Cargando…

The influence of collection method on paleoecological datasets: In-place versus surface-collected fossil samples in the Pennsylvanian Finis Shale, Texas, USA

There are multiple common methods for collecting fossil material in the field for paleoecological analyses, so it is important to determine if and how different methods may affect the similarities and differences among taxonomic samples. Here, we evaluate the influence of two fossil collection field...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Forcino, Frank L., Stafford, Emily S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7012410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32045457
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228944
_version_ 1783496227454713856
author Forcino, Frank L.
Stafford, Emily S.
author_facet Forcino, Frank L.
Stafford, Emily S.
author_sort Forcino, Frank L.
collection PubMed
description There are multiple common methods for collecting fossil material in the field for paleoecological analyses, so it is important to determine if and how different methods may affect the similarities and differences among taxonomic samples. Here, we evaluate the influence of two fossil collection field methods (stratigraphically in-place bulk-sediment versus picking up weathered-out fossils from the ground surface) on paleoecological results, using the Pennsylvanian marine invertebrate assemblages of the Finis Shale in Texas. Based on an informal review of recent paleoecology papers, we observed that the lithology of the study material and the nature of the research question correspond to choice of field collection protocols; however, collection protocols are not always clearly explained or justified in the text of the papers. For the present case study, we collected stratigraphically equivalent samples from three outcrops using both the surface pick-up and in-place bulk sediment methods. We found a difference in the abundance and composition of paleocommunities between these two collection methods. Evidence to support this includes the significant differences between samples using PERMANOVA (p < 0.001), the clear separation in ordination space of samples clustered by sampling method, the significantly higher richness in the surface samples (p < 0.001), and the considerable variation in relative abundances of various taxa and taxonomic groups. Richness and evenness were higher among the surface-collected samples, possibly due to collector bias, weathering artifacts, or spatial and temporal variability. Paleontologists strive to do the best science possible with the material available. Often, paleoecological research methods are limited by time, funding, or the nature of the material. In such cases, we recommend examining both collection methods, even if for only a fraction of the sampling. If only one method is possible, we recommend the use in-place, bulk-collected samples.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7012410
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70124102020-02-21 The influence of collection method on paleoecological datasets: In-place versus surface-collected fossil samples in the Pennsylvanian Finis Shale, Texas, USA Forcino, Frank L. Stafford, Emily S. PLoS One Research Article There are multiple common methods for collecting fossil material in the field for paleoecological analyses, so it is important to determine if and how different methods may affect the similarities and differences among taxonomic samples. Here, we evaluate the influence of two fossil collection field methods (stratigraphically in-place bulk-sediment versus picking up weathered-out fossils from the ground surface) on paleoecological results, using the Pennsylvanian marine invertebrate assemblages of the Finis Shale in Texas. Based on an informal review of recent paleoecology papers, we observed that the lithology of the study material and the nature of the research question correspond to choice of field collection protocols; however, collection protocols are not always clearly explained or justified in the text of the papers. For the present case study, we collected stratigraphically equivalent samples from three outcrops using both the surface pick-up and in-place bulk sediment methods. We found a difference in the abundance and composition of paleocommunities between these two collection methods. Evidence to support this includes the significant differences between samples using PERMANOVA (p < 0.001), the clear separation in ordination space of samples clustered by sampling method, the significantly higher richness in the surface samples (p < 0.001), and the considerable variation in relative abundances of various taxa and taxonomic groups. Richness and evenness were higher among the surface-collected samples, possibly due to collector bias, weathering artifacts, or spatial and temporal variability. Paleontologists strive to do the best science possible with the material available. Often, paleoecological research methods are limited by time, funding, or the nature of the material. In such cases, we recommend examining both collection methods, even if for only a fraction of the sampling. If only one method is possible, we recommend the use in-place, bulk-collected samples. Public Library of Science 2020-02-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7012410/ /pubmed/32045457 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228944 Text en © 2020 Forcino, Stafford http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Forcino, Frank L.
Stafford, Emily S.
The influence of collection method on paleoecological datasets: In-place versus surface-collected fossil samples in the Pennsylvanian Finis Shale, Texas, USA
title The influence of collection method on paleoecological datasets: In-place versus surface-collected fossil samples in the Pennsylvanian Finis Shale, Texas, USA
title_full The influence of collection method on paleoecological datasets: In-place versus surface-collected fossil samples in the Pennsylvanian Finis Shale, Texas, USA
title_fullStr The influence of collection method on paleoecological datasets: In-place versus surface-collected fossil samples in the Pennsylvanian Finis Shale, Texas, USA
title_full_unstemmed The influence of collection method on paleoecological datasets: In-place versus surface-collected fossil samples in the Pennsylvanian Finis Shale, Texas, USA
title_short The influence of collection method on paleoecological datasets: In-place versus surface-collected fossil samples in the Pennsylvanian Finis Shale, Texas, USA
title_sort influence of collection method on paleoecological datasets: in-place versus surface-collected fossil samples in the pennsylvanian finis shale, texas, usa
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7012410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32045457
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228944
work_keys_str_mv AT forcinofrankl theinfluenceofcollectionmethodonpaleoecologicaldatasetsinplaceversussurfacecollectedfossilsamplesinthepennsylvanianfinisshaletexasusa
AT staffordemilys theinfluenceofcollectionmethodonpaleoecologicaldatasetsinplaceversussurfacecollectedfossilsamplesinthepennsylvanianfinisshaletexasusa
AT forcinofrankl influenceofcollectionmethodonpaleoecologicaldatasetsinplaceversussurfacecollectedfossilsamplesinthepennsylvanianfinisshaletexasusa
AT staffordemilys influenceofcollectionmethodonpaleoecologicaldatasetsinplaceversussurfacecollectedfossilsamplesinthepennsylvanianfinisshaletexasusa