Earth and Life pp 129-157 | Cite as

Marine Sclerobiofacies: Encrusting and Endolithic Communities on Shells Through Time and Space

  • Carlton E. BrettEmail author
  • Trisha Smrecak
  • Karla Parsons Hubbard
  • Sally Walker
Part of the International Year of Planet Earth book series (IYPE)


The concept of sclerobiofacies is defined herein as suites of sclerobiont encrusters and endiont borers (collectively sclerobionts) preserved on skeletons that characterize particular facies/environments. Skeletal components provide biologically standardized substrates; when possible, comparison of encrusting assemblages on fossil shells of the same or closely related eurytopic species provides a degree of substrate control comparable to modern experimentally deployed shells. Taxonomic composition of sclerobiont suites varies rather predictably among marine environments (e.g., based upon depth) but is primarily useful for comparisons of environments within local areas and limited time frames. Parameters that may be used to compare sclerobiofacies across broader spatial and temporal dimensions include: per shell and cumulative species richness (diversity), frequency of encrustation, areal coverage, and guild structure of encrusting taxa. Herein, we summarize characteristic sclerobiofacies in a series of Recent and ancient examples. Modern subtropical marine encrusters, documented on experimentally deployed molluscan shells at sites ranging from 15 to over 200 m, show high biont richness in shallow subtidal areas. Maximal areal coverages in Bahamian samples occur at about 20–30 m, whereas species richness increases downward to the deeper euphotic zone (∼75–80 m). Below this level, rapid decline in both richness and percent coverage results in deeper Dysphotic–Aphotic zone samples yielding only a few species with coverage rarely exceeding 5%. Burial is also a key factor such that rapidly buried shells in the Shallow Euphotic zone have species coverages, richnesses, and taxonomic compositions resembling long-exposed shells in deeper areas below the euphotic zone. Shelly substrates from the Cambrian to Early Ordovician exhibit only minor encrustation by solitary attached taxa, especially echinoderms; however, by the Late Ordovician various solitary (e.g., cornulitids, craniid brachiopods) and colonial forms (e.g., trepostome and tubuliporate bryozoans) form distinctive sclerobiofacies. Photic zone-related environments, judged independently on the basis of microendoliths, show overall lower taxonomic richness than modern counterparts. However, they also show common patterns, including a general decrease of richness and percent encrustation from Shallow Euphotic to Dysphotic/Aphotic zones. Comparable trends are seen in Middle Devonian exemplars from New York State. Not only were there consistent trends toward lowered diversity/coverage into deep-water settings but also an additional factor related to turbidity and/or sedimentation rate was identified from assemblages at comparable depths arrayed along a distal to proximal gradient with respect to siliciclastic input sources. Carboniferous sclerobiont suites from varied sites in North America show many of the same traits as their Devonian counterparts, although detailed depth zonations are not documented at present. The Permo-Triassic extinctions appear to have had a strong impact on the taxonomic composition of marine sclerobiofacies, although a paucity of studies obscures details of Mesozoic and Cenozoic sclerobiofacies. In general, they appear to have taxonomic compositions and patterns similar to those observed in the Recent. The concept of sclerobiofacies provides another tool for paleoenvironmental analysis. Together with litho-, ichno-, bio-, and taphofacies, the properties of shell encrusting assemblages will yield detailed further insights into ancient environmental gradients.


Modern and ancient environments Ordovician Devonian Mississippian Recent Experimental Encrusters Borers Microendoliths Hardgrounds Sclerobiofacies Impact of turbidity 



We thank John Talent for encouraging us to submit this paper for the present compendium as this gave us the impetus to collect our ideas about this evolving concept. Anonymous reviewers provided important insights and constructive critiques that helped improve the paper. Our work has benefited greatly from discussions with Mark Wilson and Hal Lescinski. Research on Middle Devonian sclerobionts was aided by Yvette Bordeaux (University of Pennsylvania) when she was an undergraduate at the University of Rochester. Various aspects of this research have been supported by grants from the Donors to the Petroleum Research Fund, American Chemical Society and NSF Grants to C.B. We acknowledge permission to reproduce figures from the University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology.


