patchreef, Halimeda gravelly sand, mud amongpatch reefs), and the other two present exclu-sively soft sediments (sandy mud, mud).Hard-substrata environments do not show asimple correlation with water energy—thelargest patch reefs are in relatively protectedlee areas, whereas Halimeda meadows are incurrent-swept areas—but all are in the shal-lowest-water portions of the embayment andare not found along the mainland shore. En-vironments are arranged in order of decreas-ing carbonate content and grain size in Table2 and other figures.
Abundance and Taxonomic Composition ofBivalve Death Assemblages
Skeletal material .2 mm constitutes only afew percent by volume of sediments in the em-bayment (Table 2). However, virtually all ofthis material is taxonomically identifiable, andin siliciclastic sediments, bivalve shells andshell fragments constitute the majority. Con-sequently, relatively small (8–10 liters) sam-ples of sediment yielded reasonable numbersof specimens .8 mm for taphonomic evalua-tion (2–15 specimens per liter of sediment)(Table 3). This abundance matches or exceedsthat in other subtidal tropical sediments. For
86 MAIRI M. R. BEST AND SUSAN M. KIDWELL
TA
BL
E2.
Sed
imen
tary
env
iron
men
tch
arac
teri
zati
on.
En
vir
onm
ent
Wat
erd
epth
Sed
imen
tco
lor
and
gra
insi
zeSe
dim
ent
com
po
siti
onC
har
acte
riza
tion
ofb
enth
os
Pat
chre
ef(s
tati
ons
1an
d4)
14–1
6m
(to
top
sof
reef
s)sm
all
cora
l-d
omin
ated
reef
s,5–
10m
dia
met
er,w
ith
5m
reli
efab
ove
surr
oun
din
gm
ud
dy
sea-
floo
r
carb
onat
eh
ard
gro
un
dm
ixtu
reof
live
and
dea
dco
rals
,pre
dom
i-n
antl
yA
gari
cia
(wit
hS
ider
astr
ea,M
onta
s-tr
ea,
Pori
tes)
and
oth
erla
rgel
yep
ifau
nal
taxa
(rh
yn
con
elli
dbr
ach
iop
ods,
bryo
zoan
s,ca
lcar
eou
sal
gae
,ver
met
ids,
rop
ysp
ong
es,
Hom
otre
ma,
Spo
ndyl
us,
and
Cha
ma)
Hal
imed
ag
rave
lly
san
d(s
tati
on10
)12
–13
mta
nfi
ne–
med
ium
–coa
rse
carb
on-
ate
san
d(m
ostl
yH
alim
eda
de-
bris
,som
eco
rall
ine
alg
aean
dm
ollu
skfr
agm
ents
),tr
ace
mu
dan
dsp
ong
esp
icu
les;
smal
lp
atch
reef
sof
cora
lsan
dre
dco
rall
ine
alg
ae
no
quan
tita
tive
dat
afo
rlo
ose
sed
imen
t,bu
tk
50%
carb
onat
e;sk
el-
etal
deb
ris
.2
mm
53.
5%of
bulk
sam
ple
byvo
lum
e
abu
nd
ant
clu
mp
sof
live
Hal
imed
a,fl
esh
yg
reen
alg
ae,a
nd
bot
hcr
ust
ose
and
ram
ose
red
alg
aew
ith
abu
nd
ant
san
dto
gra
vel-
size
dca
lcar
eou
sd
ebri
s,in
clu
din
gsh
ells
ofst
rom
bid
san
dve
ner
ids;
her
mit
crab
s;ar
eain
clu
des
smal
lre
efs
ofp
rim
aril
yp
late
yco
rals
,esp
ecia
lly
Aga
rici
a,cr
ust
ose
red
al-
gae
,an
dot
her
atta
ched
epif
aun
a(S
pond
y-lu
s,B
arba
tia,
and
Ano
mia
biva
lves
,bry
ozo-
ans,
rhy
nco
nel
lid
brac
hio
pod
s)M
ud
amon
gp
atch
reef
s(s
tati
ons
1,5,
and
8)14
–20
mli
ght–
med
ium
gre
ento
gra
yis
h-
brow
nm
ud
,4–6
%.
63m
(mos
tly
shel
lg
rave
l).S
amp
les
vary
inp
roxi
mit
yto
pat
chre
efs
and
inth
eir
con
ten
tof
coar
sesk
elet
ald
ebri
s
mu
dsi
ze-f
ract
ion
con
-ta
ins
18–5
2%ca
rbon
-at
e;sk
elet
ald
ebri
s.
2m
m5
3–6%
ofbu
lksa
mp
leby
volu
me
sulf
uro
us
odor
(sta
tion
5),
1–2%
org
anic
car-
bon
,0.1
7–0.
27%
nit
ro-
gen
spar
seto
abu
nd
ant
mol
lusc
ansh
ell
mat
eria
l,m
ang
rove
deb
ris;
live
luci
nid
and
ven
erid
biva
lves
,hol
oth
uri
ans,
pri
apu
lid
s;am
oun
tof
reef
-der
ived
cora
ld
ebri
sva
ries
wit
hp
roxi
mit
yto
pat
chre
efs
(see
pat
ch-r
eef
fa-
cies
des
crip
tion
abov
e)
San
dy
mu
d(s
tati
ons
7an
d11
)24
–29
mg
reen
ish
-gra
ysa
nd
ym
ud
,10–
20%
.63
m(m
ostl
yd
ark
fin
e–m
edi-
um
mafi
can
dli
thic
gra
ins)
mu
dsi
ze-f
ract
ion
con
-ta
ins
19–3
5%ca
rbon
-at
e;sk
elet
ald
ebri
s.
2m
m5
0.3–
1.0%
ofbu
lksa
mp
leby
volu
me
sulf
uro
us
odor
(sta
tion
11),
0.8–
3.6%
org
anic
carb
on,0
.10–
0.35
%n
i-tr
ogen
coar
ser-
gra
ined
site
(sta
tion
7)h
asab
un
dan
tla
rge
mil
ioli
dfo
ram
s,h
erm
itcr
abs,
brac
h-
yu
rid
s,st
omat
opod
s,li
vesa
nd
dol
lars
,m
ang
rove
deb
ris,
and
mol
lusk
shel
ls;fi
n-
er-g
rain
edsi
te(s
tati
on11
)in
clu
des
dea
dsp
atan
goid
s,st
rom
bid
san
dot
her
gas
tro-
pod
s,m
ang
rove
deb
ris,
brac
hy
uri
ds,
sto-
mat
opod
s,bi
valv
esh
ells
Mu
d(s
tati
ons
12an
d13
)13
mg
reen
ish
-gra
yto
brow
nso
ftcl
ay-
eym
ud
mu
dsi
ze-f
ract
ion
con
-ta
ins
20–3
0%ca
rbon
-at
e;sk
elet
ald
ebri
s.
2m
m5
0.4–
1.0%
ofbu
lksa
mp
leby
volu
me
sulf
uro
us
odor
(sta
tion
13),
2.8–
5.6%
org
anic
carb
on,u
pto
0.35
%n
i-tr
ogen
live
card
iid
,tel
lin
id,c
orbu
lid
,ven
erid
,an
dp
ecti
nid
biva
lves
and
shri
mp
;mu
cus
mat
sw
ith
shel
ld
ebri
s,m
ang
rove
deb
ris,
spa-
tan
goid
deb
ris,
brac
hy
uri
ds,
mol
lusc
ansh
ells
;in
sam
ple
sfr
omsi
tes
nea
rer
tom
ang
rove
shor
elin
e(s
tati
on13
),al
sod
ead
Spo
ndyl
us,
Cha
ma,
ram
ose
cora
ls,r
egu
lar
ech
inoi
ds
87TROPICAL TAPHOFACIES
FIGURE 2. Distribution of sedimentary environments in Bocas del Toro study area showing dominance of silici-clastic sediments with point sources of carbonate. Subtidal areas in white are outside study; no data available.
TABLE 3. Percent abundance of bivalve life styles; d 5 dredge sample, g 5 grab sample.Deposit feeders: several species of NuculanaChemosynthetic feeders: lucinids Diplodonta, Codakia, Lucina, and DivaricellaMixed feeders: many species and several genera of TellinaceaSuspension feeders (infaunal): venerids, cardiids, corbulids, Glycymeris, Tagelus, Cardiomya, and PandoraFree-living epifauna: Anadara brasiliana and all pectinids except for one byssate ChlamysByssate epifauna: Lima, Chlamys, arcids, anadarids, Barbatia, Pteria, Malvimalleus, Pinna, Brachiodontes, and Gastro-
chaenaCementers and borers: several chamid genera, Plicatula, Spondylus, Ostrea, Spengleria, and Lithophaga
Environment
Samplesize(n)
No. oftaxa
Infauna
Depositfeeders
Chemo-syntheticfeeders
Mixedfeeders
Suspensionfeeders
Epifauna
Free-livingepifauna
Byssateepifauna
and nestlersCementersand borers
Patch reef1-d3.0-01-d3.1-04-d19-0
Halimeda gravelly sand10-g44-0
483849
101
81114
26
———
—
———
—
—86
13
—3
22
20
25
14
3
312624
16
675833
4510-d59-0
Mud among patch reefs1-d3.3-08-d36-45-d23-4
94
343100111
27
472727
—
——4
3
118
5
22
212235
43
384141
2
672
11
824
18
2610
7Sandy mud
7-d35-1.17-d25-1.211-g49-07-g31-011-g47-0
7378981744
121410
410
3733—71—
513——
333366—61
1113242436
1118
662
—————
31
———
Mud12-d63-213-d72-112-g61-0
109103147
91313
———
—15
1
266232
732065
—3—
——1
1—1
88 MAIRI M. R. BEST AND SUSAN M. KIDWELL
FIGURE 3. Cumulative sampling curve of taxa vs. in-dividuals for samples pooled by environment. Eachcurve is the average of 200 bootstraps, with one stan-dard deviation error indicated.
example, in the San Blas Archipelago of Pan-ama, one liter of sediment in both carbonateand siliciclastic environments yields 1–18identifiable bivalve specimens .8-mm (Best1996a,b). Shell densities in pure-carbonatesediments were 0–30 specimens/liter in Ma-dang, Papua New Guinea (.8 mm, bivalvesonly) (Best and Pandolfi 1992 and unpub-lished data), 1–25/liter in the Virgin Islands(.5 mm, combined bivalves and gastropods)(Parsons 1993), and an average of 38/liter inthe Florida Keys (.2 mm, combined bivalvesand gastropods) (Dent 1995).
