Aspects of Quantitative Distributional Paleoecology

  • Roger L. Kaesler
Conference paper

Abstract

Three aspects of quantitative distributional paleoecology that rapidly are becoming computer-based are biofacies and biotope analysis; study of intraspecific variations of morphology with environment, geography, or stratigraphy; and study of population dynamics and survivorship. Non- quantitative distributional paleoecology has a long developmental history. Only in the last few years have cluster analysis, relative entropy mapping, canonical analysis and ordination techniques been applied to paleoecological problems.

Study of intraspecific variation of morphology has been neglected in paleontology. Much information of importance to naleoecology has been masked by careless establishment of new species and subspecies. The analysis of variance provides a powerful tool for study of intraspecific variation. The method can be combined with tests for determination of nonsignificant subsets of samples.

Study of population dynamics has been based on quantitative methods since its beginning, but most studies have been of limited application to general paleoecology. Recently, however, computer simulation methods have been used, and studies relating differences in survivorship to environment have been made. Although many problems attend the study of dynamics of fossil populations, one can expect increased application of these methods in the future. Several areas of paleoecological research cry out for quantification, areas the neontological homolog of which have become highly quantitative. Among these are studies of composition and structure of marine communities and relationships between shell chemistry and environment.

Keywords

Intraspecific Variation Relative Entropy Planktonic Foraminifera Numerical Taxonomy Positive Match 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bandy, O. L., Ingle, J. C., Jr., and Resig, J. M., 1964, Facies trends, San Pedro Bay, California: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 75, no. 5, p. 403–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandy, O. L., Ingle, J. D., Jr., Lankford, R. R., and Lowenstam, H. A., 1967, Paleoecology: AGI short course lecture notes, Am. Geol. Inst., Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
  3. Benson, R. H., 1959, Ecology of Recent ostracodes of the Todos Santos Bay region, Baja California, Mexico: Univ. Kansas Paleo. Contr., Arthropoda, Article 1, 80 p.Google Scholar
  4. Benson, R. H., and Kaesler, R. L., 1963, Recent marine and lagoonal ostracodes from the Estero de Tastiota region, Sonora, Mexico (northeastern Gulf of California): Univ. Kansas Paleo. Contr., Arthropoda, Article 3, 34 p.Google Scholar
  5. Berger, W. H., 1968, Planktonic Foraminifera: selective solution and paleoclimatic interpretation: Deep-Sea Research, v. 15, no. 1, p. 31–44.Google Scholar
  6. Bonham, G. F., 1965, A numerical method of classification using qualitative and semi-quantitative data, as applied to the facies analysis of limestones: Canadian Petroleum Geol. Bull., v. 13, p. 482–502.Google Scholar
  7. Bonham, G. F., 1967, An example of the analysis of semi-quantitative petrographic data: Proc. 7th World Petroleum Cong., Elsevier Co., London, v. 2, p. 567–604.Google Scholar
  8. Buzas, M. A., 1967, An application of canonical analysis as a method for comparing faunal areas: Jour. Animal Ecol., v. 36, p. 563–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buzas, M. A., 1968, On the spatial distribution of Foraminifera: Cushman Found. Contr., v$119, pt. 1, paper 342, 11 p.Google Scholar
  10. Cairns, J., Jr., and Kaesler, R. L., in press, Cluster analysis of Potomac River survey stations based on protozoan presence-absence data: Hydrobiologia.Google Scholar
  11. Craig, G. Y., and Oertel, G., 1966, Deterministic models of living and fossil populations of animals: Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, no$1487, v. 122, pt. 3, p. 315–355.Google Scholar
