4.7 Article

Taphonomy of ghost shrimps (Decapoda: Axiidea: Callianassidae) associated with their burrows within a middle Miocene mud volcano complex of Persian (Arabian) Gulf, Kuwait

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2018.08.006

关键词

Malacostracan crustaceans; Body and trace fossils; Langhian; Ophiomorpha; Pectinidae; Stable isotopes

资金

  1. Nanoscopy Science Unit at Kuwait University
  2. VEGA [02/0136/15]
  3. Hungarian Scientific Research Fund [OTKA K112708]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Shallow-marine strata of the Ghar Formation exposed along the Kuwait arch in the north of Kuwait contains fields of mud volcanoes associated with an assemblage dominated by pectinid bivalves and callianassid ghost shrimps. The depositional palaeoenvironment is interpreted to be intertidal to subtidal with the water depth not exceeding 50 m and with normal to hypersaline conditions. Based on the microfossil assemblage a middle Miocene age (early Langhian) is inferred, suggesting a longer stratigraphic span of the formation despite the previous studies treating the Ghar Formation as strictly early Miocene. Callianassid body fossils and numerous trace fossils assignable to Ophiomorpha have been identified. Ghost shrimp remains consisting of isolated cheliped elements are assigned to Neocallichirus (s.l.), which is the likely producer of Ophiomorpha burrows as documented by cheliped elements present within burrows and in the substrate around them. Stable isotopes discrimination modelling confirmed that fluids in the substrate were derived from at least two sources implying the presence of active mud volcanoes in the environment inhabited by ghost shrimps. Effusive activity of mud volcanoes further enhanced disarticulation and fragmentation of callianassid remains. The micritic matrix of ghost shrimp exoskeletons is indicated to have resulted from a mixture of local seawater with fluid of continental origin. This ghost shrimp occurrence is the first formal report of fossil decapod crustaceans from Kuwait.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据