Geology ReportsSearch

Geology topics

Aaron O’Dea

Publications and source records attributed to Aaron O’Dea.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Dermal denticle shedding rates vary between two captive shark species

Shark dermal scale (denticle) accumulation in the fossil record can provide information about the abundance and composition of past shark communities. Denticles are shed continuously, such that a single shark leaves a scattered composite of many isolated denticles in sediments. However, the rate of denticle shedding as well as how these rates vary among shark species with different life modes and their consistency over time are unknown, limiting the interpretation of denticle assemblages. To better understand the process of denticle shedding and calibrate the relationship between absolute shark abundance in the environment and denticle deposition in sediments, we captured denticles shed by 2 shark species in a large aquarium over 9 mo. We then simulated how these aquarium-derived shedding rates shape the relationship between shark abundance and denticle accumulation. Bonnethead sharks Sphyrna tiburo , a more active, benthopelagic species with small, thin denticles, shed 3.6 times faster on average than zebra sharks Stegostoma fasciatum , a more sedentary, demersal species with large, robust denticles. This pattern persisted when shedding rates were corrected by estimated denticle quantities, shark space use, and methodological factors (2.2- to 3.8-fold difference). Over the study, bonnethead shark shedding rates declined while zebra shark shedding rates increased slightly. Finally, denticle assemblage composition corresponded with the relative abundance of denticles on the body of each species, consistent with natural shedding rather than selective loss. Overall, we show that shark taxa contribute unevenly to the denticle record, indicating that shedding rate measurements can help inform and constrain ecological interpretations of denticle assemblages.

Marine Ecology Progress Series

Dermal denticle assemblages in coral reef sediments correlate with conventional shark surveys

1. It is challenging to assess long-term trends in mobile, long-lived, and relatively rare species such as sharks. Despite ongoing declines in many coastal shark populations, conventional surveys might be too fleeting and too recent to describe population trends over decades to millennia. Placing recent shark declines into historical context should improve management efforts as well as our understanding of past ecosystem dynamics. 2. A new paleoecological approach for surveying shark abundance on coral reefs is to quantify dermal denticle assemblages preserved in sediments. This approach assumes that denticle accumulation rates correlate with shark abundances. Here, we test this assumption by comparing the denticle record in surface sediments to three conventional shark survey methods at Palmyra Atoll, Line Islands, central Pacific Ocean, where shark density is high and spatially heterogeneous. 3. We generally found a significant positive correlation between denticle accumulation rates and shark abundances derived from underwater visual census, baited remote underwater video, and hook and line surveys. 4. Denticle accumulation rates reflected shark abundances, suggesting that denticle assemblages can preserve a signal of time-averaged shark abundance in low-energy coral reef environments. We offer suggestions for applying this tool to measure shark abundance over long timescales in other contexts.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution

Formation of the Isthmus of Panama

The formation of the Isthmus of Panama stands as one of the greatest natural events of the Cenozoic, driving profound biotic transformations on land and in the oceans. Some recent studies suggest that the Isthmus formed many millions of years earlier than the widely recognized age of approximately 3 million years ago (Ma), a result that if true would revolutionize our understanding of environmental, ecological, and evolutionary change across the Americas. To bring clarity to the question of when the Isthmus of Panama formed, we provide an exhaustive review and reanalysis of geological, paleontological, and molecular records. These independent lines of evidence converge upon a cohesive narrative of gradually emerging land and constricting seaways, with formation of the Isthmus of Panama sensu stricto around 2.8 Ma. The evidence used to support an older isthmus is inconclusive, and we caution against the uncritical acceptance of an isthmus before the Pliocene.

Science Advances