Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-6tpvb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T21:52:06.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ichnofauna from coastal meandering channel systems (Upper Cretaceous Tremp Formation, South-Central Pyrenees, Spain): delineating the fluvial-tidal transition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2016

Davinia Díez-Canseco
Affiliation:
Departamento de Estratigrafía, Universidad Complutense de Madrid - Instituto de Geociencias, Madrid E28040, Spain 〈daviniadiezcanseco@ucm.es〉, 〈margot@geo.ucm.es〉, 〈mibenito@ucm.es〉 Catalonia Geological Research - Geoplay, Tremp E25620, Spain
Luis A. Buatois
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Saskatoon SK S7N 5E2, Canada 〈luis.buatois@usask.ca〉, 〈gabriela.mangano@usask.ca〉
M. Gabriela Mángano
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Saskatoon SK S7N 5E2, Canada 〈luis.buatois@usask.ca〉, 〈gabriela.mangano@usask.ca〉
Margarita Díaz-Molina
Affiliation:
Departamento de Estratigrafía, Universidad Complutense de Madrid - Instituto de Geociencias, Madrid E28040, Spain 〈daviniadiezcanseco@ucm.es〉, 〈margot@geo.ucm.es〉, 〈mibenito@ucm.es〉
M. Isabel Benito
Affiliation:
Departamento de Estratigrafía, Universidad Complutense de Madrid - Instituto de Geociencias, Madrid E28040, Spain 〈daviniadiezcanseco@ucm.es〉, 〈margot@geo.ucm.es〉, 〈mibenito@ucm.es〉
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Upper Cretaceous “redbeds” of the lower Tremp Formation (South-Central Pyrenees, Spain) contains an ichnofauna consisting of Taenidium barretti, Taenidium bowni, Loloichnus isp., Arenicolites isp., Planolites isp., and Palaeophycus isp. This ichnofauna occurs in deposits formed in tide-influenced meander loops and their associated overbank mudflats. Evaluation of the taphonomic controls on the Tremp ichnofauna shows that (1) two morphotypes of Taenidium barretti are controlled by the substrate consistence, (2) Arenicolites may be enlarged by erosion processes, and (3) Taenidium barretti and Planolites isp. are not the same ichnotaxa showing different types of preservation. The meniscate fill in Taenidium barretti suggests that this structure was produced by deposit feeders. The Tremp ichnofauna is grouped into two trace-fossil assemblages, a depauperate subaquatic monospecific Planolites suite and an assemblage representing the Scoyenia Ichnofacies. Trace-fossil distribution reflects paleoenvironmental changes in the meandering channels along the stratigraphic section with the Planolites suite in the lowermost part of the lower interval and the Scoyenia Ichnofacies in the middle and upper intervals. The lowermost suite may be likely formed seaward of the maximum salinity limit, under extreme brackish-water conditions, whereas the Scoyenia Ichnofacies records a freshwater assemblage that was formed landward of the maximum salinity limit, reflecting deltaic progradation.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 2016, The Paleontological Society 

Introduction

The ichnology of brackish-water environments has been extensively explored (e.g., Pemberton and Wightman, Reference Pemberton and Wightman1992; Gingras et al., Reference Gingras, Pemberton, Saunders and Clifton1999; Buatois et al., Reference Buatois, Gingras, MacEachern, Mángano, Zonneveld, Pemberton, Netto and Martin2005; MacEachern and Gingras, Reference MacEachern and Gingras2007). However, the ichnology of the fluvial-tidal transition has not received significant attention, although earlier studies were undertaken in the Ogeechee Estuary of Georgia (Dörjes and Howard, Reference Dörjes and Howard1975; Howard and Frey, Reference Howard and Frey1975; Howard et al., Reference Howard, Elders and Heinbokel1975) and there is a growing number of studies documenting examples in the fossil record (e.g., Buatois et al., Reference Buatois, Mangano and Maples1997, Reference Buatois, Mangano, Maples and Lanier1998; Mángano and Buatois, Reference Mángano and Buatois2004) and, more recently, in modern settings (e.g., Dashtgard et al., Reference Dashtgard, Venditti, Hill, Sisulak, Johnson and La Croix2012; Johnson and Dashtgard, Reference Johnson and Dashtgard2014). The complexity of marginal-marine environments is in part related to the numerous and variable parameters representing controlling factors on benthic communities (e.g., Pemberton and Wightman, Reference Pemberton and Wightman1992; MacEachern and Pemberton, Reference MacEachern and Pemberton1994; MacEachern and Gingras, Reference MacEachern and Gingras2007; Carmona et al., Reference Carmona, Buatois, Ponce and Mángano2009; Dashtgard, Reference Dashtgard2011). One of the most important factors is salinity fluctuations, which control ichnodiversity, intensity of bioturbation, and type and size of trace fossils (e.g., Pemberton and Wightman, Reference Pemberton and Wightman1992; MacEachern and Pemberton, Reference MacEachern and Pemberton1994; Buatois et al., Reference Buatois, Mangano and Maples1997; Mángano and Buatois, Reference Mángano and Buatois2004; MacEachern and Gingras, Reference MacEachern and Gingras2007; Carmona et al., Reference Carmona, Buatois, Ponce and Mángano2009). In particular, it has been shown that fluvial-tidal transitions contain freshwater to terrestrial ichnofaunas in tidal deposits formed between the maximum salinity limit and the maximum tidal limit (Buatois et al., Reference Buatois, Mangano and Maples1997, Reference Buatois, Mangano, Maples and Lanier1998). According to Dalrymple and Choi (Reference Dalrymple and Choi2007), the tidal-fluvial transition reflects a combination of processes (fluvial and tidal modulated), and environmental conditions (brackish-water and freshwater), that undoubtedly play a major role as controlling factors on ichnofaunal distribution. By detailed integration of ichnologic, sedimentologic, and paleontologic datasets, it is possible to differentiate the associated subenvironments to delineate complex facies mosaics.

