The famous Sharktooth Hill Bone Bed near Bakersfield has tantalized the imagination of scientists and laymen alike since it was first discovered in the 1850s. How did a six-to-20-inch-thick layer of fossil bones, gigantic shark teeth and turtle shells three times the size of today’s leatherbacks come to be?

Was this a killing ground for C. megalodon, a 40-foot long shark that roamed the seas until 1.5 million years ago? Perhaps a great catastrophe like a red tide or volcanic eruption led to animal mass-death in the region? Or is this simply the result of Sharktooth Hill being used as a breeding ground for generations of marine mammals throughout the millennia?

A research team consisting of palaeontologists from the United States and Canada are now offering their take on the Bone Bed, suggesting it is not the result of a sudden die-off or a certain predator. Instead, the North American team sees it as a 700,000-year record of normal life and death, kept free of sediment by unusual climatic conditions between 15 million and 16 million years ago.

The research team bases its hypothesis on a new and extensive study of the fossils and the geology of Sharktooth Hill. Roughly 3,000 fossilized bone and teeth specimens found in various museums, including the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHM) and UC Berkeley’s Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), have been scrutinized, and the researchers also cut out a meter-square section of the bone bed, complete with the rock layers above and below.

“If you look at the geology of this fossil bed, it’s not intuitive how it formed,” says Nicholas Pyenson, a former UC Berkeley graduate student who is now a post-doctoral fellow at the University of British Columbia. “We really put together all lines of evidence, with the fossil evidence being a big part of it, to obtain a snapshot of that period of time.”

The existence of a 700,000-year window through which we can catch a glimpse of the past is naturally magnificent news for anyone interested in evolution and Earth’s history.

When the Central Valley was a sea

When the Sharktooth Hill Bone Bed formed between 15,900,000 and 15,200,000 years ago, the climate was warming up, ice was melting and the sea level was much higher than today. What is today California’s Central Valley was an inland sea with the emerging Sierra Nevada as its shoreline.

After closely examining the geology of the Sharktooth Hill area, the research team was able to confirm that it had once been a submerged shelf inside a large embayment, directly opposite a wide opening to the sea.

Several feet of mudstone interlaced with shrimp burrows is present under the bone bed, which is typical of ocean floor sediment several hundred to several thousand feet below the surface. Inside the bone bed, most of the bones have separated joints, indicating that they have been scattered by currents.

“The bones look a bit rotten, as if they lay on the seafloor for a long time and were

abraded by water with sand in it“, says UC Berkeley integrative biology professor Jere Lipps.

Many bones also had manganese nodules and growths on them, something which can form when bones sit in sea water for a long time before they are covered by sediment. According to the team, the most likely explanation for this is that the bones have lain exposed on the ocean floor for 100,000 to 700,000 years while currents have carried sediment around the bone bed. The prevailing climatic conditions at the time have made it possible for the bones to accumulate in a big and shifting pile at the bottom of the sea.

“These animals were dying over the whole area, but no sediment deposition was going on, possibly related to rising sea levels that snuffed out silt and sand deposition or restricted it to the very near-shore environment,” says Pyenson. “Once sea level started going down, then more sediment began to erode from near shore.”

The team discards the breeding-ground hypothesis due to the scarcity of remains from young and juvenile animals. Hungry Megalodon sharks being the main contributors to the bone pile is also unlikely, since few bones bear any marks of shark bites. If the bone bed was the result of mass-death caused by an erupting volcano the absence of volcanic ash in the bed would be very difficult to explain, and the presence of land animals like horses and tapirs that must have washed out to sea make the red-tide hypothesis equally thin.

Amazing remains from the past

The Sharktooth Hill Bone Bed covers nearly 50 square miles just outside and northeast of Bakersfield in California and is one of the richest and most extensive marine deposits of bones in the world. Studied parts of the bone bed average 200 bones per square meter, most of them larger bones. Ten miles of the bed is exposed, and the uppermost part of the bed contains complete, articulated skeletons of whales and seals.

Within the bone bed, scientists have found bones from many species that are now extinct and the bed provides us with invaluable information about the evolutionary history of whales, seals, dolphins, and other marine mammals, as well as of turtles, seabirds and fish. Sharktooth Hill is naturally the sight of some impressive shark findings too, including shark teeth as big as a hand and weighing a pound each.

A small portion of the bone bed was added to the National Natural Landmark registry in 1976 but the rest is in dire need of protection.

A collaborative effort

The research team, who’s study will be published in the June 2009 issue of the journal

Geology, consisted of:

– UC Berkeley integrative biology professor Jere Lipps, who is also a faculty curator in UC Berkeley’s Museum of Paleontology.

– Nicholas Pyenson, a UC Berkeley Ph.D who is now a post-doctoral fellow at the University of British Columbia.

– Randall B. Irmis, a UC Berkeley Ph.D who is now an assistant professor of geology and geophysics at the University of Utah.

– Lawrence G. Barnes, Samuel A. McLeod, and Edward D. Mitchell Jr., three UC Berkeley Ph.D’s who are now with the Department of Vertebrate Paleontology at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.

Sri Lankan scientists have described a new species of fish from south-western Sri Lanka and placed in the genus Puntius.

Unlike its close relatives in Sri Lanka and India, the new species Puntius kelumi feature a combination of a smooth last unbranched dorsal-fin ray, a body depth that is 28.6-35.5 % of standard length (SL), maxillary barbels (about as long as the eye diameter) but no rostral barbels, 20-23 lateral-line scales on the body, and ½3/1/2½ scales in transverse line from mid-dorsum to pelvic-fin origin. One breeding males, the sides of the head and body are rough and extensively tuberculated.

