4.5 Article

Taphonomy of Early Cretaceous freshwater bivalve concentrations from the Sihetun area, western Liaoning, NE China

期刊

CRETACEOUS RESEARCH
卷 34, 期 -, 页码 94-106

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cretres.2011.10.007

关键词

Freshwater bivalve concentrations; Taphonomy; Palaeoecology; Western Liaoning; Early Cretaceous

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [91114201, 40632010, 41102005, J0930006]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2012CB821906]
  3. Bureau of the Geological Survey of China [1212011120116]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Early Cretaceous Yixian Formation at Sihetun, Beipiao, western Liaoning, northeastern China, is well-known for yielding diverse and excellently preserved fossils of the Jehol Biota. The lower unit of Yixian Formation, dominated by lacustrine deposits, is rich in concentrations of two freshwater bivalves: Sphaerium anderssoni and Arguniella ventricosa. These bivalve concentrations can be divided into three types that comprise either paucispecific A. vencricosa or S. anderssoni, or both bivalves in similar amounts. The lithological, biotic, and taphonomic features of 12 bivalve concentrations are recorded, and the taphonomic signatures (such as shell articulation, size-frequency distribution, and orientation) are analyzed. Autochthonous as opposed to allochthonous bivalve concentrations are discriminated. A very short time-averaging effect is recognized in some concentrations, which was probably caused by seasonal or episodic water-level fluctuations and hypoxia. Three factors operated on the bivalve concentrations before final burial: in-situ reworking, transport, and time-averaging. Although time-averaging of the death assemblages was limited to several years, it is in this way that several generations of the two bivalve species could become preserved together. Reworking of the bivalve concentrations was most likely caused by storm action. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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