Advertisement

Common Trace-Making Endobenthic Invertebrates

  • Chirananda De
Chapter
Part of the Springer Geology book series (SPRINGERGEOL)

Abstract

The most commonly encountered trace-making endobenthic invertebrates, their general habits and habitats and over all geographic distribution patterns are addressed here. These organisms are overwhelmingly dominated by decapod crustaceans (mainly crabs). Some gastropods, bivalves, polychaetes and anomurans also produce distinctive traces and are prime associates of the decapods.

References

  1. Atkinson RJA, Taylor AC (1988) Physiological ecology of burrowing decapods. 201–226. in: Fincham AA, Rainbow PS (eds) Aspects of decapod crustacean biology. Symp Zool Soc Lon 59: pp 375Google Scholar
  2. Cheryl G, Tan S, Peter KL (1994) An annotated checklist of mangrove brachyuran crabs from Malaysia and Singapore. In: Sasekumar AN, Marshal ANI, Macintosh DJ (eds) Ecology and Conservation of Southeast Asian Marine and Freshwater Environments including Wetlands. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Kent Ridge, Singapore. Hydrobiologia 285, pp 75-84Google Scholar
  3. Curran HA, Martin AJ (2003) Complex decapod burrows and ecological relationships in modern and Pleistocene intertidal carbonate environments, San Salvadore Island, Bahamas. Palaeogeo Palaeoclimato Palaeoeco 192:229–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De C (1997) Study of modern Turritella attenuta trails and burrows on the Bhagirathi river beds and their significance. Ind Minerals 51(1–2):199–206Google Scholar
  5. De C (2009) Uca marionis mud volcanoes: a unique ichnological tool from the Bay of Bengal coast of India for ready assessment of beach stability. Mar Georesour Geotech 27:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deb M (1998) Faunas of Bengal. Part: Crustacea: Decapoda; Corals. State Fauna Series 3, Part 10; Publ Zool Surv of India, Kolkata, pp 345–403Google Scholar
  7. Dörjes J (1978) Sedimentologische und faunistische Untersuchungen an Watteni in Taiwan. II. Faunistische und aktuopaleontologische Studien. Senckenberg marit 10:117–143Google Scholar
  8. Farrow GE (1971) Back-reef and lagoonal environments of Aldabra Atoll distinguished by their crustacean burrows. Zool Soc of London Symp 28:455–500Google Scholar
  9. Frey RW, Howard JD (1975) Endobenthic adaptations of juvenile thalassinidean shrimp. Bull Geol Soc Denmark 24:283–297Google Scholar
  10. Frey RW, Mayou TV (1971) Decapod burrows in Holocene Barrier Island, beaches and wash over fans, Georgia. Senckenberg marit 3:53–77Google Scholar
  11. Hughes DA (1973) On mating and the “copulation burrows” of crab of the genus Ocypode (Decapoda, Brachyura). Crustaceana 24:72–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Peachenik JA (2002) Biology of the invertebrates, fourth edition, Tata McGraw-Hill publishing Company Limited, p 578Google Scholar
  13. Rice AL, Chapman CJ (1971) Observations on the burrows and burrowing behaviour of two mud-dwelling decapod crustaceans, Nephrops norvegicus and Goneplax rhomboides. Mar Biol 10:330–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ringold P (1979) Burrowing, root mat density and the distribution of fiddler crabs in the eastern United States. J Experi Mar Biol and Ecol 36:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ruppert EE, Barnes RD (2001) Invertebrate Zoology, 6th edn. Harwart Publishers International Company, Singapore, p 1056Google Scholar
  16. Verde M, Martinez S (2004) A new ichnogenus for crustacean trace fossils from the upper Miocene trace fossils from the upper Miocene Camacho formation of Uruguay. Palaeontology 47(1):39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Warner GF (1977) The biology of crabs. Van Nostrand-Reinhold Company, New York, p 298Google Scholar
  18. Williams AB (1965) Marine decapod crustaceans of the Carolinas. Bureau Commercial Fish Bull 65(1):1–298Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Palaeontology DivisionGeological Survey of IndiaKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations