MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2503484091 · doi:10.2110/sepmsp.101.015

The Trace-Fossil Record of Organism–matground Interactions in Space and Time

2012· book-chapter· en· W2503484091 on OpenAlexaff
Luís A. Buatois, M. Gabriela Mángano

Bibliographic record

VenueSEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrdovicianTrace fossilBenthic zonePaleontologyGeologyOrganismFaunaPermianEcologyBiologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Organism–matground interactions reflect two somewhat interrelated aspects: (1) the environmental restriction of microbial mats through geologic time and (2) the evolutionary changes in benthic faunas. The history of such interactions may be subdivided into six phases: (1) Ediacaran, (2) Cambrian, (3) Ordovician, (4) Silurian to Permian, (5) Early Triassic, and (6) Middle Triassic to Holocene. Widespread matgrounds in both shallow- and deep-marine deposits during the Ediacaran provided substrates that were available for benthic colonization and the development of various interactions. The most abundant ichnofossils in Ediacaran rocks are very simple grazing trails (Helminthopsis ichnoguild), representing grazing of organic matter concentrated within microbial mats below a thin veneer of sediment. In shallow-marine environments, interactions were also evidenced by the mollusk-like Kimberella and associated scratch marks (Radulichnus) preserved on microbial mats. Interactions are also indicated for vendozoans, as reflected by serially repeated resting traces of Dickinsonia and the related genus Yorgia preserved on biomats. By the latest Ediacaran, simple burrow systems (treptinids) also occur in association with matgrounds. The replacement of matgrounds by mixgrounds was arguably the most significant change at the ecosystem scale in the history of marine life. By the Early Cambrian, branched burrow systems became more complex and common, resulting in increasing disruption of matgrounds in nearshore and offshore settings. While matgrounds were widespread in supratidal and upper- to middle-intertidal environments during most of the early Paleozoic, lower-intertidal deposits were already intensely bioturbated by the late Early Cambrian. The diachronic nature of the Agronomic Revolution is evident in the deep sea, where microbial matground ecosystems persisted during most, if not all, of the Cambrian. In addition to the Helminthopsis ichnoguild, Cambrian deep-marine ichnofaunas also consist of arthropod trackways and sophisticated feeding strategies represented by different Oldhamia ichnospecies, revealing complex architectural designs by undermat miners. In contrast, in deep-marine Lower Ordovician deposits, microbial textures are rare and patchy and typically not associated with trace fossils. Biomats persisted into the late Paleozoic in the innermost, freshwater region of estuarine systems, as well as in fluvio-lacustrine deposits, glacial lakes, and fjords. Ichnofaunas dominated by very shallow tier structures, such as arthropod trackways and grazing trails, locally associated with matgrounds, were common in these deposits. The widespread development of matgrounds after the end-Permian mass extinction sets the stage for the reappearance of feeding strategies linked to the exploitation of biomats. However, subsequent faunal recovery and deep and pervasive bioturbation resulting from the establishment of the Modern evolutionary fauna led to increased restriction of microbial mats. Analysis of ichnofaunas in matgrounds provides evidence of the temporal and environmental restriction of biomats and allows a better understanding of animal–matground interactions, as well as of preservational biases in the trace-fossil record.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) eBooksSame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207