In this paper, we analyze the ichnofauna from tide-influenced meander loop deposits and their overbank mudflats in the Maastrichtian “redbeds” of the Tremp Formation in South Central Pyrenees (Spain). This unit records progradation of meandering channel systems recently interpreted as located at or close to the fluvial-tidal transition of a delta (Díez-Canseco et al., Reference Díez-Canseco, Arz, Benito, Díaz-Molina and Arenillas2014). These deposits are composed mainly of hybrid rocks with siliciclastic and carbonate components (Nagtegaal et al., Reference Nagtegaal, Vanvliet and Brouwer1983; Díez-Canseco et al., Reference Díez-Canseco, Arz, Benito, Díaz-Molina and Arenillas2014). Ichnologic characterization of hybrid deposits is complicated since diagenetic processes may play an important role as is the case of pure carbonates (Fürsich, Reference Fürsich1972; Bromley and Ekdale, Reference Bromley and Ekdale1984; Buatois and Mángano, Reference Buatois and Mángano2011, p. 17). Therefore, a discussion of the taphonomic overprint on trace-fossil morphology is also presented.

The aims of this paper are to (1) document in detail the invertebrate trace-fossil content of the Maastrichtian Tremp Formation, (2) evaluate their main taphonomic controls, (3) characterize the ichnofauna of the different deposits of the coastal meandering environment, and (4) discuss the utility of trace fossils to refine the environmental characterization of the fluvial-tidal transition. Although only the invertebrate trace fossils are discussed in detail, other biogenic structures (e.g., vertebrate tracks and root trace fossils) are taken into account for the paleoenvironmental analysis.

Study area

The study area is located in the Tremp-Graus Basin (Fig. 1.1). This basin is a compartmentalized part of the foreland basin linked to the evolution of the South-Central Pyrenees (Puigdefàbregas et al., Reference Puigdefàbregas, Muñoz and Vergés1992). The Tremp-Graus Basin contains Upper Cretaceous to Cenozoic deposits showing a westward transition from continental to marine facies. The present study focuses on the lower part of the Tremp Formation defined by Mey et al. (Reference Mey, Nagtegaal, Roberti and Hartevelt1968). It is located in the northeast region of the basin, which records the marginal-marine environments of the foreland basin during the Maastrichtian (Baceta et al., Reference Baceta, Pujalte, Serra-Kiel, Robador and Orue-Etxebarria2004; Díez-Canseco et al., Reference Díez-Canseco, Arz, Benito, Díaz-Molina and Arenillas2014). The Maastrichtian Tremp Formation consists mainly of multicoloured and hybrid mudstone and sandstone known as the “Garumnian facies” or the “redbeds.” These deposits have traditionally been regarded as having been deposited in alluvial, fluvial and lacustrine settings (Rosell, Reference Rosell1965; Nagtegaal et al., Reference Nagtegaal, Vanvliet and Brouwer1983; Cuevas, Reference Cuevas1992; Rosell et al., Reference Rosell, Linares and Llompart2001; Riera et al., Reference Riera, Oms, Gaete and Galobart2009). Recently, tidal influence has been detected based on sedimentologic data, such as the presence of inclined heterolithic stratification (IHS, sensu Thomas et al., Reference Thomas, Smith, Wood, Visser, Calverley-Range and Koster1987), authigenic glauconite and the presence of non-reworked planktonic foraminifera most likely transported landwards by tidal currents (Díez-Canseco et al., Reference Díez-Canseco, Arz, Benito, Díaz-Molina and Arenillas2014). The Maastrichtian Tremp Formation is renown because of its remarkable record of dinosaur fossils, hosting some of the youngest dinosaur-rich sites in the world (López-Martínez, Reference López-Martínez2001; Riera et al., Reference Riera, Oms, Gaete and Galobart2009; Vila et al., Reference Vila, Galobart, Canudo, Le Loeuff, Dinarès-Turell, Riera, Oms, Tortosa and Gaete2012), as well as the youngest dinosaur tracksites in Europe (Vila et al., Reference Vila, Oms, Fondevilla, Gaete, Galobart, Riera and Canudo2013). The Maastrichtian “redbeds” of the Tremp Formation are underlain by lagoonal or estuarine deposits (Rosell, Reference Rosell1965; Nagtegaal et al., Reference Nagtegaal, Vanvliet and Brouwer1983; Cuevas, Reference Cuevas1992; Rosell et al., Reference Rosell, Linares and Llompart2001; Riera et al., Reference Riera, Oms, Gaete and Galobart2009) and overlain by upper Danian limestones interpreted as deposited in coastal lakes of variable salinity (López-Martínez et al., Reference López-Martínez, Arribas, Robador, Vicens and Ardèvol2006; Díez-Canseco et al., Reference Díez-Canseco, Arz, Benito, Díaz-Molina and Arenillas2014).

Figure 1 (1) Map of the Tremp-Graus Basin, South-Central Pyrenees, showing the Orcau study area. (2) Orcau field site with the location of the logged section along the Cantals and Carant gullies.

Ichnologic data were obtained from a 300 m thick section near the Orcau locality along the Cantals and Carant gullies (Fig. 1.2). Two main sedimentary facies are recognized in this section; paleochannel deposits and non-channelized sandy-marly mudstones. These facies have been recently analyzed by Díez-Canseco et al. (Reference Díez-Canseco, Arz, Benito, Díaz-Molina and Arenillas2014) and interpreted as deposited in tide-influenced meander loops and overbank mudflats, respectively (Table 1).

Table 1 Sedimentologic and paleontologic features in the “redbed” facies (Maastrichtian Tremp Formation; modified from Díez-Canseco et al., Reference Díez-Canseco, Arz, Benito, Díaz-Molina and Arenillas2014).

Systematic paleontology

Five ichnogenera and six ichnospecies have been identified. Trace fossils are described and classified based on the concept of ichnotaxobases or morphological features that relate to major behavioral aspects and are used to differentiate ichnotaxa (Bromley, Reference Bromley1996, p. 165; Buatois and Mángano, Reference Buatois and Mángano2011, p. 27). The preservational nomenclature of Seilacher (Reference Seilacher1964) is followed. Ichnotaxa are listed alphabetically. Specimens are housed at the Departamento de Estratigrafía of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain (DEUC-IC).

Ichnogenus Arenicolites Salter, Reference Salter1857

Arenicolites isp.

Figure 2.1–2.4

Figure 2 Arenicolites isp. preserved as negative epirelief and full relief at the top of layers: (1) general view of the paired circular openings, field photo, scale bar represents 10 cm; (2) close-up of paired circular openings, field photo, scale bar represents 1 cm; (3) burrow wall and passive fill in thin-section; note the subtle lining and the massive and fine-grained fill (left) contrasting with the host rock (right), microscope photo, scale bar represents 500 μm; (4) cross-section view of a straight and cylindrical arm of the burrow, oriented perpendicular to the bedding plane, DEUC-IC 5, scale bar represents 1 cm.