  1. Ager DV (1963) Principles of paleoecology: an Introduction to the study of how and where animals and plants lived in the past. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander RR, Brett CE (1990) Symposium on Paleozoic epibionts: an introduction. Hist Biol 4:151–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander RR, Scharpf CD (1990) Epizoans on Late Ordovician brachiopods from southeastern Indiana. Hist Biol 4:179–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvarez F, Taylor P (1987) Epizoan ecology and interactions in the Devonian of Spain. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 61:17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baird GC, Brett CE, Tomlinson JT (1990) Host-specific acrothoracid barnacles on Middle Devonian platyceratid gastropods. In: Alexander R, Brett CE (eds) Paleobiology of epibionts, special issue. Historical biology, vol 4. Taylor and Francis, pp 221–244Google Scholar
  6. Bambach RK, Kelley PH (eds) (2008) From evolution to geobiology: research questions driving paleontology at the start of a new century. Paleontol Soc Spec Publ 14:355Google Scholar
  7. Bordeaux YL, Brett CE (1990) Substrate specific associations of epibionts on Middle Devonian brachiopods—implications for paleoecology. Hist Biol 4:203–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brett CE (ed) (1986) Dynamic stratigraphy and depositional environments of the Middle Devonian Hamilton group in New York state part 1. NY State Mus Bull 457:150Google Scholar
  9. Brett CE, Cottrell JF (1982) Substrate selectivity in the Devonian tabulate coral Pleurodictyum americanum (Hall). Lethaia 15:248–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brett CE, Baird GC (1996) Middle Devonian sedimentary cycles and sequences in the northern Appalachian basin. In: Witzke BJ, Ludvigson GA, Day J (eds) Paleozoic sequence stratigraphy: views from the North American Craton. Geological Society of America Special Paper, vol 306. GSA, Boulder, CO, pp 213–241Google Scholar
  11. Brett CE, Liddell WD, Derstler C (1983) Late Cambrian hard substrate communities from Montana/Wyoming: the oldest known hardground encrusters. Lethaia 16:281–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brett CE, Baird GC, Miller KB (1990) A temporal hierarchy of paleoecological processes in a Middle Devonian Epieric sea. In: Miller W III (ed) Paleocommunity temporal dynamics: the long-term development of multispecies assemblages. Paleontological Society Special Publication, vol 5. The Paleontological Society, Boulder, CO, pp 178–209Google Scholar
  13. Brett CE, Bartholomew AJ, Baird GC (2007) Biofacies recurrence in the Middle Devonian of New York state: an example with implications for habitat tracking. Palaios 22: 306–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brett CE, Kirchner BT, Tsujita CJ, Dattilo BF (2008) Depositional dynamics recorded in mixed siliciclastic–carbonate marine successions: insights from the Upper Ordovician Kope formation of Ohio and Kentucky, USA. In: Pratt BR, Holmden C (eds) Dynamics of Epeiric Seas. Geological Society of Canada Special Paper, vol 548. The Geological Association of Canada, St Johns, NL, Canada, pp 73–102Google Scholar
  15. Brett CE, Parsons-Hubbard KM, Walker SE, Ferguson C, Powell EN, Staff G, Ashton-Alcox KA, Raymond A (2011) Gradients and patterns of sclerobionts on experimentally deployed bivalve shells: synopsis of bathymetric and temporal trends on a decadal time scale. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol. Available on-line from 19 May 2011 at doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2011.05.019Google Scholar
  16. Brezinski D (1984) Upper Misissippian epizoans and hosts from southwestern Pennsylvania. Pa Proc Acad Sci 58:223–226Google Scholar
  17. Bromley RG (1994) The palaeoecology of bioerosion. In: Donovan SK (ed) The palaeobiology of trace fossils. Wiley, New York, pp 134–154Google Scholar
  18. Bundschuh M (2000) Silurische Mikrobohrspuren. Ihre Beschreibung und Verteilung in verschiedenen Faziesräumen (Schweden, Litauen, Großbritannien und USA). Ph.D. Thesis, FB Geowissenschaften, Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, 129pGoogle Scholar
  19. Bush A, Bambach RK, Daley GM (2007) Trends in ecospace use in marine fossil assemblages between the mid-Paleozoic and late Cenozoic. Paleobiology 33:76–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bush A, Daley GM (2008) Comparative paleoecology of fossils and fossil assemblages. In: Kelley PH, Bambach RK (eds) From evolution to geobiology: research questions driving paleontology at the start of a new century. Paleontological Society Special Publication, vol 14. The Paleontological Society, Boulder, CO, pp 289–318Google Scholar