The total number of bivalve species persample ranged from 4 (n 5 17 specimens) to47 (n 5 343) (Table 3, summarizing all pro-cessed samples). Pooled total diversity per en-vironment ranged from 18 (mud) to 66 (mudamong patch reefs) (Fig. 3). Cumulative sam-pling curves, pooled by environment, indicatethat species richness per environment beginsto level off (using maximum convexity oncurve; see Heck et al. 1975; Sanders 1968) at;8 for muds (n ; 30 individuals), 14 for sandymuds (n ; 60 individuals), 19 for patch reefs(n ; 70 individuals), 29 for Halimeda gravellysands (n ; 90 individuals), and 36 for mudsamong patch reefs (n ; 100 individuals) (Fig.3). These data suggest that bivalve diversitiesin soft siliciclastic seafloors (mud, sandy mud)are significantly lower than those in carbon-ate-rich and hard substrata (Halimeda gravellysand, patch reef). Moreover, a reasonable di-versity of bivalve taxa is captured in quitemodest samples. These estimates are almost
certainly conservative because the analysiswas limited to the coarse fraction (.8 mm),the regional fauna is underdescribed, andsome fragments were difficult to assign taxo-nomically to a species. Lumping of species ismost significant among pectinids, oysters,and small infaunal species with few distin-guishing features, but the large majority ofspecimens in samples could be assigned atleast to the genus level, and virtually all couldbe assigned to ecological groups (Table 3).
These taxonomic richnesses are similar tosingle samples from other tropical subtidalenvironments, even those including finer sizefractions of the death assemblage and report-ed as total richness rather than from a cumu-lative sampling curve. In San Blas Archipela-go, total per-sample species richness rangedfrom 6 to 19 in siliciclastics (sample sizes of 40to 89 individuals) and from 9 to 16 in carbon-ates (sample sizes of 33 to 44; Best 1996a,b,1998c, and unpublished). In pure-carbonateenvironments, pooled bivalve richness rangedfrom 15 to 28 in Papua New Guinea (samplesizes of 73 to 158; Best and Pandolfi 1992, un-published data), and per-sample total mollus-can richness ranged from 8 to 39 in the VirginIslands (sample sizes of 45 to 116; Parsons1993) and from 17 to 75 in Yucatan (samplesizes of 39 to 3634, 3-mm mesh; Ekdale 1972,1977).
Spatial Fidelity of Death Assemblages
In the study area, live mollusks (both bi-valves and gastropods) were extremely rare atall stations, and so an evaluation of spatial fi-delity via a live-dead comparison (e.g., John-son 1965; Cadee 1968; Warme 1971; Miller1988; Feige and Fursich 1991) was not feasible:in washing 72 samples from the Bocas embay-ment and adjacent open shelf totaling ;2600l sediment, we encountered only a few dozenlive individuals .2 mm. Such low numbersare not unusual for single censuses of livemollusks in live-dead studies; many replicatesamples in space and over time are generallynecessary to build a rigorous database of mol-luscan diversity from living material alone(see Kidwell and Bosence 1991). Death assem-blages can also be compared with other sourc-es of information on the habitat preferences of
89TROPICAL TAPHOFACIES
FIGURE 4. Taphonomic signatures of bivalve death as-semblages based on percent frequency of shells with en-crusters, macroscopic borers (nonpredatory), chalkyand pitted or eroded shell outside the pallial line (‘‘sur-face degraded’’), rounded shell commissures (‘‘roundedges’’), and fragmentation. A, Values per sample.Curve indicates water depth in meters. B, Values forsamples pooled by environment; error bars are 95% con-fidence intervals.
local fauna for the purpose of a live-dead com-parison (e.g., Henderson and Frey 1986; Da-vies et al. 1989; Staff and Powell 1990a), butthe Bocas fauna is insufficiently known to dothis at the species level.
However, the spatial fidelity of death assem-blages can also be assessed by evaluating tax-onomic and ecologic compositions in light ofthe environment (e.g., Zuschin and Hoheneg-ger 1998). In Bocas, the proportion of ecolog-ical groups in the bivalve death assemblagesis significantly different at the 0.05 level foreach of the five environments (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of frequency; Sokal and Rohlf1995) (Table 3), indicating that postmortemtransport has not been so severe as to homog-enize surviving death assemblages. Moreover,the relative proportions of these ecologicalgroups are consistent with the physical char-acteristics of the collection station (Tables 2and 3), suggesting the preservation of a strongsignal from the original environmental distri-bution of these taxa during life. For example,the proportion of specimens from epifaunalbivalves requiring hard substrata (cementers,borers, byssate or nestling bivalves) is greatestin patch reefs, moderate in Halimeda gravellysands (where there are both small patch reefsand live Halimeda for attachment), highly var-iable but generally lower in muds amongpatch reefs (depending on reef proximity),and virtually nil in sandy muds and muds. In-faunal bivalves are present in all but one sam-ple (1-d3.0, patch reef), but numbers of indi-viduals and diversity of infaunal feedingtypes are greatest in organic-rich sandy mudsand muds.
Facies-Level Differences in PostmortemDamage
Disarticulation.—To account for possibledisarticulation during collection, processing,and shipping, matching valves were countedas articulated, which, if anything, would pro-duce an overestimate of articulation. Nonethe-less, articulated valves are generally rare. Insamples of soft substrata (sandy mud, mud),only 1–12% of specimens are articulated andthese are limited to species with taxodontdentition (most commonly Nuculana). In set-tings that include hard substrata (patch reef,
Halimeda gravelly sand, mud among patchreefs), articulation is more common (e.g., 20–50% per sample from patch reefs), but is lim-ited to specimens that are physically wedgedwithin interstices of coral rubble (thus makingthe separation of valves difficult) and to spe-cies that have very thick ligaments or denti-tions resistant to disarticulation (chamids,spondylids).
Fragmentation.—Levels of fragmentation areuniformly high across all environments (39–53% of bivalve specimens per sample; Fig. 4).The only exception is patch reefs (5–22% persample), where low levels are attributable tothe high abundance of cementing species (Ta-ble 3), which are represented primarily by in-tact valves still tightly attached to pieces ofcoral rubble.
Because shells can easily be broken duringcollection and processing, fragmentation (likedisarticulation) is a problematic taphonomicvariable. However, initial inspection of sam-ples on deck and during gentle washing in-dicated that high levels of fragmentation were
90 MAIRI M. R. BEST AND SUSAN M. KIDWELL
FIGURE 5. Percent frequency of fragmentation in deathassemblages is not correlated with the frequency of thinshells or with environment.
FIGURE 6. A, Percent frequency of shells that are en-crusted and relative abundance of encrusters. B, Percentfrequency of shells that are macroscopically bored andrelative abundance of borers. Both graphs are pooled byenvironment with error bars showing 95% confidenceintervals.
not artifacts of sampling gear—grab anddredge samples had similar appearances—orof handling. Thus, although some additionalfragmentation may have occurred duringshipping, the qualitative pattern is probablyrobust (as argued by others for other study ar-eas, e.g., Davies et al. 1989).
Fragmentation is not significantly correlat-ed with water depth (12–29 m; Fig. 4A), rela-tive water energy (inferred from sedimentgrain size and setting), or shell thickness (Fig.5). Thus, although physical agents may con-tribute to fragmentation, they are not the pri-mary or sole agents determining environmen-tal differences. Predators and other organismsare the most likely agents of fragmentation inthe low-energy muds, a conclusion supportedby distinctive break patterns on shells (narrowinvaginated breaks and chipped edges createdby crabs and whelks; see Schafer 1972; Cateand Evans 1994) and consistent with the ob-served abundance of shell-crushing rays andtheir feeding pits (Best personal observationon SCUBA).
Encrustation.—The percentage of bivalveshell interiors that are encrusted decreaseswith decreasing availability of hard substrata,from ;45% in patch reefs and Halimeda grav-elly sands (no significant difference betweenthese two environments, which both have ex-tensive hard-substrata) to zero in muds (Fig.4).
Rank orders of the different encrusting taxaare quite similar among environments, withcalcareous tube-forming worms most abun-dant in all (serpulids and spirorbids), but sig-
nificant quantitative differences do exist (Fig.6A). Patch reefs and Halimeda gravelly sandshave the highest diversities: calcareous tube-forming worms and bryozoans are most com-mon, followed by calcareous algae; foraminif-era, bivalves (chamids, ostreids), corals, andvermetids occur with lower frequency. Inmuds among patch reefs, worms overwhelm-ingly dominate other encrusting taxa; smallnumbers of bryozoans, calcareous algae, fo-raminifera, bivalves (chamids, ostreids), andcorals are mostly associated with shells thatwere probably derived from nearby patchreefs (i.e., attached epifaunal bivalves). In allthree of these hard-substrata environments,monospecific encrustations usually consist ofrunner bryozoans, suggesting that they areearly colonists. In contrast, worms are virtu-ally the only encrusters in bivalve death as-semblages from exclusively soft substrata;barnacles, brachiopods, agglutinated wormtubes, and sponges (the latter two having poorpreservation potential) occur only in traceamounts.
