Cited by 120Paleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyGeochemistry and Elemental Analysis

Sediment effects on the preservation of Burgess Shale–type compression fossils

WILSON, LUCY A., BUTTERFIELD, NICHOLAS J.·2014·Palaios

Abstract

Experimental burial of polychaete (Nereis) and crustacean (Crangon) carcasses in kaolinite, calcite, quartz, and montmorillonite demonstrates a marked effect of sediment mineralogy on the stabilization of nonbiomineralized integuments, the first step in producing carbonaceous compression fossils and Burgess Shale–type (BST) preservation. The greatest positive effect was with Nereis buried in kaolinite, and the greatest negative effect was with Nereis buried in montmorillonite, a morphological trend paralleled by levels of preserved protein. Similar but more attenuated effects were observed with Crangon. The complex interplay of original histology and sediment mineralogy controls system pH, oxygen content, and major ion concentrations, all of which are likely to feed back on the preservation potential of particular substrates in particular environments. The particular susceptibility of Nereis to both diagenetically enhanced preservation and diagenetically enhanced decomposition most likely derives from the relative lability of its collagenous cuticle vs. the inherently more recalcitrant cuticle of Crangon. We propose a mechanism of secondary, sediment-induced taphonomic tanning to account for instances of enhanced preservation. In light of the marked effects of sediment mineralogy on fossilization, the Cambrian to Early Ordovician taphonomic window for BST preservation is potentially related to a coincident interval of glauconite-prone seas.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2110/palo.2013.075

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some decay experiments were performed with the presence of a substrate and indicated that animals could eventually get preferentially preserved in the presence of clays, in particular kaolinite.

    “Some decay experiments were performed with the presence of a substrate and indicated that animals could eventually get preferentially preserved in the presence of clays, in particular kaolinite (Wilson & Butterfield, 2014; Naimark et al., 2016a; Naimark et al., 2016b).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
WILSON, L. A., & BUTTERFIELD, N. J.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Venue
Palaios
Published
2014-04-01
Volume
29
Issue
4
Pages
145-154
ISSN
  • 0883-1351 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-5323
OpenAlex
W2143409804
Cited by
120
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7
FWCI
5.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Palaios (publishedVersion)
  • Department of Earth Sciences EPrints Repository (acceptedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geochemistry and Petrology › Geochemistry and Elemental Analysis
Keywords
sediment mineralogy, taphonomy, Nereis, Crangon, kaolinite, montmorillonite, calcite, quartz, collagen, protein preservation, diagenesis, glauconite, Cambrian-Ordovician, fossilization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review