Specimens

Approximately 145 specimens (60 pairs and 25 individual arms) studied in the field and 11 slabs with 25 specimens collected (DEUC-IC 5, 22, 24, 38, 26–31, 35, 36). Two specimens studied under petrographic microscope. 185 individual arms measured.

Description

Straight cylindrical burrows, unbranched and oriented perpendicular to inclined to the bedding plane, commonly seen as paired circular openings at the top of the layers. Lined wall and massive fill contrasting with the host rock. Diameter is 3.4–30 mm. Preserved as negative epirelief and exceptionally as full relief. Cross-section views are rarely observed and depth is difficult to measure. Maximum observed length is 70 mm.

Discussion

Where observed, cross-section views show partially preserved single arms of the trace. Although the full U-shaped morphology has not been observed in cross-section, the recurrent presence of paired openings suggests U or Y shape for the specimens. U-shaped burrows are placed in three ichnogenera Rhizocorallium Zenker, Reference Zenker1836, Diplocraterion Torell, Reference Torell1870, and Arenicolites, being Arenicolites the only one without spreite (Fürsich, Reference Fürsich1974). Y-shaped burrows are included in Psilonichnus Fürsich, Reference Fürsich1981, which is characterized by unlined burrows with typically lateral branches, changes in the diameter and with tendency to form singular or bifurcated culs-de-sac (Frey et al., Reference Frey, Curran and Pemberton1984a). None of these features were observed in these specimens. However, features related to the vertical architecture are not possible to evaluate since cross-section views are rarely observed. No identification at ichnospecies level was performed because of the lack of well-exposed cross-sectional views, as well as for the uncertainties regarding differentiation of Arenicolites ichnospecies (Mángano et al., Reference Mángano, Buatois, Maples and West2002).

Ethology and tracemaker

Arenicolites is a dwelling trace (domichnion) produced by suspension-feeding worms (Häntzschel, Reference Häntzschel1975) or by detritus and deposit-feeding worms, particularly polychaetes (e.g., Bromley, Reference Bromley1996). In modern environments, similar burrows are produced in coastal environments by deposit-feeding polychaetes of the families Spionida (e.g., Gingras et al., Reference Gingras, Pemberton, Saunders and Clifton1999) and Carpitellida (e.g., Dashtgard, Reference Dashtgard2011), as well as by suspension-feeding amphipod crustaceans and deposit-feeding sipunculids (e.g., Baucon and Felletti, Reference Baucon and Felletti2013).

Ichnogenus Loloichnus Bedatou, Melchor, Bellosi and Genise, Reference Bedatou, Melchor, Bellosi and Genise2008

Loloichnus isp.

Figure 3.1–3.3

Figure 3 Loloichnus isp. preserved as full relief: (1) general view of the cylindrical and gently sinuous burrow with knobby surface, field photo, scale bar represents 1 cm; (2) detail of the knobby surface texture on the burrow fill, DEUC-IC 16, scale bar represents 1 cm; (3) burrow wall and fill in thin-section; note the micritic wall (white arrow) and the semicircular sections in the inner wall of the transversal grooves (white dashed lines), microscope photo, scale bar represents 500 μm.

Specimens

Approximately 30 specimens studied in the field and four slabs with eight specimens collected (DEUC-IC 16, 27, 36, 38). One specimen studied under petrographic microscope. 28 specimens measured.

Description

Cylindrical, unbranched, straight to gently sinuous burrows, oriented perpendicular to inclined to the bedding plane. Lined burrow, with a micritic wall ~1 mm thick and with transversal grooves in the inner part of the wall. The burrow fill shows isolated protuberances as knobby texture if detached from the lining. Massive fill contrasting with the host. Diameter is 5–28 mm. Maximum observed length is 132.4 mm. Preserved in full relief.

Discussion

Loloichnus has been recently erected based on specimens from the Upper Jurassic-Upper Cretaceous deposits of Patagonia (Argentina). Loloichnus is mainly straight, vertical, cylindrical, thickly lined burrow of constant diameter and knobby surface that is mostly passively-filled (Bedatou et al., Reference Bedatou, Melchor, Bellosi and Genise2008). Only one ichnospecies is known, Loloichnus baqueorensis Bedatou, Melchor, Bellosi and Genise, Reference Bedatou, Melchor, Bellosi and Genise2008. It is commonly Y-branching, with a wall showing grooves and grouped or isolated protuberances in the inner part and with a passive fill where pellets and root trace fossils can be preserved (Bedatou et al., Reference Bedatou, Melchor, Bellosi and Genise2008). The specimens of Loloichnus isp. from Spain are unbranched, commonly sinuous shaped and potentially represent a different ichnospecies.

Because of the knobby marks of the walls, Loloichnus isp. can be confused with ichnospecies of Psilonichnus, Lunulichnus Zonneveld, Lavigne, Bartels and Gunnell, Reference Zonneveld, Lavigne, Bartels and Gunnell2006 or Camborygma Hasiotis and Mitchell, Reference Hasiotis and Mitchell1993 (Bedatou et al., Reference Bedatou, Melchor, Bellosi and Genise2008). However, Psilonichnus is unlined and predominantly J-, Y- and U-shaped (Frey et al., Reference Frey, Curran and Pemberton1984a) and Lunulichnus is unlined and with a distinctive lunate wall sculpting (Zonneveld et al., Reference Zonneveld, Lavigne, Bartels and Gunnell2006). On the other hand, Camborygma commonly displays multiple shafts, corridors and chambers (Hasiotis and Mitchell, Reference Hasiotis and Mitchell1993). In terms of general form, a related ichnogenera is Capayanichnus Melchor, Genise, Farina, Sánchez, Sarzetti, Visconti, Reference Melchor, Genise, Farina, Sánchez, Sarzetti and Visconti2010; however, Capayanichnus has an ornamented wall with parallel sets of ridges oblique to the burrow axis instead of knobby marks. In some of the Loloichnus isp. specimens described, the lining is not apparent. In South-Central Pyrenees similar trace fossils are observed in Maastrichtian fluvio-lacustrine facies where they have been assigned to the ichnospecies Spirographites ellipticus Astre, Reference Astre1937 (Mayoral and Calzada, Reference Mayoral and Calzada.1998). Spirographites ellipticus is a meniscate filled trace with a knobby ornamentation that resembles that of the analyzed specimens. However, meniscate backfill is absent in the analyzed specimens.