Within the study area, there is no correla-
91TROPICAL TAPHOFACIES
FIGURE 7. Association of macroscopic boring and en-crustation on individual shells. Boring rarely occurswithout encrustation, suggesting that encrusters are thefirst colonists of shell interiors.
tion between the level of encrustation and wa-ter depth (Fig. 4A), perhaps because the rangewas relatively narrow (12–29 m) and becausesome shallow-water muds have both low en-ergy and relatively turbid overlying waters.The clearest environmental correlate of en-crustation is the presence of hard substrata onthe seafloor. The extent of hard substrata with-in an environment is difficult to quantifywithout detailed mapping using SCUBA, butnonetheless has a strong, essentially dichoto-mous effect: environments that include hardsubstrata all have assemblages with at least20% encrustation levels, whereas exclusivelysoft substrata are characterized by encrusta-tion levels of only a few percent, even whentested at the individual sample level (Fig. 4A).Water turbidity may be an additional factor, aslight-dependent encrusters (calcareous algae,Foraminifera, corals) and those most sensitiveto sediment smothering (bryozoans) occurprimarily in nonmuddy stations.
Nonpredatory Boring.—Boring of shell inte-riors (examined at 103) also covaries with thepresence of hard substrata, ranging from 26%in patch reefs to zero in muds (Fig. 4B). Levelsof boring are significantly higher in patchreefs than in the other two hard-substrate-bearing environments (Halimeda gravellysand, mud among patch reefs), which are notsignificantly different from each other. Thetwo soft-sediment environments (sandy mud,mud) have significantly lower boring levelsbut are not significantly different from eachother.
Clionid sponges are the most frequent bor-ers in all environments, and environmentswith hard substrata have the highest diversi-ties of borers (Fig. 6B). Clionid sponges arefollowed or matched in frequency by spionidworms, followed by lithophagid bivalves andbryozoans. (Microborers are considered un-der fine-scale surface alteration.)
As with encrustation, there is no correlationbetween the frequency of bored shells and wa-ter depth within the study area (Fig. 4A), andthe clearest environmental links are with thepresence of hard substrata. All environmentsthat include hard substrata have bivalve deathassemblages with levels of boring 10% orhigher, whereas environments that are exclu-
sively soft have levels of only a few percent,even when tested at the level of individualsamples. An additional environmental factoris indicated at station 8 (mud among patchreefs, sample 8-d36; Fig. 4A), where an anom-alously high incidence of worm borings coin-cides with elevated nutrients from Rio Uyama(confirmed by L. D’Croz personal communi-cation 1997). The fact that such overwhelming-ly high levels of boring worms were not seenelsewhere suggests that, away from the im-mediate influence of a river, nutrient levelsvary little throughout the lagoon (for an ex-ample of this in oligotrophic reefs see Kiene1997).
Except at nutrient-rich station 8 (describedabove), boring levels are generally lower thanencrustation levels (compare within Fig. 4B).However, the two types of damage are closelycorrelated, and in fact individual bivalve in-teriors are rarely bored unless they are alsoencrusted (Fig. 7). This suggests that encrus-ters are generally the first colonists of deadshells in our area, at least in stations of com-parable nutrient regimes, and thus that shellsthat are merely encrusted might have been ex-posed at the sediment/water interface forshorter periods of time than those that areboth encrusted and bored. We are presentlytesting this pattern in a series of experimentalarrays in the Bocas embayment and in the SanBlas Archipelago, Panama (Best 1998c).
Edge-Rounding.—Shells with rounded com-missures (not rounding of the broken edges ofshell fragments) are most frequent in environ-ments with hard substrata, ranging from 32%
92 MAIRI M. R. BEST AND SUSAN M. KIDWELL
in Halimeda gravelly sand to 5% in mud (Fig.4). There is no significant difference in levelsamong the hard-substrata environments, andonly a marginal difference between the twoexclusively soft-sediment environments.
Edge-rounding does not correlate with ei-ther water depth (Fig. 4A) or shell thickness.SEM examination (in progress) suggests algalor other micro-bioerosion and grazing of shelledges, perhaps by fish or echinoids, judgingfrom ‘‘nibble’’ marks (Best and Kidwell 1996).Edge-rounding thus appears to be largely bi-ological in origin.
Fine-Scale Alteration.—Shells whose interiorsurfaces outside the pallial line have lost theiroriginal luster and present a chalky, pitted, oreroded appearance (103 examination) aremost common in environments with hardsubstrata (grand means 44–52%, reaching 71%in one sample) and lowest in exclusively soft-sediment environments (grand means 7–9%)(Fig. 4).
Although many causes are possible, initialSEM examination suggests that chalky andpitted textures were generated both by algaland fungal microboring and by microbialmaceration of organic matrix, indicated byloosened crystallites, rather than by chemicaldissolution (Best and Kidwell 1996; Best et al.1999). Alteration can be quite high even inmuddy, organic-rich sediments (e.g., ;20% insome individual samples from sandy muds;Fig. 4A), consistent with microbial attack,which is not impeded by shallow burial ofshells (see Simon and Poulicek 1990).
Total Damage Profile.—As expected fromtrends in individual variables, the primarydistinction among overall damage profiles(Fig. 4B) is between environments that includehard substrata (patch reef, Halimeda gravellysand, mud among patch reefs) and those com-posed exclusively of soft sediments (sandymud, mud). With the exception of fragmen-tation, which is high in all environments ex-cept patch reefs, death assemblages from ex-clusively soft substrata are virtually pristine,with significantly lower levels of all kinds oftaphonomic alteration (,10% specimens al-tered, and commonly K10% within individ-ual samples). In contrast, environments con-taining hard substrata show high frequencies
of damage (.10% specimens altered, and gen-erally .25%), and higher diversities of infest-ing taxa. Replicate samples from individualenvironments (Fig. 4A) yield consistent levelsof damage for exclusively soft-sediment en-vironments and heterogeneous results fromhard-substrata environments. This is not un-expected given that the soft-sediment envi-ronments are far more homogeneous physi-cally than the other environments. This dif-ference in heterogeneity of taphonomic sig-nature is being explored using rarefactiontechniques (Best 1998b, unpublished).
Pair-wise comparison of environmentswithin each of these two sets of environmentsreveals second-order differences in damageprofiles (Fig. 4B). For example, muds havemarginally less boring, encrustation, andedge-rounding than do sandy muds. Halimedagravelly sand assemblages have marginallymore edge-rounding and fine-scale surfacedamage, and less boring, than do assemblagesfrom patch reefs, and mud among patch reefsdiffers from patch reefs only in having fewerencrusted shells. While these differences aresufficient to change the rank ordering of var-iables among these environments, the signifi-cances of these differences are marginal, andit is unwise to overinterpret them in light ofthe heterogeneity of the individual samples.The fundamental difference is between hard-and soft-substrata environments.
Discussion
Differences in Methods.—Quantitative com-parison of trends in Bocas death assemblageswith other studies is not straightforward.Studies diverge considerably in examining allmollusks, bivalves only, all species, or only afew target taxa, and also diverge in the sizefraction, set of taphonomic variables, andmethod of scoring damage per specimen (Ta-ble 4). The robustness of taphonomic signa-tures to such differences in approach has nev-er been fully tested, although individual stud-ies have evaluated some aspects (e.g., effect ofsize fraction and of whole versus fragmentedshells [Davies et al. 1989; Staff and Powell1990b]; target taxa versus pooled data [Dent1995, 1996]).
Our method diverges most strongly from
93TROPICAL TAPHOFACIES
most previous studies by focusing exclusivelyon shell interiors, so that postmortem damagecould be quantified unambiguously. Thisshould not affect the comparability of our re-sults for some variables, namely disarticula-tion, fragmentation, and edge-rounding. Forother variables, we expect our observed fre-quencies will be equivalent to or lower thanthe frequencies we would have obtained bysumming damage to both surfaces, makingthe Bocas dataset a conservative test of trendsin postmortem damage. Other studies areconsistent with this expectation. For example,considering only infaunal bivalves, whichshould be least sensitive to this methodologi-cal difference, Kowalewski et al. (1995) foundno differences in damage to shell interiors andexteriors in Cholla Bay and San Felipe inter-tidal assemblages (Gulf of California), but tal-lied a larger number of pristine interior sur-faces than exterior surfaces in North Sea in-tertidal assemblages. In Texas subtidal assem-blages dominated by infauna, Staff and Powell(1990b) found no significant interior-exteriordifferences on the inner shelf, but Davies et al.(1989) did find greater abrasion and ‘‘disso-lution’’ (5 fine-scale alteration of diverse ori-gins) on exterior shell surfaces in a nearby mi-crotidal inlet. This differential damage mayindicate selective attack of shell exteriors bytaphonomic processes, but it may also haveoccurred during life, especially among infau-nal species with little or no periostracum. Thisdoes not mean that tallying information fromshell exteriors is not useful for facies discrim-ination, only that it is not unambiguouslytaphonomic.