  12. Deevey, E. S., Jr., 1947, Life tables for natural populations of animals: Quart. Review of Biology, v. 22, p. 283–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gower, J. C., 1966, Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis: Biometrika, v. 53, no. 3–4, p. 325–338.Google Scholar
  14. Gower, J. C., 1967, A comparison of some methods of cluster analysis: Biometrica, v. 23, no. 4, p. 623–637.Google Scholar
  15. Greig-Smith, P., 1964, Quantitative plant ecology ( 2nd ed. ): Butterworths Scientific Publ., London, 256 p.Google Scholar
  16. Harbaugh, J. W., and Demirmen, F.F 1964, Application of factor analysis to petrologic variations of Americus Limestone (lower Permian), Kansas and Oklahoma: Kansas Geol. Survey Sp. Dist. Publ. 15, 41 p.Google Scholar
  17. Howarth, R. J., and Murray, J. W., 1969, The Foraminiferida of Christchurch Harbour, England: A reappraisal using multivariate techniques: Jour. Paleontology, v. 43, no. 3, p. 660–675.Google Scholar
  18. Imbrie, J., 1963, Factor and vector analysis programs for analyzing geologic data: Office Naval Res,, Geog. Branch, ONR Task No. 389–135, Tech. Rept. No. 6, 83 p.Google Scholar
  19. Imbrie, J., and Purdy, E. G., 1962, Classification of modern Bahamian carbonate sediments,;Ln Classification of carbonate rocks: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Mem. 1, p. 253–272.Google Scholar
  20. Kaesler, R. L., 1966, Quantitative reevaluation of ecology and distribution of Recent Foraminifera and Ostracoda of Todos Santos Bay, Baja California, Mexico: Univ. Kansas Paleo. Contr., Paper 10, 50 p.Google Scholar
  21. Kershaw, K. S., 1964, Quantitative and dynamic ecology Edward Arnold Publishers, London, 183 p.Google Scholar
  22. Kontrovitz, M., 1967, An investigation of ostracode preservation: Quart. Florida Acad. Sci. Jour., v. 29, no. 3, p. 171–177.Google Scholar
  23. Lee, P. J., 19 69, The theory and application of canonical trend surfaces: Jour. Geology, v. 77, no. 3, p. 303–318.Google Scholar
  24. Lynts, G. W., 1966, Variation of foraminiferal standing crop over short lateral distances in Buttonwood Sound, Florida Bay: Limnology and Oceanography, v. 11, no. 4, p. 562–566.Google Scholar
  25. McCammon, R. B., 1968, Multiple component analysis and its application in classification of environments: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 52, no. 11, p. 2178–2196.Google Scholar
  26. Maddocks, R. F., 1966, Distribution patterns of living and subfossil podocopid ostracodes in the Nosy Be area, northern Madagascar: Univ. Kansas Paleo. Contr., Paper 12, 72 p.Google Scholar
  27. Mello, J. F., and Buzas, M. A., 1968, An application of cluster analysis as a method of determining biofacies: Jour. Paleontology, v. 42, no. 3, p. 747–758.Google Scholar
  28. Merriam, D. F., and Sneath, P. H. A., 19 66, Quantitative comparison of contour maps: Jour. Geophysical Res., v. 71, no. 4, p. 1105–1115.Google Scholar
  29. Miller, R. L., and Kahn, J. S., 1962, Statistical analysis in the geological sciences: John Wiley Sons, New York, 483 p.Google Scholar
  30. Morales, G. A., 19 66, Ecology, distribution, and taxonomy of Recent Ostracoda of the Laguna de Terminos, Campeche, Mexico: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Bol. 81, 100 p.Google Scholar
  31. Park, R. A., 1968, Paleoecology of Venericardia sensu lato (Pelecypoda) in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Province: an application of paleosynecologic methods: Jour. Paleontology, v. 42, no. 4, p. 955–986.Google Scholar
  32. Parker, F. L., Phleger, F. B., and Peirson, J. F., 1953, Ecology of Foraminifera from San Antonio Bay and environs, southwest Texas: Cushnan Found. Foram. Res., Sp. Publ. 2, 75 p.Google Scholar
  33. Parks, J. M., 1966, Cluster analysis applied to multivariate geologic problems: Jour. Geology, v. 74, no. 4, p. 703–715.Google Scholar