Ethology and tracemaker

Loloichnus is a dwelling trace (domichnion) produced by predaceous decapods, particularly crabs or crayfishes (Bedatou et al., Reference Bedatou, Melchor, Bellosi and Genise2008). These authors interpreted the only known ichnospecies as produced by crayfishes. Similar trace fossil morphologies have been compared with crayfish burrows based on neoichnological data (Hasiotis and Mitchell, Reference Hasiotis and Mitchell1993; Hasiotis et al., Reference Hasiotis, Mitchell and Dubiel1993). Crayfishes from the Northern Hemisphere are camboricids, whereas crayfishes from the Southern Hemisphere are parastacids (Crandall and Buhay, Reference Crandall and Buhay2008). Loloichnus is commonly associated with parastacids (Bedatou et al., Reference Bedatou, Melchor, Bellosi and Genise2008). However, the studied area during the Upper Cretaceous was located in the Northern Hemisphere (Scotese, 2001) and the Spanish Loloichnus may have been produced by camboricids.

Ichnogenus Palaeophycus Hall, Reference Hall1847

Palaeophycus isp.

Figure 4.1, 4.2

Figure 4 Palaeophycus isp. preserved as full relief at the top of the layers: (1) general view of the cylindrical burrow oriented parallel to the bedding plane, field photo, scale bar represents 5 cm; (2) general view of various specimens oriented gently inclined to the bedding plane; note the circular section and the dust film wall, field photo, scale bar represents 5 cm.

Specimens

Approximately 30 specimens studied in the field and five slabs with 14 specimens collected (DEUC-IC 18, 20, 21, 23, 33, 34). 18 specimens measured.

Description

Unbranched, cylindrical, straight to gently sinuous burrows, oriented parallel to gently inclined to the bedding plane. Burrow lining consisting of a dust film. Massive fill similar to the host rock. Diameter is 3–17 mm. Maximum observed length is 142.3 mm. Preserved in full relief on the top of the layers. Overlapping among different individuals is rare.

Discussion

Palaeophycus can be confused with Planolites Nicholson, Reference Nicholson1873 being both simple horizontal to inclined, cylindrical burrows with full relief preservation. However, Planolites has unlined wall and active fill that commonly contrasts with the host substrate (Pemberton and Frey, Reference Pemberton and Frey1982). Additionally, Palaeophycus from the Tremp Formation occurs as isolated specimens, whereas Planolites tends to occur in profuse densities (see below).

Ethology and tracemaker

Palaeophycus is a dwelling structure (domichnion) produced by predaceous vermiform or suspension-feeding organisms (Pemberton and Frey, Reference Pemberton and Frey1982). Incipient Palaeophycus are known to be produced by predaceous polychaetes in marine environments (e.g., Gingras et al., Reference Gingras, Pemberton, Saunders and Clifton1999), but other makers may have been involved in continental settings, such as semiaquatic insects (orthopterans and hemipterans) or semiaquatic and non-aquatic beetles (Krapovickas et al., Reference Krapovickas, Mancuso, Arcucci and Caselli2010).

Ichnogenus Planolites Nicholson, Reference Nicholson1873

Planolites isp.

Figure 5.1–5.5

Figure 5 Planolites isp. preserved as full relief: (1, 2) cross-section view of several specimens tubular shaped and oriented parallel to inclined to the bedding plane; note the common overlapping, field photos, scale bar represents 1 cm; (3) burrows displaying circular and cylindrical sections and coarser sized fill contrasting with the finer host rock, field photo, scale bar represents 1 cm; (4) burrow wall and fill (dark patch) in thin-section; note the massive fill and the unlined nature of the wall (arrow), microscope photo, scale bar represents 1 mm; (5) close-up of the active fill showing glauconite grains (white arrows) and foraminifera (black arrows), microscope photo, scale bar represents 500 μm.

Specimens

Approximately 60 specimens studied in the field and three slabs with nine specimens collected (DEUC-IC 20, 23, 33). Two specimens studied under petrographic microscope. 104 specimens measured.

Description

Unbranched, cylindrical, straight to gently sinuous, unlined burrows, oriented parallel to gently inclined to the bedding plane. Massive fill contrasting with the host rock. Diameter is 3–18 mm. Maximum observed length is 134.4 mm. Preserved in full relief. Overlapping among different individuals is common.

Discussion

Planolites can be confused with Palaeophycus being both simple horizontal to inclined and cylindrical burrows with full relief preservation. However, Palaeophycus has lined wall and passive fill that commonly is similar to the host substrate (Pemberton and Frey, Reference Pemberton and Frey1982).

Ethology and tracemaker

Planolites is a feeding structure (fodinichnion) interpreted as produced by deposit-feeding vermiform organisms that actively fill their burrows (Pemberton and Frey, Reference Pemberton and Frey1982; Fillion and Pickerill, Reference Fillion and Pickerill1990; Uchman, Reference Uchman1995).

Ichnogenus Taenidium Heer, Reference Heer1876–18Reference Heer77

Discussion

Taenidium comprises unlined meniscate burrows. Taxonomy of meniscate trace fossils is based on their wall details and the presence or absence of branching (D’Alessandro and Bromley, Reference D’Alessandro and Bromley1987). Taenidium is distinguished from other meniscate ichnogenus, such as Beaconites Vialov, Reference Vialov1962, Scoyenia White, Reference White1929, and Anchorichnus Heinberg, Reference Heinberg1974 by the absence of wall, wall striations, and peripheral mantle, respectively (Keighley and Pickerill, Reference Keighley and Pickerill1994). Taenidium is straight, curved or sinuous, variably oriented, unlined, essentially cylindrical and with meniscate backfilled; secondary successive branching may occur, but true branching is absent (Keighley and Pickerill, Reference Keighley and Pickerill1994). The structure of the meniscate fill is used for Taenidium at ichnospecies level (D’Alessandro and Bromley, Reference D’Alessandro and Bromley1987; D’Alessandro et al., Reference D’Alessandro, Ekdale and Picard1987; Keighley and Pickerill, Reference Keighley and Pickerill1994; Bromley, Reference Bromley1996). Originally, three ichnospecies were regarded as valid by D’Alessandro and Bromley (Reference D’Alessandro and Bromley1987), all of them with the menisci distinctly packed and distinguished by the geometry of the menisci and the relative size and shape of the packets; T. serpentinum Heer, Reference Heer1876–18Reference Heer77, T. cameronensis (Brady, Reference Brady1947), and T. satanassi D’Alessandro and Bromley, Reference D’Alessandro and Bromley1987. Taenidium barretti (Bradshaw, Reference Bradshaw1981) was originally included in Beaconites and subsequently transferred to Taenidium based on the absence of lining (Keighley and Pickerill, Reference Keighley and Pickerill1994). However, there is still no consensus regarding the presence or absence of lining in Beaconites. For instance, Goldring and Pollard (Reference Goldring and Pollard1996) and Morrisey and Braddy (Reference Morrissey and Braddy2004) assigned unlined meniscate specimens to Beaconites. Despite the efforts of Smith et al. (Reference Smith, Hasiotis, Kraus and Woody2008), we agree with Buatois et al. (Reference Buatois, Uba, Mángano, Hulka and Heubeck2007) in that a comprehensive review of meniscate trace fossils is still necessary.