Because it would have doubled the numberof observations (already 41,931 for the 1553specimens examined), we did not gather in-formation on damage to exterior surfaces inBocas assemblages, and thus do not knowhow large an artifact this common methodmight introduce, particularly in epifauna-richassemblages (see concern of Parsons and Brett[1991] for reef-bearing study areas; see Bestand Kidwell this issue). However, because wefound highest damage in hard-substrata en-vironments, just as Parsons (1993) did in hernortheastern Caribbean study area using ex-terior as well as interior damage (see discus-
sion below), we suspect that combining exte-rior and interior shell damage may have onlya quantitative rather than qualitative effect onperceived taphonomic trends.
Spatial Fidelity.—Differences among envi-ronments in the taxonomic composition ofdeath assemblages, and the ecological consis-tency of assemblages with host sediments,suggest high spatial fidelity of molluscan re-mains at the facies-level within the Bocas delToro embayment: postmortem transport isrelatively minor both in distance and in quan-tities of shell moved out of life habitats. Thisresult is consistent with the pattern emergingfrom other enclosed and open-marine envi-ronments, both siliciclastic and carbonate, andappears to be robust to the method of analysisand even to the perils of mobile shell-ingest-ing predators and intermittent high energy(e.g., Cadee 1968, 1984; Warme et al. 1976; Bos-ence 1979; Fursich and Flessa 1987; Miller etal. 1992; Cate and Evans 1994; Flessa 1998; An-derson et al. 1998; see review by Kidwell andBosence [1991]).
High spatial fidelity is also implied by thesignificantly different damage profiles seenfor Bocas death assemblages from differentenvironments (see reasoning of Parsons andBrett [1991]). Habitat-specific shell damagehas been used elsewhere to recognize proba-ble transport directions of sediments (Pilkeyand Curran 1986) and the likely exotic originsof selected species in death assemblages (Da-vies et al. 1989), including hurricane-sweptback-reef settings (Miller et al. 1992 referenceto unpublished work; Perry 1996). In Austra-lia’s cyclone-affected Great Barrier Reef, Tud-hope (1989) found only a few meters’ trans-port of skeletal debris from patch reefs intoadjacent soft sediments. We observe the sameminimal off-reef transport around patch reefsin Bocas del Toro and San Blas Archipelago,Panama: shells from patch reefs are ecologi-cally and taphonomically distinctive, andtheir abundance in surrounding muds dimin-ishes to trace quantities within a few metersof the reef face (Best and Kidwell unpub-lished).
Biogenic Disarticulation and Fragmentation.—The high frequency of disarticulation andfragmentation in samples from quiet-water
94 MAIRI M. R. BEST AND SUSAN M. KIDWELL
soft sediments at Bocas suggests that thisdamage is largely biogenic rather than phys-ical in origin. This and distinctive break pat-terns also suggest that this damage is gener-ated largely by predators, rather than accruedduring postmortem time-averaging on theseafloor. Similarly high values, attributed topredators and in many instances contrary togradients in physical energy, have been re-ported from other low-energy settings (Cadee1994; see review by Cate and Evans 1994). Fei-ge and Fursich (1991) reasoned that fragmen-tation was largely biogenic in their intertidalstudy area because it decreased across a gra-dient of increasing physical energy and de-creasing sedimentation rate.
We attribute low fragmentation and disar-ticulation in Bocas patch reefs to the high pro-portion of species that are cemented to or oth-erwise firmly lodged in reef rubble in that lo-cal bivalve community. In contrast, Parsons(1993; Parsons and Brett 1991) found that frag-mentation levels were greatest in reef (andbeach) environments sampled in the Virgin Is-lands. We surmise that this difference resultsfrom her sampling areas of sand within reefframeworks, whereas we sampled the reefframework itself, and thus the damage pro-files are from two different subhabitats.
Genesis and Significance of Other Damage.—All other kinds of taphonomic damage in theBocas embayment—encrustation, postmortemboring, edge-rounding, and fine-scale surfacedegradation—are strictly postmortem in ori-gin and are greatest in assemblages frompatch reefs, Halimeda gravelly sands, andmuds that receive skeletal debris from imme-diately adjacent reefs (Fig. 4B). High frequen-cies of such damage may correlate with hardsubstrata for many reasons, which need not bemutually exclusive. These include (1) intrinsicecological factors, such as a larger proportionof epifaunal species, which, unlike infaunalspecies, necessarily experience a period ofpostmortem exposure on the seafloor beforeburial (see Best and Kidwell this issue), and(2) a host of extrinsic, covarying environmen-tal factors.
The most likely environmental factor isgreater exposure of death assemblages onpatch reefs and coral-algal meadow seafloors,
due both to exhumation cycles and to slowernet sediment accumulation rates. Water clarityprobably also contributes to higher rates of en-crustation in these settings. In contrast, wesuspect that sedimentation (and thereforeburial) rates in muddy environments are quitehigh in absolute terms, judging from burial ofexperimental arrays (e.g., up to 8 cm of sedi-ment accumulated in one year on experimen-tal shells deployed at the surface). Even in theabsence of high sedimentation, shell exposureat the sediment-water interface would not befavored, because these muddy siliciclastic-richsediments readily resuspend when touchedby divers (Best personal observation on SCU-BA, in both Bocas and San Blas habitats). Highorganic contents (Table 2) also indicate thatthese muds have quite ‘‘fluffy’’ sediment-wa-ter interfaces unfavorable to many infesters,even under quiet water conditions. These ben-thic conditions would pertain even when Sec-chi-disk visibility in overlying waters is high,as they were during our fieldwork.
Elevated levels of fine-scale alteration inhard-substrata environments may reflect sev-eral different factors, operating both at theseafloor and during shallow burial: (1) greaterexposure to light, fostering algal microboringand grazing-type bioerosion; (2) intermittent-ly higher energy, providing more opportuni-ties for physical abrasion; (3) stronger irriga-tion of pore waters in the coarser-grained sed-iments of these stations, fostering higher ratesof sulfate reduction, greater reoxidation of re-duced sulfide, and thus greater potential forcarbonate dissolution in addition to any acid-ification from aerobic decomposition (see Wal-ter and Burton 1990); (4) microbial attack oforganic matrix, which may proceed in all set-tings (Simon and Poulicek 1990; Glover andKidwell 1993), but which might be elevated incoarser-grained stations because of greaterpore-water supply of oxidants (see Allison1990; Walter and Burton 1990). SEM exami-nation of shells from analogous environmentsin the Caribbean San Blas Archipelago of Pan-ama (in progress) indicates that all of these ex-cept abrasion are probably factors in the fine-scale alteration associated with hard-substratain the Bocas embayment. In muddy siliciclas-tic sediments, all of these factors would be re-
95TROPICAL TAPHOFACIES
duced. Preliminary results indicate that thehigh iron content of siliciclastics in our SanBlas study area fosters iron reduction andoversaturated pore waters (cf. Aller et al. 1996;Ku and Walter 1998, unpublished; Best et al.1999), and this would cause an even greatertaphonomic contrast between assemblagesfrom hard-carbonate and soft-siliciclastic en-vironments such as sampled in Bocas.
Finally, although edge-rounding has beenused as a proxy for combined physical abra-sion and chemical solution by many workers(Cutler 1987; Davies et al. 1989), based in parton tumbling experiments by Chave (1964), itis probably largely biological in origin in Bo-cas assemblages and dependent upon seafloorexposure. SEM examination suggests algal orother micro-bioerosion, exacerbated by graz-ing of shell edges (Best and Kidwell 1996).Moreover, in contrast to previous studies,edge-rounding in Bocas assemblages is not re-stricted to settings of prolonged or high-en-ergy reworking or to thick shells (thought tobetter withstand such treatment).
The types of damage that are most commonin hard-substrata death assemblages in Bocasare thus linked to seafloor exposure, either in-termittent or continuous, and to the opennessof sediments to solute exchange, rather than tohigh energy per se. Death assemblages inmuds among patch reefs include skeletal de-bris that carries the taphonomic signature ofthese hard-substrate habitats. In contrast,postmortem damage to death assemblagesfrom exclusively soft-sediment environmentsis virtually nil (Fig. 4B) and is primarily a mi-crobial signature of sediment burial. The lowfrequency of encrustation and boring in theseenvironments appears to reflect the limitedexposure of shells above the sediment-waterinterface: infesting taxa occur in the samerank order as in hard-substrata death assem-blages, simply at much lower frequencies, in-dicating a shared larval species pool (Fig. 6).The few shells that are exposed in soft sedi-ments may in fact be more intensely colonizedbecause of substratum limitation and lowergrazing intensity (e.g., Jackson 1977; support-ed by experimental results of Best and Kid-well 1996; Best 1998c).
Broader Comparisons.—Working in pure-car-
bonate habitats of northeastern Caribbean,Parsons (1993; see Table 4 for methods) alsofound generally higher levels of damage inreef and high-energy sand environments thanin bioturbated sands and muds, with the low-est damage levels in mud (Dent [1995] indi-cates that this mud includes considerable sili-ciclastic component). Encrustation and clionidsponge borings (the only endobiont tallied)were consistently high in all reef habitats andin rippled sands of the adjacent shallow shelf(1.5–22 m; 13–67% of shells, versus ,2% ofshells in muds and bioturbated sands ,5.5 m;compare with our per-sample data in Fig. 4A).Fine-scale alteration (excluding rhizome etch-ings and polishing from abrasion) was alsohigh in reefs and in sandy grass beds andbeach sands (;40–95% of shells damaged), incontrast to shells in bioturbated sands andmuds (0–8% of shells damaged, except for onestation; compare with our Fig. 4). All of theseenvironments would have experienced simi-larly high levels of water clarity, and thus dif-ferences in damage levels were attributed todifferences in water energy, frequency of shellexhumation, and sediment accumulationrates, particularly where sedimentary veneerson hard substrata were especially thin. On thecarbonate platform of the Florida Keys, Dent(1995) also found the highest damage levels inreef-framework and back-reef rubble habitats,and attributed this to more frequent physicalreworking and exposure of shells. His singlemud station (pure carbonate) was in a channelof presumed low net sedimentation, whichwas invoked to explain why shells exhibitedmore damage than found by Parsons (1993) inher more onshore, sediment-trapping mudhabitat.