  34. Patrick, R., Kaesler, R. G., and Cairns, J., Jr., in press, Occurrence and distribution of diatoms and other algae in the upper Potomac River: Philadelphia Acad. Natural Sci.Google Scholar
  35. Pelto, C. R., 1954, Mapping of multicomponent systems: Jour. Geology, v. 62, no. 4, p. 501–511.Google Scholar
  36. Phleger, F. B., 1956, Significance of living foraminiferal populations along the central Texas coast: Cushman Found. Foram. Res., v. 7, p. 106–151.Google Scholar
  37. Purdy, E. G., 1963a, Recent calcium carbonate facies of the Great Bahama Bank, 1. Petrography and reaction groups: Jour. Geology, v. 71, no. 3, p. 334–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Purdy, E. G., 1963b, Recent calcium carbonate facies of the Great Bahama Bank, 2. Sedimentary facies: Jour. Geology, v. 71, no. 4, p. 472–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roback, S. S., Cairns, J., Jr., and Kaesler, R. L., in press, Cluster analysis of occurrence and distribution of insect species in a portion of the Potomac River: Hydrobiologia.Google Scholar
  40. Rohlf, F. J., 1967, Correlated characters in numerical taxonomy: Systematic Zoology, v. 16, no. 2, p. 109–126.Google Scholar
  41. Rohlf, F. J., 1968, Stereograms in numerical taxonomy: Systematic Zoology, v. 17, no. 3, p. 246–255.Google Scholar
  42. Rowell, A. J., in press, Relative entropy maps in biofacies analysis: Proc. Internat. Paleo. Union, Prague, 1968.Google Scholar
  43. Sokal, R. R., 1952, Variation in a local population of Pemphigus: Evolution, v. 6, no. 3, p. 296–315.Google Scholar
  44. Sokal, R. R., 1969, The second annual conference on numerical taxonomy: Systematic Zoology, v. 18, no. 1, p. 103–104.Google Scholar
  45. Sokal, R. R., and Rinkel, R. C., 1963, Geographic variation of alate Pemphigus populitransversus in eastern North America: Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., v. 44, no. 10, p. 467–507.Google Scholar
  46. Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J., 1962, The comparison of dendrograms by objective methods: Taxon, v. 11, p. 33–40.Google Scholar
  47. Sokal, R. R., and Sneath, P. H. A., 1963, Principles of numerical taxonomy: W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 359 p.Google Scholar
  48. Sokal, R. R., and Thomas, P. A., 1965, Geographic variation of Pemphigus populitransversus in eastern North America: Stem mothers and new data on alates: Univ. Kansas Sei. Bull., v. 46, no. 5, p. 201–252.Google Scholar
  49. Swain, F. M., 1955, Ostracodes of San Antonio Bay, Texas: Jour. Paleontology, v. 29, no. 4, p. 561–646.Google Scholar
  50. Thomas, P. A., 1968, Geographic variation of the rabbit tick, Haemaphysalis leporispalustris in North America: Univ. Kansas Sei. Bull.,.V. 47, no. 13, p. 787–828.Google Scholar
  51. Toomey, D. F., 1966, Application of factor analysis to a facies study of the Leavenworth Limestone (Pennsylvanian- Virgilian) of Kansas and environs: Kansas Geol. Survey Sp. Dist. Publ. 27, 28 p.Google Scholar
  52. Valentine, J. W., 1966, Numerical analysis of marine molluscan ranges on the extratropical northeastern Pacific shelf: Limnology and Oceanography, v. 11, no. 2, p. 198–211.Google Scholar
  53. Valentine, J. W., and Peddicord, R. G., 1967, Evaluation of fossil assemblages by cluster analysis: Jour. Paleontology, v. 41, no. 2, p. 502–506.Google Scholar
  54. Walton, W. R., 1955, Ecology of living benthonic Foramini- fera, Todos Santos Bay, Baja California: Jour. Paleon¬tology, v. 29, no. 6, p. 952–1018.Google Scholar
  55. Walton, W. R., 1964, Recent forarainiferal ecology and paleoecology, in Approaches to paleoecology: John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 151–237.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1969

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger L. Kaesler
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of KansasUSA

Personalised recommendations