Taenidium barretti (Bradshaw, Reference Bradshaw1981)

Two different forms of Taenidium barretti have been recognized and named as type 1 and type 2.

TYPE 1

Figures 6.1, 6.3, 7.1

Figure 6 Taenidium isp. preserved as full relief: (1) straight to sinuous meniscate burrows of Taenidium barretti type 1. They are variably oriented with respect to the bedding plane; note the circular cross sections and the common overlapping of the specimens, DEUC-IC 10, scale bar represents 1 cm; (2) meniscate burrows of Taenidium barretti type 2 are oriented parallel to the bedding plane, reaching up to 70 cm long, arrows pointing the length of the specimen illustrated, field photo, scale bar represents 15 cm; (3) cross-section view of the meniscate fill of Taenidium barretti. Meniscate fills display similar (type 1) or contrasting (type 2) grain size with respect to the host rock, DEUC-IC 42, scale bar represents 1 cm; (4) Meniscate Taenidium bowni; note the menisci grouped in elliptical shaped packets, field photo, scale bar represents 1 cm.

Figure 7 Photomicrographs in transmitted light with line drawings of Taenidium barretti. Menisci are marked by coloured oxides (larger dashed lines) and by lined grains of quartz (circles); note the unlined wall (shorter dashed lines): (1) Meniscate fill in Taenidium barretti type 1, texturally similar to the host rock, longitudinal view, scale bar represents 1 mm; (2) Meniscate fill in Taenidium barretti type 2, contrasting with the host rock; note the subtle concentric fill when the trace fossil is observed in cross-section view, scale bar represents 1 mm.

Specimens

Approximately 160 specimens studied in the field and 12 slabs with 30 specimens collected (DEUC-IC 3, 10, 13, 20, 23, 24, 32, 34, 37, 40–42). Ten specimens studied under petrographic microscope. 150 specimens measured.

Description

Straight to gently sinuous, unbranched, unlined, meniscate filled burrows, with circular to ellipsoidal section and oriented variably to the bedding plane. The parallel to inclined part of the burrow can be joined to a short vertically oriented segment that ends at the top of the layer. Burrow fill similar in grain size and composition to the host rock, but with different colour. Meniscate fill is homogenous to gently heterogeneous. Where homogenous, menisci are demarcated by oxide precipitation, whereas where heterogeneous, menisci are subtly delineated by the orientation of quartz grains. Menisci are densely and commonly diffusely stacked and are not grouped in visible compartmentalized packets. Trace width is 3–19 mm. Maximum observed length is 126.8 mm. Preserved in full relief. Overlapping among different specimens is very common. Some specimens coalesce to form aggregates.

TYPE 2

Figures 6.2, 6.3, 7.2

Specimens

Approximately 70 specimens studied in the field and 11 slabs with 20 specimens collected (DEUC-IC 20, 25, 27–29, 31–34, 37, 42). Two specimens studied under petrographic microscope. 63 specimens measured.

Description

Straight to sinuous, unbranched, unlined, meniscate-filled burrows, with circular to ellipsoidal section and oriented parallel to the bedding plane. Burrow fill contrasting with the host rock, being commonly finer-grained and with more abundance of dark micrite-clay. Meniscate fill is commonly heterogeneous with menisci marked by selected and lined grains of quartz. Menisci are densely and commonly diffusely stacked and are not grouped in visible compartmentalized packets. Trace width is 4–18 mm. Maximum observed length is 664.5 mm. Preserved in full relief on the top of the layers. Overlapping among different specimens is rare.

Discussion

Taenidium barretti is the only ichnospecies with the menisci not grouped in compartmentalized packets. The menisci are thin segments, hemispherical or deeply arcuate and tightly stacked (Keighley and Pickerill, Reference Keighley and Pickerill1994). In the original definition of T. barretti, Bradshaw (Reference Bradshaw1981) noted that the horizontal sections are commonly joined by short vertical tunnels. Both types of burrows can be included within T. barretti, but they differ in their preservation and in two ichnotaxobases that must be taken into account (Bromley Reference Bromley1996; Buatois and Mángano, Reference Buatois and Mángano2011). First, the general form is notably different, being type 2 specimens more sinuous, longer and mainly oriented parallel to the bedding plane instead of variably oriented as in type 1. Second, although both types have meniscate fill, the fill in type 1 is similar to the host rock whereas it is different than the host rock in type 2.

Ethology and tracemaker

Taenidium barretti is a locomotion trace (repichnion) and/or a feeding structure (fodinichnion). Meniscate fill is an active backfill that results from mechanic manipulation or ingestion by the animal (e.g., Buatois and Mángano, Reference Buatois and Mángano2011). On one hand, meniscate fill is produced by an animal that passes material along the sides of its body and compact it behind them by forward motion but with few evidence of ingestion (Bradshaw, Reference Bradshaw1981) and commonly produced by locomotion of insects (Frey et al., Reference Frey, Pemberton and Fagerstrom1984b; O’Geen and Busacca, Reference O’Geen and Busacca2001; Gregory et al., Reference Gregory, Martin and Campbell2004). On the other hand, Taenidium barretti may involve ingestion and excretion of an animal that transports the sediment through the body as it has been associated with deposit or detritus feeding organisms, most likely worm-like organisms (Bown and Kraus, Reference Bown and Kraus1983; Squires and Advocate, Reference Squires and Advocate1984; D’Alessandro et al., Reference D’Alessandro, Ekdale and Picard1987; Sarkar and Chaudhuri, Reference Sarkar and Chaudhuri1992; Schlirf et al., Reference Schlirf, Uchman and Kümmel2001). The characteristics of the meniscate active fill in Taenidium barretti of the Tremp Formation suggest a feeding behaviour for the tracemaker. The active fill is usually finer-grained than the surrounding sediment (Figs. 6.3, 7.2) and mostly there is an accumulation of grains of quartz delineating the menisci (Fig. 7). The sorting of sedimentary grains by manipulation of an infaunal burrower is associated with a selective feeding strategy (Dafoe et al., Reference Dafoe, Gingras and Pemberton2008). Stanley and Fagerstrom (Reference Stanley and Fagerstrom1974) also interpreted the sorting of the menisci as produced by selective or non-selective deposit feeders that preferably pass sediment around or through their bodies, respectively but always with ingestion. Thereby, feeding behavior was interpreted for similar trace fossils in “redbeds” facies in South-Central Pyrenees based on the heterogeneous microstructure of the menisci (Rossi, Reference Rossi1997). This author suggested that the organisms feed the organic matter associated with Microcodium. Taenidium barretti is interpreted here as produced by a deposit feeder with the ability to ingest and to excrete material and compact it behind the body, being most likely a feeding structure (fodinichnion).