Workers in extratropical siliciclastic sedi-ments have also underscored the importanceof shell exhumation cycles and of low net sed-imentation. High damage levels have beendocumented in mollusk shells from storm-re-worked clastic-bypassed tidal inlets (Staff andPowell 1990a); from beaches, channels, andwave-influenced portions of macrotidal flats(Meldahl and Flessa 1990; Feige and Fursich1991); from clastic-starved nearshore areas be-tween active coastal alluvial fans (Meldahl etal. 1997); from palimpsest offshore sands
96 MAIRI M. R. BEST AND SUSAN M. KIDWELL
TA
BL
E4.
Com
par
ison
ofre
sult
sfr
omqu
anti
tati
veta
ph
ofac
ies
stu
die
sin
mod
ern
env
iron
men
ts,
ord
ered
lati
tud
inal
ly.
Un
less
not
ed,a
lld
amag
eb
ased
onp
oole
dob
-se
rvat
ion
son
shel
lin
teri
oran
dex
teri
orsu
rfac
es.n
.s. 5
not
spec
ified
.Cod
esfo
rty
pes
ofd
amag
eev
alu
ated
:Abr
5ab
rasi
on,B
I5
biot
icin
tera
ctio
ns
(su
mof
bioe
rosi
on,
encr
ust
atio
n,p
red
atio
n,e
tc.)
,Bio
5bi
oero
sion
,Bor
5b
orin
g(m
acro
scop
ic),
C5
crac
kin
g,C
L5
colo
rlo
ss,C
orr
5co
rros
ion
,Dis
art5
dis
arti
cula
tion
,Dis
s5
dis
solu
tion
,E
nc
5en
cru
stat
ion
,ER
5ed
ge-
rou
nd
ing
,Exf
5ex
foli
atio
n,F
rag
5fr
agm
enta
tion
,FSA
5fi
ne
scal
eal
terc
atio
n(o
fex
t5
exte
rior
&in
t5
inte
rior
surf
aces
)L
EO
5lo
ssof
exte
rior
orn
amen
tati
on,
MB
5m
icro
bor
ing
,P
pt
5p
reci
pit
atio
n,
R/
L5
rati
ori
ght/
left
valv
es,
Rad
5ra
du
lar
mar
ks,
RE
5ro
otet
chin
gs,
SF5
size
freq
uen
cy,T
M5
thin
ned
mar
gin
s
Stu
dy
area
(au
thor
)
En
vir
onm
ents
sam
ple
d(d
epth
)
Size
frac
tion
( .X
mm
)Ta
xaT
yp
esof
dam
age
Met
ho
dof
scor
ing
dam
age
Key
resu
lts
Sili
cicl
asti
cE
nv
iron
men
ts
Skag
erra
kco
ast,
Nor
way
(Cu
tler
and
Fle
ssa
1995
)B
each
3in
fau
nal
and
epif
au-
nal
biva
lves
Bio
,Cor
r(d
isso
lu-
tion
and
mac
era-
tion
),P
pt
pre
sen
ce/
abse
nce
ofea
chty
pe
ofd
amag
eon
each
shel
l(S
EM
)
maj
orit
yof
shel
lssh
owm
icro
bor
ing
,hal
fsh
owsi
gn
sof
dis
solu
-ti
onor
mac
erat
ion
,an
d10
%sh
owp
reci
pi-
tati
onN
orth
Sea
coas
t,G
erm
any
(Kow
alew
ski
etal
.19
95)
low
-en
erg
yti
dal
flat
san
dsu
bti
dal
chan
nel
sn
.s.
infa
un
albi
valv
eC
er-
asto
derm
aed
ule
Abr
,Bio
,En
c,F
rag
,F
SA(i
nt
and
ext)
deg
ree
ofea
chty
pe
ofd
amag
eon
each
shel
l
gen
eral
lym
oder
ate
abra
-si
on,v
ery
litt
lefr
ag-
men
tati
on,a
nd
hig
hly
vari
able
surf
ace
alte
r-at
ion
Cap
eC
od,M
assa
chu
sett
s(M
eld
ahl
and
Fle
ssa
1990
)sa
ltm
arsh
,in
ner
flat
s,m
idd
lefl
ats,
oute
rfl
ats,
bea
ch,s
ub
tid
al(0
–2.5
m),
sub
tid
al(2
.5–1
0m
)
6in
fau
nal
biva
lve
Mer
-ce
nar
iam
erce
nar
iaA
br,B
io,C
orr,
En
c,F
rag
pre
sen
ce/
abse
nce
ofea
chty
pe
ofd
amag
eon
each
shel
l
mar
shan
dsu
bti
dal
san
ds
gen
eral
lyd
iffe
r-en
td
amag
efr
omin
-te
rtid
alfl
ats,
but
no
sim
ple
tren
ds
Sap
elo
Isla
nd
,G
eorg
ia(F
rey
and
How
ard
1986
)of
fsh
ore
pal
imp
sest
san
d(1
2–15
m)
2.5
enti
rem
ollu
scan
dea
thas
sem
blag
eB
or,C
L,E
nc,
FSA
pre
sen
ce/
abse
nce
ofea
chty
pe
ofd
amag
eon
each
shel
l
hig
hes
td
amag
ein
site
sw
ith
slow
est
sed
imen
-ta
tion
rate
s
San
Lu
isP
ass,
Texa
s(D
avie
set
al.1
989)
mic
roti
dal
inle
t(s
torm
-d
omin
ated
tid
ald
el-
ta)
24
sub
sets
ofm
ollu
s-ca
nd
eath
asse
m-
blag
e,se
gre
gat
edby
life
hab
itat
s(i
n-
ner
shel
f,b
each
/in
-le
t,b
ay,e
ury
top
ic)
Abr
,BI,
Cor
r 1M
B,
Dis
art,
ER
,Fra
g,
SF
deg
ree
ofea
chty
pe
ofd
amag
eon
each
shel
l
dam
age
lin
ked
toli
feh
abit
ats
ofsp
ecie
s,ac
-cr
ued
bef
ore
tran
spor
tto
tid
ald
elta
;cor
ro-
sion
/m
icro
bor
ing
hig
hes
tin
eury
top
icsp
ecie
s,ed
ge-
rou
nd
-in
gan
dab
rasi
onh
igh
-es
tin
bay
spec
ies
Texa
sco
ast
(Sta
ffan
dP
owel
l19
90a)
mic
roti
dal
inle
t,in
ner
shel
f(1
5–22
m)
4en
tire
mol
lusc
and
eath
asse
mbl
age
Abr
,BI,
Cor
r 1M
B,
Dis
art,
ER
,Fra
g,
R/
L,S
F
deg
ree
ofea
chty
pe
ofd
amag
eon
each
shel
l
dam
age
dec
reas
esof
f-sh
ore,
exce
pt
corr
o-si
on;d
amag
efo
cuse
don
shel
lfr
agm
ents
97TROPICAL TAPHOFACIES
TA
BL
E4.
Con
tin
ued
.
Stu
dy
area
(au
thor
)
En
vir
onm
ents
sam
ple
d(d
epth
)
Size
frac
tion
( .X
mm
)Ta
xaT
yp
esof
dam
age
Met
ho
dof
Scor
ing
Dam
age
Key
resu
lts
Ch
olla
Bay
,Gu
lfof
Cal
ifor
nia
,So
nor
a(F
eig
ean
dF
urs
ich
1991
)
salt
mar
shch
ann
el,i
n-
ner
flat
,mid
dle
flat
,m
idd
lech
ann
el,o
ute
rfl
at,
oute
rch
ann
el
3en
tire
mol
lusc
and
eath
asse
mbl
age
and
targ
etg
ener
aP
roto
thac
a,C
hion
e,D
osin
ia,T
agel
us,
Cer
ithi
um
,Cer
ithi
-de
a,an
dE
ncop
e
Bor
,CL
,Cor
r,D
i-sa
rt,E
nc,
Fra
g,
LE
O,R
/L
deg
ree
ofea
chty
pe
ofd
amag
eon
each
shel
l
hig
hes
tov
eral
ld
amag
ein
chan
nel
s;m
ost
dam
age
incr
ease
sse
a-w
ard
acro
ssfl
ats
asen
erg
yan
dbi
ogen
icre
wor
kin
gin
crea
sean
das
sed
imen
tati
onra
ted
ecre
ases
Ch
olla
Bay
,Gu
lfof
Cal
ifor
nia
,So
nor
a(C
utl
er19
95)
salt
mar
sh,m
arsh
chan
nel
,bea
ch,s
pit
wit
hd
un
es,i
nn
erfl
at,
mid
dle
flat
,ou
ter
flat
,ro
cky
flat
,su
bti
-d
alro
cky
san
d(1
–5m
)
6in
fau
nal
biva
lves
Chi
-on
eflu
ctif
raga
and
Chi
one
cali
forn
ien
sis
Abr
,Cor
r,M
B,R
ad,
RE
pre
sen
ce/
abse
nce
ofea
chty
pe
ofd
amag
eon
each
shel
l
hig
hes
tov
eral
ld
amag
ein
spit
;mic
rob
orin
gd
omin
ates
all
exce
pt
bea
ch,w
her
eab
rasi
ond
omin
ates
;oth
erd
am-
age
typ
esh
ave
lim
ited
dis
trib
uti
ons
San
Feli
pe,
Gu
lfof
Cal
ifor
nia
,B
aja
Cal
ifor
nia
(Kow
ales
ki
etal
.199
4)
mod
ern
chen
ier,
sub
-m
oder
nch
enie
r,su
b-
foss
ilch
enie
r
12.5
infa
un
albi
valv
eM
u-
lin
iaco
lora
doen
sis
Bio
,C,E
nc,
ER
,Exf
,F
rag
,FSA
(ext
.vs.
int.
)
deg
ree
ofea
chty
pe
ofd
amag
eon
each
shel
l
dam
age
incr
ease
sw
ith
geo
log
icag
ean
dis
gre
ates
tfo
rsh
ells
sam
ple
dfr
omch
enie
rsu
rfac
eB
ahıa
Con
cep
cion
,Gu
lfof
Cal
ifor
nia
,Baj
aC
alif
orn
iaSu
r(M
eld
ahl
etal
.199
7)
inte
rtid
alm
ang
rove
,n
ears
hor
e(1
–5m
),n
ears
hor
e(5
–20
m),
offs
hor
em
ud
( .20
m),
nea
rsh
ore
bio-
clas
tic
san
d
15in
fau
nal
biva
lve
spe-
cies
Bor
(pre
dat
ory
1p
ostm
orte
m,i
ncl
.M
B),
CL
,FSA
(in
t),L
EO
,TM
each
shel
lin
teri
orsc
ored
acco
rdin
gto
over
all
dam
age
pro
file
(4g
rad
esof
dam
age)
hig
hes
tov
eral
ld
amag
ein
shal
low
est
wat
er;
amon
gn
ears
hor
esi
tes,
hig
hes
td
amag
ein
area
sof
slow
est
sed
-im
enta
tion
Pu
re-c
arb
onat
een
vir
onm
ents
Flo
rid
aK
eys
(Den
t19
95,
1996
)on
shor
e-of
fsho
retr
an-
sect
ofFl
orid
ash
elf:
gras
sbe
ds,
sand
s,re
efh
ard
grou
nds 1
rubb
le(1
–7m
),p
lus
2sa
ndan
dh
ard
grou
ndfo
re-
reef
site
s(2
1–33
m)
215
mos
tab
un
dan
tm
ollu
scan
spec
ies
inst
ud
yar
ea(o
f38
6to
tal)
Abr
,Bor
(sp
ong
eon
ly),
CL
,En
c,E
R,F
rag
,FSA
deg
ree
ofea
chty
pe
ofd
amag
eon
each
shel
l
dam
age
onre
efis
gre
at-
erth
anin
all
oth
eren
-v
iron
men
tsw
ith
the
exce
pti
onof
frag
men
-ta
tion
and
colo
rlo
ss
98 MAIRI M. R. BEST AND SUSAN M. KIDWELL
TA
BL
E4.
Con
tin
ued
.
Stu
dy
area
(au
thor
)
En
vir
onm
ents
sam
ple
d(d
epth
)
Size
frac
tion
( .X
mm
)Ta
xaT
yp
esof
dam
age
Met
ho
dof
Scor
ing
Dam
age
Key
resu
lts
St.
Cro
ix,
Vir
gin
Isla
nd
s,an
dM
ona
Isla
nd
,P
uer
toR
ico
(Par
son
s19
89,
1992
,P
ar-
son
san
dB
rett
1991
)
bea
ch,m
ud
,bio
turb
at-
edsa
nd
,gra
ssb
ed,
san
dp
ocke
tsw
ith
inp
atch
reef
,bac
kre
ef,
fore
reef
,alg
alsa
nd
onop
ensh
elf
har
d-
gro
un
d
5en
tire
mol
lusc
and
eath
asse
mbl
age
Dis
art,
Fra
g,E
nc,
Bio
,RE
,ER
,Abr
,C
L
deg
ree
ofea
chty
pe
ofd
amag
eon
each
shel
l
hig
hes
tov
eral
ld
amag
ein
reef
san
din
bea
chsa
nd
,lea
std
amag
ein
mu
d;r
eef
faci
esn
otd
isti
ng
uis
hab
lefr
omea
chot
her
,bu
td
isti
nct
from
all
oth
erfa
cies
Bot
hsi
lici
clas
tic
and
carb
onat
een
vir
onm
ents
Boc
asd
elTo
ro,
Car
ibb
ean
Pan
ama
(th
isp
aper
)sa
nd
ym
ud
(sil
ici.
),m
ud
(sil
ici.
),m
ud
amon
gp
atch
reef
s,p
atch
reef
,Hal
imed
ag
rave
lly
san
d
8al
lbi
valv
esp
ecie
sD
isar
t,F
rag
,En
c,B
or,E
R,F
SA(i
nt.
)d
egre
eof
each
typ
eof
dam
age
onea
chsh
ell
inte
rior
hig
hes
td
amag
ein
env
i-ro
nm
ents
wit
hh
ard
sub
stra
ta
(Frey and Howard 1986); and, within chenierplains, from relatively old shell ridges thathave suffered greatest meteoric exposure (Ko-walewski et al. 1994) (Table 4). In the most rel-evant subset of subtidal muddy sediments,damage levels (based on both shell exteriorand interior surfaces) are only slightly higherthan those we observed in tropical siliciclasticmuds of the Bocas embayment. For example,between fair-weather and storm wave base onthe Texas shelf, 91–98% of bivalve shells 4–12mm were disarticulated, 16% were fragment-ed, 16% had significant fine-scale alteration(‘‘major dissolution’’), and 8–13% were en-crusted or bored (latter figure for pooled bi-valves and gastropods) (Staff and Powell1990b; compare with our Fig. 4B). In offshoresiliciclastic muds of Bahıa Concepcıon, pres-ervation of bivalve death assemblages is con-sistently ‘‘good’’ to pristine, with .50% ofspecimens in ‘‘excellent’’ condition in all sam-ples (color retained, no postmortem infesta-tion, no edge alteration, may have some lossof luster) (Meldahl et al. 1997) .
The excellent condition of shells from sili-ciclastic muds in Bocas del Toro is not uniquewithin the Tropics, as we are finding similarlywell-preserved material from subtidal silici-clastic muds in the San Blas Archipelago ineastern Panama (Best 1996b, 1998b,c). In theabsence of pure-carbonate muds within the Bo-cas study area, it is not possible to isolate theeffects of sediment composition on the onehand from sediment grain size and its physi-cal environmental correlates on the other.Nonetheless, the differences in damage profilewould be difficult to explain by sedimentcomposition alone, so we feel confident thatsediment composition is probably of only sec-ondary importance among the set of environ-ments examined in Bocas. The effect of sedi-ment composition can be tested more straight-forwardly in the San Blas area, where both sil-iciclastic and pure-carbonate muds arepresent. In our preliminary data from SanBlas, bivalve shell condition is poorer in pure-carbonate muds, primarily because of greaterfine-scale surface alteration (Best et al. 1999and unpublished). Such differences in sedi-ment composition may in fact explain in partwhy Dent (1995) found that shells from his
99TROPICAL TAPHOFACIES
pure-carbonate mud in Florida were in poorercondition than shells from Parsons’s (1993) ap-parently impure muds in the Virgin Islands.
Conclusions
These results from Bocas del Toro constitutethe first taphonomic characterization of mol-luscan death assemblages in Recent tropicalsiliciclastic sediments and can be comparedwith assemblages from pure-carbonate hardsubstrata in the same back-arc embayment,broadening the actualistic database for strati-graphically significant shallow-marine envi-ronments. To the advantage of taphofaciesanalysis in analogous fossil records, bivalveshells are relatively abundant, death assem-blages have not been homogenized by post-mortem transport, and each environmentyields a distinctive damage profile. Between-sample variation is high within the physicallyheterogeneous hard-substrata environments,however, requiring greater pooling of data.The most distinct differences are betweenhard-substrata environments (patch reef, Hal-imeda gravelly sand, mud among patch reefs)and exclusively fine-grained, soft-sedimentenvironments (sandy mud, mud), with the lat-ter characterized by superb shell preservation.Because we only tallied damage to shell inte-riors, these differences are unambiguouslytaphonomic (postmortem) in origin.
Tests to determine rates and specific agentsof damage are still in progress. However, theprimary environmental (extrinsic) controls ondamage are probably differences in exhuma-tion cycles and burial rate, given the depen-dence of the most common kinds of shell dam-age on seafloor exposure. In hard-substrataenvironments, residence times at or very nearthe seafloor probably depend upon the fre-quency of physical reworking (relatively highin Halimeda gravelly sands but less so in lee-positioned patch reefs) and the thickness ofthe sedimentary veneer (i.e., sediment avail-able to bury shells; not great in either environ-ment). In muddy substrata, we suspect dam-age levels are kept low by high rates of netsediment accumulation, low frequency ofphysical reworking of shells, and easily (e.g.,tidally) resuspended sediments at the seafloorthat would rapidly coat and effectively bury
shells upon death (for rare epifauna) or ex-humation (including exhumation by burrow-ers). The only significantly non-zero tapho-nomic damage to shells in these exclusivelysoft-sediment environments, aside from peri-mortem disarticulation and fragmentation, isfine-scale alteration of shell interiors and com-missural rounding. This alteration is probablylargely microbial in origin and can proceedduring shallow burial within anaerobic sedi-ments.
