Autochthonous death assemblages from chemoautotrophic communities at petroleum seeps: Palaeoproduction, energy flow, and implications for the fossil record

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Death assemblages produced by chemoautotrophic communities at cold seeps represent a type of autochthonous accumulation that is difficult to differentiate from other heterotrophic autochthonous communities using taphonomic characteristics. We test the hypothesis that cold‐seep assemblages can be discriminated by unique biological or community attributes rather than taphonomic attributes. To test this hypothesis, we compared several cold seeps on the Louisiana upper continental slope to heterotrophic sites on the Louisiana slope and to a putative seep site in the middle‐late Campanian Pierre Shale near Pueblo, Colorado. Seep assemblages are characterized by a unique tier and guild structure, size‐frequency composition, and animal density that together identify the palaeoenergetics structure of these communities and distinguish them from the other assemblages of the shelf and slope. All seep assemblages were dominated by primary consumers, whereas the heterotrophic assemblage was dominated by carnivores. Carnivore dominance seems to be typical of shelf (or euhaline) death assemblages. Seep assemblages, in contrast, retain the theoretically‐expected rarity of predaceous forms in fossil assemblages. Epifauna and semi‐infauna dominate the tier structure of the heterotrophic assemblage as is typical for continental shelf and slope assemblages. The infaunal tier was unusually well represented in most petroleum seep assemblages. Local enrichment of food resources and the dominance of shelled primary consumers explain the guild and tier structure of seep assemblages. Hindcasting of energy demand (palaeoingestion) and an estimate of sedimentation rate confirms that energy demand by the community exceeds the supply from planktonic rain in seep communities. Thus, seep assemblages can be recognized using biological attributes where taphonomic analysis is ambiguous.