4.3 Article

Biodeterioration of Antarctic fossil penguin bones caused by lichens from the Eocene La Meseta Formation

期刊

POLAR BIOLOGY
卷 44, 期 12, 页码 2243-2254

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00300-021-02957-7

关键词

Taphonomy; Weathering; Traces; Fossil penguins; Bones; Endolithic

资金

  1. ANPCyT [PICT 2017-0043, UNLP N955]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lichens cause biodeterioration on fossil remains in Antarctica, with euendolithic lichens Lecidea andersonii and Athallia holocarpa identified growing on penguin bones. Bioerosive damage was evaluated using light and electron microscopic techniques, with hyphae extending up to a maximum depth of 2.5 mm inside the bones. This research provides a tool for reconstructing the chronology of taphonomic events and describing the extent of damage in the bones.
A large part of the Antarctic surface is covered by lichens since they can withstand extreme environmental conditions. Lichens are primary colonizers and contribute to soil formation by deteriorating rocks through a combination of chemical and physical mechanisms. Therefore, fossil remains found exposed on the surface are usually colonized by epilithic and endolithic lichens. The objective of this work is to determine the biodeterioration generated by lichens on fossil remains and its taphonomic implications. We identified the presence of the euendolithic lichens Lecidea andersonii and Athallia holocarpa growing into fossil penguin bones from Antarctica. The bioerosive damage was evaluated using light and electron microscopic techniques. Pits corresponding to apothecium and sinuous thin fissures remodeled, or in some cases produced, by hyphae were distinguished from the cracks originating from physical weathering. The maximum depth that hyphae extend inside the bone, probably constrained by the light supply, was established to be 2.5 mm. We provided a tool for the reconstruction of the chronology of the taphonomic events, describing the type and magnitude of the damage into the bones.

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

4.3
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