  21. Callender WR, Staff GM, Powell EN, Parsons-Hubbard KM, Brett CE, Walker SE, Carlson DD, White S, Raymond A, Heise EA (2002) Taphonomic trends along a forereef slope: Lee Stocking Island, Bahamas. I. Location and water depth. Palaios 17:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Coen LD, Luckenbach MW (2000) Developing success criteria and goals for evaluating oyster reef restoration: ecological function or resource exploitation. Ecol Eng 15:323–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cooper GA (1957) Paleoecology of the Middle Devonian of the eastern and central United States. In: Ladd HS (ed) Treatise on marine ecology and paleoecology 2, Paleoecology. Geological Society of America Memoirs, vol 67. GSA, Boulder, CO, pp 49–278Google Scholar
  24. Dattilo B, Brett CE, Tsujita CS (2008) Sediment supply vs. storm winnowing in the development of muddy and shelly interbeds from the Upper Ordovician of the Cincinnati region, USA. In: Tapanilla L (ed) Essays in honor of Paul Copper. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol 45. NRC Publishing, Canada, pp 1–23Google Scholar
  25. Dornbos SQ (2006) Evolutionary paleoecology of early epifaunal echinoderms: response to increasing bioturbation levels during the Cambrian radiation. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimat Palaeoecol 237:225–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fürsich FT (1980) Preserved life positions of some Jurassic bivalves. Paläont Zeit 54:289–300Google Scholar
  27. Fürsich FT, Palmer TJ, Goodyear KL (1994) Growth and disintegration of bivalve-dominated patch reefs in the Upper Jurassic of southern England. Palaeontology 37:131–171Google Scholar
  28. Gibson MA (1992) Some epibiont-host and epibiont-epibiont relationships from the Birdsong Shale Member of the Lower Devonian Ross Formation (west-central Tennesee, USA). Hist Biol 6:112–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Glaub I, Bundschuh M (1997) Comparative studies on Silurian and Jurassic/Lower Cretaceous microborings. Cour Forsch-Inst Senckenberg 201:123–135Google Scholar
  30. Glaub I, Vogel K, Gektidis M (2001) The role of modern and fossil cyanobacterial borings in bioerosion and bathymetry. Ichnos 8:185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Guensburg TE, Sprinkle J (2001) The earliest crinoids: new evidence for the origin of the dominant Paleozoic echinoderms. Geology 29:131–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harper EM, Palmer TJ (1993) Middle Jurassic cemented pectenids and the missing right valve of Eopecten. J Molluscan Stud 59:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harper EM, Radley JD, Palmer TJ (1996) Early Cretaceous cementing pectinid bivalves. Cretaceous Res 17:135–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Holland SM, Miller AI, Meyer DL, Dattilo BF (2001) The detection and importance of subtle biofacies within a single lithofacies: the Upper Ordovician Kope Formation of the Cincinnati, Ohio region. Palaios 16:205–217Google Scholar
  35. Holland SM, Patzkowsky ME (2007) Gradient ecology of a biotic invasion: biofacies of the type Cincinnatian series (Upper Ordovician), Cincinnati, Ohio region, USA. Palaios 22:392–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jackson JBC (1977) Competition on marine hard substrata: the adaptive significance of solitary and colonial strategies. Am Nat 111:43–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jackson JBC (1983) Biological determinants of present and past sessile animal distributions. In: Tevescz MJS, McCall PL (eds) Biotic interactions in recent and fossil benthic communities. Plenum, New York, pp 29–120Google Scholar
  38. Jennette DC, Pryor WA (1993) Cyclic alteration of proximal and distal storm facies; Kope and Fairview formations (Upper Ordovician), Ohio and Kentucky. J Sedimentary Res 63:183–203Google Scholar
  39. Kauffman E (1978) Evolutionary rates and patterns among Cretaceous Bivalvia. Phil Trans R Soc Lond Ser B 284:277–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kay AM, Keough MJ (1981) Occupation of patches in the epifaunal communities on pier pilings and the bivalve Pinna bicolor at Edithburgh, South Australia. Oecologia 48:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kesling RV, Hoare RD, Sparks DK (1980) Epizoans of the Middle Devonian brachiopod Paraspirifer bownockeri: their relationships to one another and to their host. J Paleont 34:1141–1154Google Scholar
  42. Kiene WE, Radtke G, Gektidis M, Golubic S, Vogel K (1995) Factors controlling the distribution of microborers in Bahamian reef environments. In: Schuhmacher H, Kiene WE, Dullo W-C (eds) Factors controlling Holocene reef growth: an interdisciplinary approach. Facies, vol 32. Springer, pp 174–188Google Scholar
  43. Landing E, Brett CE (1991) Dynamic stratigraphy and depositional environments of the Hamilton Group (Middle Devonian) Part II. N Y State Mus Bull 469:177Google Scholar