Taenidium bowni (Smith, Hasiotis, Kraus, and Woody, Reference Smith, Hasiotis, Kraus and Woody2008)

Figure 6.4

Specimens

Approximately 10 specimens studied in the field and two slabs with six specimens collected (DEUC-IC 3, 41). One specimen studied under petrographic microscope. 10 specimens measured.

Description

Straight to sinuous, unbranched, unlined, meniscate-filled burrows, with circular to ellipsoidal section and oriented variably to the bedding plane. Burrow fill similar to the host rock, but with different color. Meniscate fill is homogenous with menisci distinguished by the oxide precipitation through the discontinuities between them. Menisci are densely stacked and grouped in elliptical shaped packets. Trace width is 6–16 mm. Maximum observed length is 178 mm. Preserved in full relief. Overlapping among different specimens is very common.

Discussion

Taenidium bowni was originally included in a new separate ichnogenus as Naktodemasis bowni Smith, Hasiotis, Kraus, and Woody, Reference Smith, Hasiotis, Kraus and Woody2008. It is unlined and distinguished from other meniscate ichnotaxa only by the presence of the fill organized in nested series of ellipsoidal packets (Smith et al., Reference Smith, Hasiotis, Kraus and Woody2008). These structures were originally referred to as adhesive meniscate burrows in various papers (e.g., Hasiotis, Reference Hasiotis2004). Taenidium bowni differs from other ichnospecies of Taenidium in the style of the meniscate fill. The style of the meniscate fill is an ichnotaxobase used in Taenidium as ichnospecies rank (D’Alessandro and Bromley, Reference D’Alessandro and Bromley1987). Thus, Krapovickas et al. (Reference Krapovickas, Ciccioli, Mángano, Marsicano and Limarino2009) suggested that T. bowni should be included in Taenidium, a decision endorsed here. Therefore, Naktodemasis is regarded as a junior synonym of Taenidium.

Ethology and tracemaker

Taenidium bowni has been interpreted by Smith et al. (Reference Smith, Hasiotis, Kraus and Woody2008) as a locomotion (repichnion) structure constructed most likely by burrower bugs, cicada nymphs, and less likely by scarabaeid or carabid beetles, based on burrow morphology and comparison with similar structures produced in modern soils. In addition, neoichnological experiments show that this kind of burrow may be also produced by beetle larvae (Counts and Hasiotis, Reference Counts and Hasiotis2009).

Size of invertebrate burrows

Burrow width and length were measured. True burrow length is obscured by poor exposure of cross-section views (Arenicolites), or by variable orientations (Loloichnus, Planolites, or Taenidium). Thus, maximum observed length has been measured, but this has not been treated statistically. Measurements were taken from 61 selected field images by using the software JMicroVision v1.27. The statistical analysis (descriptive statistics and frequency analysis) was made with the software SPSS v15.

All of the invertebrate burrows are cylindrical to sub-cylindrical and the width rarely varies along individual specimens. Burrow width ranges from 3 to 28 mm. The statistical analysis illustrates that burrow width varies according with the ichnogenera (Fig. 8, Table 2). Three populations of trace fossils are suggested by differences in width size. Although the minimum and maximum values of burrow width overlap in the three populations (Fig. 8.1), the dispersion of the values varies. How data fall in a distribution can be observed by their relative standing that is well expressed by quartiles (Larsen and Marx, Reference Larsen and Marx1990, p. 115). The Interquartile Range (IQR, difference between the third and the first quartiles) indicates where the most representative data are distributed, as well as their dispersion (Fig. 8.2). The three populations identified are (1) small Palaeophycus and Planolites with minimum and maximum width values of 3 and 18 mm. The majority of width data are within a narrow range of values (Fig. 8.2), IQRPalaeophycus=4.4–6.5 and IQRPlanolites=5.9–10.2; (2) variable sized Taenidium with minimum and maximum width values of 3 and 19 mm. The width data have higher dispersion (Fig. 8.2), IQRTaenidium=6.9–12.8; and (Reference Astre3) large and variable sized Arenicolites and Loloichnus with minimum and maximum width values of 3 and 28 mm. The width data have the highest dispersion and so the burrows exhibit a broad range in sizes (Fig. 8.2), IQRArenicolites=8.5–16 and IQRLoloichnus=11.3–18.9. The implications of size analysis are addressed below.

Figure 8 Descriptive statistics for the measures of burrow width: (1) distribution of burrow widths grouped by ichnotaxa; note the burrow width ranging from 3 to 28 mm; (2) Interquartile Range (IQR) plotted for each ichnogenus and showing three populations of burrow widths based in the position and size of the IQR; note that “variable” is here synonymous of relative high dispersion of values. Mean is indicated with the black transversal line. Ichnogenera displayed are from the bottom to the top, Palaeophycus, Planolites, Taenidium, Arenicolites, and Loloichnus.

Table 2 Statistical data for the measures of burrow width.

Ar, Arenicolites isp.; Lo, Loloichnus isp.; Pa=Palaeophycus isp.; Pa=Planolites isp.; T. ba (1)=Taenidium barretti type 1; T. ba (2)=Taenidium barretti type 2; T. bo=Taenidium bowni; Ta=Taenidium isp., units=mm.