Puntius kelumi is primarily found in large streams with clear water that flows down from the mountains. The bottom is typically made up by granite, pebbles and/or sand and is often littered with boulders.

The description was published by the journal Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters.

For more information about Puntius kelumi, see the paper: Pethiyagoda, R, A Silva, K Maduwage and M Meegaskumbura (2008) Puntius kelumi, a new species of cyprinid fish from Sri Lanka (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters 19, pp. 201–214.

http://www.pfeil-verlag.de/04biol/pdf/ief19_3_02.pdf

A picture of the new species can be seen here

_____________________

Puntius is a genus of ray-finned fishes in the family Cyprinidae. All known members of the genus are native to Southeast Asia and India, including Sri Lanka. The name Puntius is derived from the word pungti, which is the term for small cyprinids in the Bangla (Bengali) language.

Puntius fish are commonly referred to as spotted barbs, but some species display vertical black bands instead of spots. Spotted barbs are commonly kept by aquarists and are known to be active, curious and bold. Many of them are unsuitable companions for fish with long and flowing finnage since they tend to nip such fins, a habit which causes both injury and stress in the afflicted animal.

Vast amounts of creatures looking like jelly balls have begun to appear off the eastern coast of Australia, and researchers now suspect that these animals may help slow down global warming by moving carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to the ocean floor.

The proper English name for this “jelly ball” being is salp. A salp is a barrel-shaped free-floating tunicate that moves around in the ocean by contracting and relaxing its gelatinous body. Just like the other tunicates, the salp is a filter feeder that loves to eat phytoplankton and this is why it has caught the attention of scientists researching global warming.

Phytoplankton are famous for their ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the top level of the sea, and a salp feasting on phytoplankton will excrete that carbon dioxide in the form of faeces. The faeces will drop to the ocean floor; thus lowering the amount of carbon dioxide present in the upper part of the ocean. Since the carbon dioxide found in this level of the sea chiefly hails from the atmosphere, phytoplankton and salps are a great aid when it comes to removing carbon dioxide from the air. Salps will also bring carbon down to the ocean floor when they die, which happens fairly often since the life cycle of this organism is no more than a few weeks.

Salp species can be found in marine environments all over the world, but they are most abundant and concentrated in the Southern Ocean near Antarctica where it is possible to encounter enormous swarms of salp. Over the last 100 years, krill populations in the Southern Ocean have declined and salp populations seem to be replacing them in this cold ecosystem. According to researcher Mark Baird of the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization (CSIRO), the amount of salps in the waters off Australia are also on the increase, at least according to a survey carried out last month by CSIRO and the University of New South Wales.

While salp may help slow down global warming, their increase may also cause problems. Salp has a fairly low nutrient content and salps replacing nutrient rich krill in the Southern Sea may therefore prove detrimental for oceanic animals higher up in the food chain.

A study published in the online scientific journal PLoS Biology on October 27 with the provocative headline “Dams make no damn difference to salmon survival”[1] is now being questioned by a number of scientists, including several co-authors of the study.

According to the study, young fish running the gantlet of dams on the Snake and Columbia rivers did just as well as youngsters in an undammed river. Dams are widely regarded as one of the main reasons behind the sharp decline of salmon in North America’s western rivers and a study claiming that dams make no damn difference for salmon survival is therefore destined to receive a lot of attention from dam proponents and dam critics alike.

While a number of scientists, including several co-authors, are questioning the results and cautioning about what conclusions can really be drawn from them, lead-author David Welch stands by his report. “We’re not saying that the dams have never had an effect,” says Welch. “What we all have to ask ourselves is, if survival is up to the level of a river that doesn’t have dams, then what’s causing survival problems?”

Welch has already warned against overstating what the study proves, and continues to do so. According to Welch, the results of the study do however suggest that dams might not play such a big role in the fate of endangered Columbia River salmon today, and that the situation in the ocean – where the salmon live until it migrates upstream to spawn – is of higher importance than river conditions.

Michele DeHart, manager of the Fish Passage Center[2], strongly disagree with the conclusions drawn from the study. “There’s a huge mass of scientific literature that documents the impacts of dams. It’s just huge,” says DeHart. “It’s like saying, ‘Gosh, I just did this comparison and smoking does not cause cancer.’ Would you change your mind?”

In the study, the survival rate of young salmon and steelhead heading for the ocean (so called smolts) was measured in the rivers Columbia and Snake, which are heavily dammed, and in Fraser River, which has no dams at all. To the researchers’ surprise, the recorded survival rate was around 25 percent for all smolts, regardless of whether they travelled in dammed or undammed waters. If you take into account that smolt in the Columbia River actually have to travel a longer distance, it even looks as if smolt traversing dammed waters are doing better than their counterparts in the undammed Fraser.

Environmental groups are now claiming that comparing the different rivers with each other is like comparing apples and oranges, and co-author Carl Schreck, head of the Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at Oregon State University, warns that the study could have failed to account for fish that die in the ocean due to the stress they have been subjected to while traversing dams in Columbia and Snake.

Ed Bowles, biologist and head of fisheries for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, says that it would be better to compare how similar fish, e.g. spring Chinook, do when they spawn in the same river – some above dams and some below.