  44. Leighton LR (2001) New example of Devonian predatory drill holes and the influence of brachiopod spines on predator success. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 165:53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Leighton LR (2002) Inferring predation intensity in the marine fossil record. Paleobiology 28:328–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lescinsky HL (1993) Taphonomy and paleoecology of sclerobionts on the scallops Chlamys hastata (Sowerby, 1843) and Chlamys eubida (Hinds, 1845). Palaios 8:267–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lescinsky H (1994) The Late Devonian extinction: effects on shell encrusting communities. Paleobios 16(Suppl 1):9–10Google Scholar
  48. Lescinsky HL (1996) Early brachiopod associates: epibionts on Middle Ordovician brachiopods. In: Copper PR, Jin J (eds) Brachiopods: Proceedings of the third International Brachiopod Congress, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada (2–5 September 1995). CRC Press, Canada, pp 169–182Google Scholar
  49. Lescinsky HL (1997) Epibiont communities: recruitment and competition on North American Carboniferous brachiopods. J Paleontol 71:34–53Google Scholar
  50. Lescinsky HL (2003) Chapter 4.2.8: Sclerobionts. In: Briggs DEG, Crowther PR (eds) Palaeobiology II. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 460–464Google Scholar
  51. Lescinsky HL, Edinger E, Risk MJ (2002) Mollusc shell encrustation and bioerosion rates in a modern Epeiric sea: taphonomy experiments in the Java Sea, Indonesia. Palaios 17:171–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Liddell WD, Brett CE (1982) Skeletal overgrowths among epizoans from the Silurian (Wenlockian) Waldron Shale. Paleobiology 8:67–78Google Scholar
  53. Lin J-P, Ausich WI, Zhao Y-L (2008a) Settling strategy of stalked echinoderms from the Kaili Biota (Middle Cambrian), Guizhou Province, South China. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 258:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lin J-P, Ausich WI, Zhao Y-L, Peng J (2008b) Taphonomy, palaeoecological implications, and colouration of Cambrian gogiid echinoderms from Guizhou Province, South China. Geol Mag 145:17–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Martindale W (1992) Calcified sclerobionts as paleoecological tools: examples from the Recent and Pleistocene reefs of Barbados. Coral Reefs 11:167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McKinney F (1995a) Taphonomic effects and preserved overgrowth relationships among encrusting marine organisms. Palaios 10:279–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McKinney F (1995b) 100 million years of competitive interactions between bryozoan clades: asymmetrical but not escalating. Biol J Linn Soc 56:465–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Miller AI, Holland SM, Meyer DL, Dattilo BF (2001) The use of faunal gradient analysis for intraregional correlation and assessment of sea-floor topography in the type Cincinnatian. J Geol 109:603–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Morris RW, Felton SH (1993) Symbiotic association of crinoids, platyceratid gastropods and Cornulites in the Upper Ordovician (Cincinnatian) of the Cincinnati, Ohio region. Palaios 8:279–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Morton JE (1965) Form and function in the evolution of the Vermetidae. Bull Br Mus Nat Hist Zool 11:585–630Google Scholar
  61. Parsons-Hubbard KM, Callender RM, Powell EN, Brett CE, Walker SE, Raymond AL, Staff GM (1999) Rates of burial and disturbance of experimentally-deployed molluscs: implications for preservation potential. Palaios 14:337–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Parsons-Hubbard KM, Powell EN, Staff GM, Brett CE, Callender RM, Walker SE (2000) The effect of shell burial on shell preservation and epibiont cover in Gulf of Mexico and Bahamas shelf and slope environments after two years: an experimental approach. In: Aller JY, Woodin SA, Aller RC (eds) Organism–sediment interactions. University of South Carolina, SC, pp 297–314Google Scholar
  63. Patzkowsky ME, Holland SM (2007) Diversity partitioning of a Late Ordovician marine biotic invasion: controls on diversity in regional ecosystems. Paleobiology 29:573–580Google Scholar
  64. Powell EN, Callendar WR, Staff GM, Parsons-Hubbard KM, Brett CE, Walker SE, Raymond A, Ashton-Alcox K (2008) Molluscan shell condition after eight years on the seafloor—taphonomy in the Gulf of Mexico and Bahamas. J Shellfish Res 27:191–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Powers RG, Ausich WI (1990) Epizoan associations in a Lower Mississippian paleocommunity (Borden Group, Indiana, USA). Hist Biol 4:245–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rasmussen KA, Brett CE (1985) Taphonomy of Holocene cryptic biotas from St. Croix, Virgin Islands: information loss and preservational biases. Geology 13:551–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Richards RP (1972) Autecology of Richmondian brachiopods (Late Ordovician of Indiana and Ohio). J Paleont 46:386–405Google Scholar