Trace fossil distribution and additional biogenic structures

The ichnologic characteristics of the two main facies of the Maastrichtian “redbeds” of the Tremp Formation; the paleochannel deposits and the non-channelized sandy-marly mudstones (Table 1), as well as their changes through the stratigraphic section (Fig. 9), were studied.

Figure 9 Stratigraphic section of the Maastrichtian “redbeds” of the Tremp Formation at Orcau locality, showing the vertical distribution of biogenic structures and other features: (1) mottling; (2) carbonate nodules; (3) paleosols; (4) root traces; (5) vertebrate tracks; (6) invertebrate burrows (modified from Díez-Canseco et al., Reference Díez-Canseco, Arz, Benito, Díaz-Molina and Arenillas2014). Note invertebrate burrows are indicated in decreasing abundance from left to right.

Paleochannel deposits show mottling, root trace fossils, invertebrate burrows and vertebrate tracks (Fig. 9, Table 1). The invertebrate trace fossils present in paleochannel deposits are Planolites isp., Palaeophycus isp., Loloichnus isp., two types of Taenidium barretti, and Arenicolites isp. The distribution of these ichnotaxa within the paleochannel deposits is heterogeneous and is mainly controlled by the sedimentary processes taking place in meander loops, such as differences in flow velocity on the point bars. In addition to the invertebrate ichnofauna previously described, other biogenic structures such as root-related structures and vertebrate tracks, occur in this facies (Fig. 9). Root-related structures fulfil for the most part the criteria proposed by Gregory et al. (Reference Gregory, Martin and Campbell2004) to identify structures related to plant roots. They consist of single tubes, locally branching downwards, oriented perpendicular to the bedding plane, with millimetric width and depth that varies from a few millimeters to 1 m. Diameter is highly variable even within individual specimens. They are commonly surrounded by centimetric reddish alteration haloes. Root-like structures are here named traces since they show substrate changes recorded in haloes that would reflect behaviors such as respiration, ion exchange, water and nutrients flow, and/or interactions with other organisms (Gregory et al., Reference Gregory, Martin and Campbell2004). Root trace fossils can be profuse, particularly at the uppermost part of the deposits (Fig. 9). In addition to these paleosol features, vertebrate tracks are preserved as positive hyporeliefs at the base of paleochannel deposits. They have been recently interpreted as produced by hadrosaurian and sauropod dinosaurs (Vila et al., Reference Vila, Oms, Fondevilla, Gaete, Galobart, Riera and Canudo2013). Besides, mottling is common and occurs as centimetric yellow and red amoeboid patches with irregular distribution. Mottling is mainly produced by the intrusion in soupy substrate of benthic organisms (Bottjer and Droser, Reference Bottjer and Droser1991; Ekdale and Bromley, Reference Ekdale and Bromley1991; Taylor and Goldring, Reference Taylor and Goldring1993; Mángano and Buatois, Reference Mángano and Buatois2004; Buatois and Mángano, Reference Buatois and Mángano2011, p. 28) or/and by the remobilization of iron associated with pedogenic processes (Freytet et al., Reference Freytet1973; Alonso-Zarza, Reference Alonso-Zarza2003). In the paleochannel deposits, mottling is commonly observed together with abundant invertebrate trace fossils, suggesting that it is formed, at least partially, due to the activity of the invertebrate tracemakers. However, mottling is also common through the uppermost part of the deposits where root trace fossils can be also profuse. Here, mottling could be related with both pedogenic and/or biogenic processes.

The abundance of mottling, root trace fossils and vertebrate tracks, as well as the main invertebrate ichnotaxa, varies in the paleochannel deposits along the studied section (Fig. 9). Díez-Canseco et al. (Reference Díez-Canseco, Arz, Benito, Díaz-Molina and Arenillas2014) grouped the paleochannel deposits into three clusters based on their location along the stratigraphic section as first, second, and third cluster of paleochannel deposits (Fig. 9). In general, the three clusters contain the suite formed dominantly by Taenidium barretti, type 1, and locally by Taenidium barretti, type 2, Arenicolites isp. Palaeophycus isp. and Loloichnus isp. However, there are some differences among the ichnofaunal content of the three clusters. The first cluster is characterized by abundant mottling and a Planolites isp. suite in the lowermost part, the second cluster is typified by a remarkable abundance of Arenicolites isp., and the third cluster is characterized by abundant mottling and the recurrent presence of root and vertebrate trace fossils.

The non-channelized sandy-marly mudstone facies displays mottling, root trace fossils, paleosols, carbonate nodules and invertebrate burrows (Fig. 9, Table 1). Mottling and root trace fossils are similar to those described for the paleochannel deposits. Paleosols are characterized by a high concentration of carbonate, mottling, and widespread root trace fossils. Paleosols are up to 2 m thick and with a lateral continuity of hundreds of meters. Carbonate nodules are centimetric sized, irregular shaped and disperse in some reddish sandy-marly mudstone (Fig. 9). Carbonate nodules were most likely produced by pedogenic processes (Esteban and Klappa, Reference Esteban and Klappa1983; Alonso-Zarza, Reference Alonso-Zarza2003). Where burrowed, this facies is characterized by a suite of Taenidium barretti, type 1, Taenidium bowni and locally Loloichnus isp. Mottling and invertebrate burrows commonly occur together and also with root trace fossils in the third cluster of paleochannel deposits (Fig. 9).

Discussion

Taphonomic controls

The mode of preservation of trace fossils is controlled by intrinsic biological determinants, but also by extrinsic ones as the type or consistency of the substrate (Bromley, Reference Bromley1996), as well as other subsequent sedimentologic factors, such as diagenetic processes and penecontemporaneous erosion and agradation (Goldring et al., Reference Goldring, Pollard and Taylor1997). The morphological features resulting from external parameters must be taken into account during ichnotaxonomic determination (Goldring et al., Reference Goldring, Pollard and Taylor1997; Minter et al., Reference Minter, Braddy and Davis2007) to avoid oversplitting. Here, the relationship between some morphological features of the studied trace fossils and the extrinsic parameters are evaluated.