Regardless of cause, the excellent conditionof shells in assemblages from muddy tropicalsiliciclastic sediments suggests a less filteredrecord of original biological input than in as-semblages from closely associated reefs and al-gal meadows. Low damage levels suggest thattaphonomic processes have operated at verylow intensity, thereby causing little differentialdestruction of species (i.e., little bias), and/orthat sedimentation rates are very high, result-ing in little time-averaging. Such optimistic ex-trapolations require testing before applicationto the fossil record, but preliminary resultsfrom experimental shells suggest that rates ofdamage for buried shells in all environmentsare quite low, with at most a few percentweight loss in a 27-month period and all of thisachieved within the first 12 months (Best andKidwell 1996; Best 1998c; Best et al. 1999). Alltypes of damage show higher levels in hard-substrata assemblages, but these also includetypes that accrue only during exposure. Al-though key rates are yet to be quantified, givensuch significant differences in shell condition,the compositions of assemblages from thesecontrasting sets of facies (or alternating shaleand limestone beds) are not likely to be isota-phonomic, that is providing the same qualitiesof paleobiologic data. However, within each ofthe two sets of environments tested here, as-semblages are quite similar in condition, andthus might be accepted as taphonomicallyequivalent sources of paleontologic informa-tion.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to J. B. C. Jackson and A. G.Coates of the Panama Paleontology Project,Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, forencouraging and facilitating this project; L. S.
100 MAIRI M. R. BEST AND SUSAN M. KIDWELL
Collins for the loan of sampling gear; and D.West and the crew of the RV Uracca for theircheerful cooperation. We thank A. I. Miller, G.Cadee, and D. Jablonski for helpful reviews ofthe original manuscript. Analysis supportedby National Science Foundation grant EAR-9628345.
Literature Cited
Aller, R. C. 1982. Carbonate dissolution in nearshore terriginousmuds: the role of physical and biological reworking. Journalof Geology 90:98–154.
Aller, R. C., N. E. Blair, Xia Q., and P. D. Rude. 1996. Reminer-alization rates, recycling, and storage of carbon in Amazonshelf sediments. Continental Shelf Research 6:753–786.
Allison, P. A. 1990. Variation in rates of decay and disarticula-tion of Echinodermata: implications for the application of ac-tualistic data. Palaios 5:432–440.
Anderson, L. C., R. A. McBride, M. J. Taylor, and M. R. Byrnes.1998. Late Holocene record of community replacement pre-served in time-averaged molluscan assemblages, Louisianachenier plain. Palaios 13:488–499.
Best, M. M. R. 1996a. Preservation of calcium carbonate skele-tons in tropical shelf environments of the San Blas Archipel-ago, Caribbean Panama. Eighth international coral reef sym-posium (Panama), Abstracts of papers, p. 18.
. 1996b. Actualistic bivalve taphonomy in carbonate andsiliciclastic tropical marine shelf environments of the San BlasArchipelago, Caribbean Panama. Geological Society of Amer-ica Abstracts with Programs 28:364.
. 1998a. Distribution and nature of siliciclastic and car-bonate sediments on the tropical American shelves: signifi-cance for carbonate burial. Geological Association of CanadaAnnual Meeting Abstracts 23:17.
. 1998b. Taxonomic and taphonomic rarefaction: a metricfor assessing sampling and divergence of taphonomic signa-ture. Canadian Paleontology Conference Program and Ab-stracts 8:8.
. 1998c. Experimental and death assemblage bivalve ta-phonomy in tropical carbonate and siliciclastic environments,San Blas Archipelago, Caribbean Panama. Geological Societyof America Abstracts with Programs 30:383.
Best, M. M. R., and S. M. Kidwell. 1995. Actualistic bivalve ta-phonomy in tropical marine siliciclastics: preliminary resultsfrom natural death assemblages and experimental arrays inCaribbean Panama. Geological Society of America Abstractswith Programs 27:134.
. 1996. Bivalve shell taphonomy in tropical siliciclasticmarine environments: preliminary experimental results.Sixth North American paleontology convention, Abstracts ofpapers. Paleontological Society Special Publication 8:34.
. 1999. Bivalve taphonomy in tropical mixed siliciclastic-carbonate settings. II. Effect of bivalve life habits and shelltypes. Paleobiology 26:103–115.
Best, M. M. R., and J. M. Pandolfi. 1992. Molluscan taphonomyin Madang Lagoon, Papua New Guinea. Proceedings of theSeventh International Coral Reef Symposium, Guam 1:437.
Best, M. M. R., S. M. Kidwell, T. C. W. Ku, and L. M. Walter. 1999.Bivalve taphonomy and porewater geochemistry in tropicalcarbonate and siliciclastic marine environments: implicationsfor the preservation of carbonate. Geological Association ofCanada Annual Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 24.
Boekschoten, G. T. 1966. Shell borings of sessile epibiontic or-ganisms as paleoecological guides (with examples from the
Dutch coast). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeo-ecology 2:333–379.
Bosence, D. W. J. 1979. Live and dead faunas from coralline algalgravels, County Galway. Palaeontology 22:449–478.
Cadee, G. H. 1968. Molluscan biocoenoses and thanatocoenosesin the Ria de Arosa, Galicia, Spain. Zoologische Verhandelin-gen (Rijksmuseum Natuurlijke Historie Leiden) 95.
. 1984. Macrobenthos and macrobenthic remains on theOyster Ground, North Sea. Netherlands Journal Sea Rsearch18:160–178.
. 1994. Eider, shelduck, and other predators, the mainproducers of shell fragments in the Wadden Sea—paleoeco-logical implications. Palaeontology 37:181–202.
Cate, A. S., and I. Evans. 1994. Taphonomic significance of thebiomechanical fragmentation of live molluscan shell materialby a bottom-feeding fish (Pogonias cromis) in Texas coastalbays. Palaios 9:254–274.
Chave, K. E. 1964. Skeletal durability and preservation. Pp. 377–387 in J. Imbrie and N. D. Newell, eds. Approaches to paleo-ecology. Wiley, New York.
Coates, A. G., J. B.C. Jackson, L. S. Collins, T. M. Cronin, H. J.Dowsett, L. M. Bybell, P. Jung, and J. A. Obando. 1992. Clo-sure of the Isthmus of Panama: the near-shore marine recordof Costa Rica and western Panama. Geological Society ofAmerica Bulletin 104:814–828.
Crenshaw, M. A. 1980. Mechanisms of shell formation and dis-solution. Pp. 115–132 in D. A. Rhoads and R. A. Lutz. Skeletalgrowth of aquatic organisms: biological records of environ-mental change. Plenum, New York.
Cutler, A. H. 1987. Surface textures of shells as taphonomic in-dicators. In K. W. Flessa, ed. Paleoecology and taphonomy ofrecent to Pleistocene intertidal deposits, Gulf of California.Paleontological Society Special Publication 2:164–176.
. 1995. Taphonomic implications of shell surface texturesin Bahıa la Choya, northerm Gulf of California. Palaeogeog-raphy, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 114:219–240.
Cutler, A. H., and K. W. Flessa. 1995. Bioerosion, dissolution andprecipitation as taphonomic agents at high and low latitudes.Senckenbergiana maritima 25:115–121.
Davies, D. J., E. N. Powell, and R. J. Stanton. 1989. Taphonomicsignature as a function of environmental process: shells andshell beds in a hurricane-influenced inlet on the Texas coast.Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 72:317–356.
Dent, S. R. 1995. A taphofacies model of the recent South Floridacontinental shelf: a new perspective for a classic, exposed car-bonate environment. Ph. D. dissertation. University of Cincin-nati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
. 1996. Recent molluscan taphofacies of south Florida: acomparison of basic analytical methods. Geological Society ofAmerica Abstracts with Programs 28:A364.
Ekdale, A. A. 1972. Ecology and paleoecology of marine inver-tebrate communities in calcareous substrates, northeast Quin-tana Roo, Mexico. M.A. thesis. Rice University, Houston.
. 1977. Quantitative paleoecological aspects of modernmarine mollusk distribution, northeast Yucatan coast, Mexi-co. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies inGeology 4:195–207.
Feige, A., and F. T. Fursich. 1991. Taphonomy of the Recent mol-luscs of Bahıa la Choya (Gulf of California, Sonora, Mexico).Zitteliana 18:89–113.
Flessa, K. W. 1998. Well-traveled cockles: shell transport duringthe Holocene transgression of the southern North Sea. Geol-ogy 26:187–190.
Frey, R. W., and J. D. Howard. 1986. Taphonomic characteristicsof offshore mollusk shells, Sapelo Island, Georgia. TulaneStudies in Geology and Paleontology 19:51–61.
Fursich, F. T., and K. W. Flessa. 1987. Taphonomy of tidal flat
101TROPICAL TAPHOFACIES
molluscs in the northern Gulf of California: paleoenviron-mental analysis despite the perils of preservation. Palaios 2:543–559.
Glover, C. P., and S. M. Kidwell. 1993. Influence of organic ma-trix on the post-mortem destruction of molluscan shells. Jour-nal of Geology 101:729–747.
Greb, L., B. Saric, H. Seyfried, T. Broszonn, S. Brauch, G. Gugau,C. Wiltschko, and R. Leinfelder. 1996. Okologie und sedimen-tologie eines rezenten rampensystems an der Karibikkustevon Panama. Institut fur Geologie und Palaontologie, Uni-versitat Stuttgart. Profil 10.
Green, M. A., R. C. Aller, and J. Y. Aller. 1996. Benthic biogeo-chemical changes associated with calcite undersaturation inLong Island Sound sediments. In Geology of Long Island andmetropolitan New York. Department of Earth and Space Sci-ences, SUNY Stony Brook, Stony Brook, N.Y.
Greenstein, B. J., and H. A. Moffat. 1996. Comparative taphon-omy of modern and Pleistocene corals, San Salvador, Baha-mas. Palaios 11:57–63.
