Lyell Collection

Geological Society, London, Special Publications

Lyell Centre  |   Lyell Collection  |   Subscriptions   |   Geological Society  |   Email alerts  |   Online bookshop  |   Help


Keywords:
Author:
Advanced search>>
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gili, E.
Right arrow Articles by Skelton, P. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Geological Society, London, Special Publications; 2000; v. 178; p. 109-116;
DOI: 10.1144/GSL.SP.2000.178.01.08
© 2000 Geological Society of London

Factors regulating the development of elevator rudist congregations

Eulàlia Gili1 & Peter W. Skelton2

1 Departament de Geologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra 08193, Spain igpaa{at}blues.uab.es
2 Department of Earth Sciences, Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK P.W.Skelton{at}open.ac.uk

Upper Cretaceous carbonate platform deposits show a widespread development of distinctive lenticular to tabular bodies of rock (lithosomes) formed by congregations of upright tubular (‘elevator’) rudist bivalves. Here we discuss the factors that regulated the initiation, consolidation and termination of such lithosomes, based on examples in the Santonian of the southern Central Pyrenees.

In the study area, rudist congregations developed between phases of sediment influx from neighbouring source areas. For the initiation of settlement, sedimentation rate evidently had to be very low or nil. The first rudist settlers both provided more hard substrates for subsequent recruitment, and fuelled the in situ formation of bioclastic sediment, leading to the embedding and consolidation of the congregation (both positive feedbacks to establishment). Thereafter, rudist density correlated with inferred sediment destabilization at the benthic boundary layer, which in turn affected rudist recruitment. Thus, successful rudist larval settlement declined with increasing numerical density of individuals in the congregation — a crucial negative feedback mechanism. The density of the rudist congregations could then have been maintained at more or less the same level through time by this stabilizing process. Finally, development of the rudist congregations ceased with progressive shallowing, usually involving reworking of their upper parts and/or burial by renewed influxes of sediment.