  68. Richards RP (1974) Ecology of the Cornulitidae. J Paleont 48:514–523Google Scholar
  69. Rodland DL, Kowalewski M, Carroll M, Simoes, MG (2004) Colonization of a ‘lost world’: encrustation patterns in modern subtropical brachiopod assemblages. Palaios 19:381–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rudwick MJS (1970) Living and fossil brachiopods. Hutchinson, London, 199pGoogle Scholar
  71. Sando WJ (1984) Significance of epibionts on horn corals from the Chainman Shale (Upper Mississippian) of Utah. J Paleont 58:185–196Google Scholar
  72. Savazzi E (ed) (1999) Functional morphology of the invertebrate skeleton. Wiley, Chichester, New York, Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore, Toronto, xi + 706pGoogle Scholar
  73. Schumann D (1967) Der Lebensweisevon Mucrospirifer Grabau 1931 (Brachiopoda). Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 4:381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Smrecak TA, Brett CE (2008) Discerning patterns in epibiont distribution across a Late Ordovician (Cincinnatian) depth gradient. Geological Society of America Abstract with Programs, 42nd Meeting, vol 40, p 424Google Scholar
  75. Sparks DK, Hoare RD, Kesling RV (1980) Epizoans on the brachiopod Paraspirifer bownockeri (Stewart) from the Middle Devonian of Ohio. University of Michigan Museum Paleontology, Papers on Paleontology, vol 23, 105pGoogle Scholar
  76. Spjeldnaes N (1984) Epifaunal as a tool in autecological analysis of Silurian brachiopods. Spec Pap Palaeontol 32:225–235Google Scholar
  77. Staff GM, Callender WR, Powell EN, Parsons-Hubbard KM, Brett CE, Walker SE, Carlson DD, White S, Raymond A, Heise EA (2002) Taphonomic trends along a forereef slope: Lee Stocking Island, Bahamas. II. Time. Palaios 17:50–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Taylor PD (1990) Encrusters. In: Briggs DEG, Crowther PR (eds) Palaeobiology: a synthesis. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 346–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Taylor PD, Wilson MA (2003) Palaeoecology and evolution of marine hard substrate communities. Earth-Sci Rev 62:1–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Taylor PD, Wilson MA (2008) Morphology and affinities of hederelloid “bryozoans”. In: Hageman SJ, Key MM Jr, Winston JE (eds) Bryozoan studies 2007: proceedings of the 14th international bryozoology conference, Boone, North Carolina (July 1–8, 2007). Virginia museum of nature history special publication, vol 15, pp 301–309Google Scholar
  81. Vogel K (1993) Bioeroders in fossil reefs. Facies 28:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Vogel K, Brett CE (2009) Record of microendoliths in different facies of the Upper Ordovician in the Cincinnati Arch region USA: the early history of light-related microendolithic zonation. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 281:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Vogel K, Golubic S, Brett CE (1987) Endolith associations and their relation to facies distribution in the Middle Devonian of New York state. Lethaia 20:263–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vogel K, Bundschuh M, Glaub I, Hofmann K, Radtke G, Schmidt H (1995) Hard substrate ichnocoenoses and their relation to light intensity and marine bathymetry. N Jb Geol Paläont Abh 195:46–91Google Scholar
  85. Vogel K, Balog S-J, Bundschuh M, Gektidis M, Glaub I, Krutschinna J, Radtke G (1999) Bathymetrical studies in fossil reefs, with microendoliths as paleoecological indicators. Profil 16:181–191Google Scholar
  86. Vogel K, Gektidis M, Golubic S, Kiene WE, Radtke G (2000) Experimental studies on microbial bioerosion at Lee Stocking Island, Bahamas and One Tree Island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia: implications for paleoecological reconstructions. Lethaia 33:190–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wilson MA, Palmer TJ (1992) Hardgrounds and hardground faunas. Institute Earth science publications, vol 9. University of Wales, Aberstwyth, pp 1–131Google Scholar
  88. Žitt J, Kopáčová, Nekovařík Č (2003) Epibonts of mollusk shells from the Korycany limestones (Upper Cenomanian, Czech Republic). Bull Geosci 78:41–52Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlton E. Brett
    • 1
    Email author
  • Trisha Smrecak
    • 2
  • Karla Parsons Hubbard
    • 3
  • Sally Walker
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of GeologyUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Paleontological Research InstitutionIthacaUSA
  3. 3.Department of GeologyOberlin CollegeOberlinUSA
  4. 4.Department of GeologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations