Effect of gross morphology on modern planktonic foraminiferal test strength under compression

Planktonic foraminifera are a source of important geochemical, palaeoceanographic, and palaeontological data. However, many aspects of their ecology remain poorly understood, including whether or not gross morphology has an ecological function. Here, we measure the force needed to crush multiple pla...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Burke, Janet E., Pincelli M. Hull
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:unknown
Published: Figshare 2017
Subjects:
Online Access:https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3725236.v1
https://figshare.com/collections/Effect_of_gross_morphology_on_modern_planktonic_foraminiferal_test_strength_under_compression/3725236/1
id ftdatacite:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3725236.v1
record_format openpolar
spelling ftdatacite:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3725236.v1 2023-05-15T18:00:51+02:00 Effect of gross morphology on modern planktonic foraminiferal test strength under compression Burke, Janet E. Pincelli M. Hull 2017 https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3725236.v1 https://figshare.com/collections/Effect_of_gross_morphology_on_modern_planktonic_foraminiferal_test_strength_under_compression/3725236/1 unknown Figshare https://dx.doi.org/10.1144/jmpaleo2016-007 https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3725236 CC BY https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 CC-BY Geology FOS Earth and related environmental sciences Collection article 2017 ftdatacite https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3725236.v1 https://doi.org/10.1144/jmpaleo2016-007 https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3725236 2021-11-05T12:55:41Z Planktonic foraminifera are a source of important geochemical, palaeoceanographic, and palaeontological data. However, many aspects of their ecology remain poorly understood, including whether or not gross morphology has an ecological function. Here, we measure the force needed to crush multiple planktonic foraminiferal morphotypes from modern core top and tow samples. We find significant differences in the resistance of different morphotypes to compressional force. Three species, Globorotalia tumida (biconvex, keeled), Menardella menardii (discoidal, keeled), Truncorotalia truncatulinoides (conical, keeled), require on average 59% more force (1.07 v. 0.47 N) to crush than the least resistant species ( Orbulina universa and Trilobatus sacculifer ) in core-top samples. Towed samples of pre-gametogenic individuals also show significant differences of the same magnitude (0.693 v. 0.53 N) between the conical ( T. truncatulinoides ) and globular/spherical morphologies ( Globoconella inflata and O. universa ). We hypothesize that the greater compressional strength of certain shapes confers a fitness advantage against predators and could contribute to the repeated, convergent evolution of keeled, conical and bi-convex forms in planktonic foraminifer lineages. Article in Journal/Newspaper Planktonic foraminifera DataCite Metadata Store (German National Library of Science and Technology)
institution Open Polar
collection DataCite Metadata Store (German National Library of Science and Technology)
op_collection_id ftdatacite
language unknown
topic Geology
FOS Earth and related environmental sciences
spellingShingle Geology
FOS Earth and related environmental sciences
Burke, Janet E.
Pincelli M. Hull
Effect of gross morphology on modern planktonic foraminiferal test strength under compression
topic_facet Geology
FOS Earth and related environmental sciences
description Planktonic foraminifera are a source of important geochemical, palaeoceanographic, and palaeontological data. However, many aspects of their ecology remain poorly understood, including whether or not gross morphology has an ecological function. Here, we measure the force needed to crush multiple planktonic foraminiferal morphotypes from modern core top and tow samples. We find significant differences in the resistance of different morphotypes to compressional force. Three species, Globorotalia tumida (biconvex, keeled), Menardella menardii (discoidal, keeled), Truncorotalia truncatulinoides (conical, keeled), require on average 59% more force (1.07 v. 0.47 N) to crush than the least resistant species ( Orbulina universa and Trilobatus sacculifer ) in core-top samples. Towed samples of pre-gametogenic individuals also show significant differences of the same magnitude (0.693 v. 0.53 N) between the conical ( T. truncatulinoides ) and globular/spherical morphologies ( Globoconella inflata and O. universa ). We hypothesize that the greater compressional strength of certain shapes confers a fitness advantage against predators and could contribute to the repeated, convergent evolution of keeled, conical and bi-convex forms in planktonic foraminifer lineages.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Burke, Janet E.
Pincelli M. Hull
author_facet Burke, Janet E.
Pincelli M. Hull
author_sort Burke, Janet E.
title Effect of gross morphology on modern planktonic foraminiferal test strength under compression
title_short Effect of gross morphology on modern planktonic foraminiferal test strength under compression
title_full Effect of gross morphology on modern planktonic foraminiferal test strength under compression
title_fullStr Effect of gross morphology on modern planktonic foraminiferal test strength under compression
title_full_unstemmed Effect of gross morphology on modern planktonic foraminiferal test strength under compression
title_sort effect of gross morphology on modern planktonic foraminiferal test strength under compression
publisher Figshare
publishDate 2017
url https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3725236.v1
https://figshare.com/collections/Effect_of_gross_morphology_on_modern_planktonic_foraminiferal_test_strength_under_compression/3725236/1
genre Planktonic foraminifera
genre_facet Planktonic foraminifera
op_relation https://dx.doi.org/10.1144/jmpaleo2016-007
https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3725236
op_rights CC BY
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
op_rightsnorm CC-BY
op_doi https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3725236.v1
https://doi.org/10.1144/jmpaleo2016-007
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3725236
_version_ 1766170126733803520