Greenstein, B. J., and J. M. Pandolfi. 1997. Preservation of com-munity structure in modern reef coral life and death assem-blages of the Florida Keys: implications for the Quaternaryfossil record of coral reefs. Bulletin of Marine Science 61:431–452.
Guzman, H. M., and C. A. Guevara. 1998a. Arrecifes coralinosde Bocas del Toro, Panama. I. Distribucion, estructura y es-tado de conservacion de los arrecifes continentales de la La-guna de Chiriquı y la Bahıa Almirante. Revista de BiologıaTropical 46:601–623.
. 1998b. Arrecifes coralinos de Bocas del Toro, Panama.II. Distribucion, estructura y estado de conservacion de losarrecifes de las Islas Bastimentos, Solarte, Carenero y Colon.Revista de Biologıa Tropical 46:893–916.
Havach, S. M., and L. S. Collins. 1997. The distribution of recentbenthic foraminifera across habitats of Bocas del Toro, Carib-bean Panama. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 27:232–249.
Heck, K. L., Jr., G. Van Belle, and D. Simberloff. 1975. Explicitcalculation of the rarefaction diversity measurement and thedetermination of sufficient sample size. Ecology 56:1459–1461.
Henderson, S. W., and R. W. Frey. 1986. Taphonomic redistri-bution of mollusk shells in a tidal inlet channel, Sapelo Island,Georgia. Palaios 1:3–16.
Jackson, J. B. C. 1977. Habitat area, colonization, and develop-ment of epibenthic community structure. Pp. 349–358 in B. F.Keegan, P. O. Ceidigh, and P. J. S. Boaden, eds. Biology of ben-thic organisms. Pergamon, Oxford.
Jackson, J. B. C., A. F. Budd, and A. G. Coates, eds. 1997. Evo-lution and environment in tropical America. University ofChicago Press, Chicago.
Johnson, R. G. 1965. Pelecypod death assemblages in TomalesBay, California. Journal of Paleontology 39:80–85.
Kidwell, S. M., and D. W. J. Bosence. 1991. Taphonomy and time-averaging of marine shelly faunas. In P. A. Allison and D. E.G. Briggs, eds. Taphonomy: releasing the data locked in thefossil record. Topics in Geobiology 9:115–209. Plenum, NewYork.
Kiene, W. 1997. Enriched nutrients and their impact on bioero-sion: Results for ENCORE. Proceedings of the Eighth Inter-national Coral Reef Symposium, Panama 1:897–902.
Kowalewski, M., K. W. Flessa, and J. A. Aggen. 1994. Taphofa-cies anaysis of Recent shelly cheniers (beach ridges), north-eastern Baja California, Mexico. Facies 41:209–242.
Kowalewski, M., K. W. Flessa, and D. P. Hallman. 1995. Ternarytaphograms: triangular diagrams applied to taphonomicanalysis. Palaios 10:478–483.
Ku, T. C. W., and L. M. Walter. 1998. Pore water geochemistry ofshallow marine carbonates vs. tropical siliciclastics: carbon,
sulfur and iron systematics and implications for carbonatepreservation. Geological Society of America Abstracts withPrograms 30:374.
Llewellyn, G., and C. G. Messing. 1993. Compositional andtaphonomic variations in modern crinoid-rich sedimentsfrom the deep-water margin of a carbonate bank. Palaios 8:554–573.
Meldahl, K. H., and K. W. Flessa. 1990. Taphonomic pathwaysand comparative biofacies and taphofacies in a Recent inter-tidal/shallow shelf environment. Lethaia 23:43–60.
Meldahl, K. H., K. W. Flessa, and A. H. Cutler. 1997a. Time-av-eraging and postmortem skeletal survival in benthic fossil as-semblages: quantitative comparisons among Holocene envi-ronments. Paleobiology 23:207–229.
Meldahl, K. H., O. G. Yajimovich, C. D.Empedocles, C.S.Gustafson, M. M. Hidalgo, and T. W. Reardon. 1997. Holo-cene sediments and molluscan faunas of Bahıa Concepcion: amodern analog to Neogene rift basins of the Gulf of Califor-nia. Geological Society of America Special Paper 318:39–56.
Miller, A. I. 1988. Spatial resolution in subfossil molluscan re-mains: implications for paleobiological analyses. Paleobiolo-gy 14:91–103.
Miller, A. I., G. Llewellyn, K. M. Parsons, H. Cummins, M. R.Boardman, B. J. Greenstein, and D. K. Jacobs. 1992. Effect ofHurricane Hugo on molluscan skeletal distributions, Salt Riv-er Bay, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Geology 20:23–26.
Nebelsick, J. H. 1992. Echinoid distribution by fragment iden-tification in the northern Bay of Safaga, Red Sea, Egypt. Pa-laios 7:316–328.
. 1995. Comparative taphonomy of Clypeasteroids. Eclo-gae Geologica Helvetica 88:685–693.
Nebelsick, J. H., B. Schmid, and M. Stachowitsch. 1997. The en-crustation of fossil and recent sea-urchin tests: ecological andtaphonomic significance. Lethaia 30:271–284.
Pandolfi, J. M. and B. J. Greenstein. 1997a. Taphonomic alter-ation of reef corals: effects of reef environment and coralgrowth form. I. The Great Barrier Reef. Palaios 12:27–42.
. 1997b. Preservation of community structure in death as-semblages of deep-water Caribbean reef corals. Limnologyand Oceanography 42:1505–1516.
Pandolfi, J. M., and P. R. Minchin. 1995. A comparison of taxo-nomic composition and diversity between reef coral life anddeath assemblages in Madang Lagoon, Papua New Guinea.Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology 119:321–341.
Parsons, K. M. 1989. Taphonomy as an indicator of environ-ment: Smuggler’s Cove, St. Croix, U.S.V.I. In D. K. Hubbard,ed. Terrestrial and marine ecology of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Is-lands. West Indies Laboratory Special Publication 8:135–143.
. 1993. Taphonomic attributes of mollusks as predictorsof environment of deposition in modern carbonate systems:northeastern Caribbean. Ph.D. disseration. University ofRochester, Rochester, N.Y.
Parsons, K. M., and C. E. Brett. 1991. Taphonomic processes andbiases in modern marine environments: an actualistic per-spective on fossil assemblage preservation. Pp. 22–65 in S. K.Donovan, ed. The processes of fossilization. Columbia Uni-versity Press, New York.
Perry, C. T. 1996. The rapid response of reef sediments to chang-es in community composition: implications for time averag-ing and sediment accumulation. Journal of Sedimentary Re-search 66:459–467.
. 1998. Grain susceptibility to the effects of microboring:implications for the preservation of skeletal carbonates. Sed-imentology 45:39–51.
Pilkey, O. H., and H. A. Curran. 1986. Molluscan shell trans-port—you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Palaios 1:197.
Sadler, J. C., M. A. Lander, A. M. Hori, and L. K. Oda. 1987.
102 MAIRI M. R. BEST AND SUSAN M. KIDWELL
Tropical marine climatic atlas, Vol. 1. Indian Ocean and At-lantic Ocean. University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Sanders, H. L. 1968. Marine benthic diversity: a comparativestudy. American Naturalist 102:243–282.
Schafer, W. 1972. Ecology and palaeoecology of marine envi-ronments. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Seyfried, H., and W. Hellmann, eds. 1994. Geology of an evolv-ing island arc: the isthmus of southern Nicaragua, Costa Rica,and western Panama. Institut fur Geologie und Palaontologie,Universitat Stuttgart. Profil 7.
Simon, A., and M. Poulicek. 1990, Biodegradation anaerobiquedes structures squelettiques en milieu marin. I. Approchemorphologique. Cahiers de Biologie Marine 31:95–105.
Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry, 3d ed. W. H. Free-man, New York.
Staff, G. M, and E. N. Powell. 1990a. Taphonomic signature andthe imprint of taphonomic history: discriminating betweentaphofacies of the inner continental shelf and a microtidal in-let. Paleontological Society Special Publication 5:370–390.
. 1990b. Local variability of taphonomic attributes in aparautochthonous assemblage: can taphonomic signature dis-tinguish a heterogeneous environment? Journal of Paleontol-ogy 64:648–658.
Tudhope, A. W. 1989. Shallowing-upwards sedimentation in acoral reef lagoon, Great Barrier Reef of Australia. Journal ofSedimentary Petrology 59:1036–1051.
Tudhope, A. W., and T. P. Scoffin. 1984. The effects of Callianassabioturbation on the preservation of carbonate grains in DaviesReef lagoon, Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Journal of Sedi-mentary Petrology 54:1091–1096.
Verardo, D., P. Froelich, and A. McIntyre. 1990. Determinationof organic carbon and nitrogen in marine sediments using theCarlo-Erba NA-1500 Analyzer. Deep-sea Research 37:157–165.
Walter, L. M., and E. A. Burton. 1990. Dissolution of recent plat-form carbonate sediments in marine pore fluids. AmericanJournal of Science 290:601–643.
Warme, J. E. 1971. Paleoecological aspects of a modern coastallagoon. University of California Publications in GeologicalSciences 87:1–110.
Warme, J. E., A. A. Ekdale, S. F. Ekdale, and C. H. Peterson. 1976.Raw material of the fossil record. Pp. 143–69 in R. W. Scott andR. R. West, eds. Structure and classification of paleocommun-ities. Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Stroudsburg, Penn.
Zuschin, M., and J. Hohenegger. 1998. Subtropical coral-reef as-sociated sedimentary facies characterized by molluscs (north-ern Bay of Safaga, Red Sea, Egypt). Facies 38:229–254.