4.2 Article

Latitudinal distribution of bryozoan-rich sediments in the Ordovician

Journal

BULLETIN OF GEOSCIENCES
Volume 85, Issue 4, Pages 565-572

Publisher

CZECH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DOI: 10.3140/bull.geosci.1177

Keywords

Bryozoa; Ordovician; carbonates; palaeolatitudes

Funding

  1. IGCP [503]
  2. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (MICINN), Accion de Cooperacion Internacional of Spain [ACI2008-0796]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Most bryozoans have calcareous skeletons that locally contribute large amounts of carbonate sediment to the sea floor. Whereas Recent bryozoans are diverse in shelf seas pan-globally, it is only in mid to high latitudes that they are potential limestone producers; tropical bryozoans invariably have too small a biomass relative to other carbonate producers (corals, algae and molluscs) to be important sources of sediment. During the Palaeozoic, however, bryozoan-rich deposits were formed at all palaeolatitudes, including the tropics. Extending the work of Taylor & Allison (1998), we have compiled data on 42 occurrences of bryozoan-rich deposits of Ordovician age to determine whether the Palaeozoic distributional pattern extends back to their earliest appearance in the fossil record. Estimated palaeolatitudes of deposition ranged from 10-75, but the majority (71%) were found to be tropical, i.e. < 23.5 degrees. Of the 14 reefal occurrences, 11 (79%) were formed in tropical palaeolatitudes. No significant trend in depositional palaeolatitude could be detected with time through the Ordovician. The most persuasive explanation for the broader palaeolatitudinal distribution of bryozoan-rich deposits (including reefs) in the Ordovician than at the present day is that durophagous predators were ecologically unimportant, allowing large erect, sediment-producing bryozoan colonies to grow in the tropics where today they are vulnerable to grazing fishes, decapods and echinoderms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available