One of the principles of ichnology is that the same behaviour of an organism can produce various morphologies in different substrates (Bromley, Reference Bromley1996). A well-known example of trace fossil controlled by substrate consistency are the different morphologies of the chevron-shaped locomotion trace Protovirgularia, which is produced by bivalves with a bifurcated foot moving across the sediment (e.g., Maples and West, Reference Maples and West1990; Seilacher and Seilacher, Reference Seilacher and Seilacher1994; Mángano et al. Reference Mángano, Buatois, West and Maples1998; Gibert and Domènech, Reference Gibert and Domènech2008; Carmona et al., Reference Carmona, Mángano, Buatois and Ponce2010). The two morphologic types of Taenidium barretti in the Tremp Formation can be explained as well as controlled by the characteristics of the substrate. Substrate consistency and physical properties are mainly controlled by water content, compaction, and cementation (Ekdale, Reference Ekdale1985; Lewis and Ekdale, Reference Lewis and Ekdale1992) and these characteristics control burrowing styles. For example, as compacted sediment is stiffer, this results in a decreased burrowing rate and penetration depth (Ansell, Reference Ansell1962; Trueman, Reference Trueman1966). The same happens with cementation, which increases shear strength, making penetration difficult. The vertical profile through the substrate is zoned in terms of water content because the weight of overburden causes dewatering (Bromley, Reference Bromley1996). Consequently, a more compacted and/or cemented substrate has less water content and increased shear strength, offering additional resistance to burrowing (Mángano et al., Reference Mángano, Buatois, West and Maples1998). Less compacted or cemented substrates tend to favour the generation of variably oriented burrows, being the tracemakers able to change the direction of burrowing and to penetrate deeper (Fig. 6.1). Otherwise, the path followed by infaunal burrowers where the substrate is stiffer tends to be shallower and mainly oriented horizontal to the bedding plane since the underlying sediment is more compacted, dewatered or/and cemented (Fig. 6.2). Following this line of reasoning, the two types of Taenidium barretti do not represent differences in behaviors, but essentially reflect changes in the properties of the substrate.

On the other hand, diagenesis implies physicochemical processes of preservation and alteration that may enhance or diminish trace fossils (Goldring et al., Reference Goldring, Pollard and Taylor1997; Buatois and Mángano, Reference Buatois and Mángano2011). This is due, in part, to the different characteristics of the sediment within burrows and in the host rock. For instance, the content in organic matter may act as focus for mineral precipitations in burrow linings (Fürsich, Reference Fürsich1972) or linked to the organic detritus excreted by feeding organisms (McIlroy et al., Reference McIlroy, Worden and Needham2003; Needham et al., Reference Needham, Worden and Cuadros2006). In addition, the differences in porosity and permeability of the burrows play an important role during diagenesis (Pemberton and Gingras, Reference Pemberton and Gingras2005). Taenidium barretti shows Fe oxides precipitated along the discontinuities between the menisci (Fig. 7), most likely during diagenesis. These oxides enhance the meniscate fill, favouring menisci visibility (Fig. 7). Because the precipitation of oxides is controlled by the oxidation/reduction conditions, a change in these conditions would affect the mode of preservation of the burrows. Although Planolites (Fig. 5) may be regarded as a preservational variant of Taenidium barretti where the meniscate fill is not visible, subtle evidence of the meniscate fill, such as the array of the quartz grains or visible meniscate shaped discontinuities (Fig. 7), are not observed in the specimens assigned to Planolites. In addition, Planolites is consistently smaller than Taenidium (Fig. 8) in the studied collection, arguing against a taphonomic control.

The large variation in size of Loloichnus and Arenicolites is most likely due to intrinsic biologic determinants, but external parameters, such as erosion and lithification cannot be disregarded. The preservation potential of the thick-walled Loloichnus is higher than that of unlined burrows; even smaller burrows produced by juvenile crustaceans may be preserved. In addition, the depth of penetration of the burrowing crustaceans producing Loloichnus is larger than that of the other burrows described in this study (Fig. 3), increasing preservation potential as well. These features, intrinsic to the Loloichnus tracemaker, may have contributed to the large range of sizes recorded for Loloichnus (Fig. 8, Table 2). Arenicolites is similar in width to Loloichnus (Fig. 8, Table 2) but because of the type of preservation of the burrows as negative epirelief, the large variation in their size may reflect an overprint by erosion. Preservational style of the Tremp Arenicolites is remarkably similar to U-shaped burrows present in intertidal sediment covering beach rocks in the Bay of Fundy (Fig. 10.1). There, on the sedimentary surface, openings of U-shaped burrows are visible as paired large oval depressions preserved as negative epirelief (Fig. 10.2). In cross-sectional views, small U-shaped traces of incipient Arenicolites produced by the amphipod crustacean Corophium volutator (Pallas, Reference Pallas1766) are preserved as full relief (Fig. 10.3, 10.4). Corophium volutator has the ability to switch from suspension feeding to deposit feeding (Gerdol and Hughes, Reference Gerdol and Hughes1994), as well as to feed from detritus by scraping (Meadows and Reid, Reference Meadows and Reid1966). The larger size of Arenicolites preserved on bed tops may reflect currents during ebb-flood tides, washing up sediment previously manipulated and accumulated by the organisms. Thus, the contrast in size between the openings preserved as negative epirelief and the U-shaped burrows preserved as full relief (Fig. 10) may be a taphonomic feature controlled by sedimentary processes, such as erosion and partial lithification and not by differences in behavior. Thus, the high dispersion of Arenicolites width in the Tremp Formation can be of taphonomic origin. Differences in substrate conditions (e.g., water or organic matter content or consolidation) even in an isochronous surface result in variable resistance of the substrate to erosional processes.

Figure 10 Incipient Arenicolites produced by Corophium volutator (Pallas, Reference Pallas1766) in intertidal deposits of the Bay of Fundy: (1) paired large oval openings preserved as negative epirelief at the top of the layers; (2) close-up of paired openings; note the similitude with the trace fossil in Figure 4.2; (3) cross-section in the intertidal deposit, showing small U-shaped tubes preserved as full relief (black arrow); (4) detail of the tracemaker, the amphiphod Corophium volutator, scale bar represents 0.5 mm.

Ichnofacies model

The dominant elements of the Tremp Formation ichnofauna are meniscate backfilled trace fossils typical of the Scoyenia Ichnofacies, an archetypal ichnofacies first proposed by Seilacher (Reference Seilacher1967) and refined subsequently by Frey et al. (Reference Frey, Pemberton and Fagerstrom1984b) and Buatois and Mángano (Reference Buatois and Mángano1995, Reference Buatois and Mángano2002). The meniscate trace fossils of the Tremp Formation belong in Taenidium, mostly Taenidium barretti. Most of the characteristics associated with the Scoyenia Ichnofacies are present in the Tremp ichnofauna. For example, the abundance of meniscate burrows produced by mobile organisms, the mixture of invertebrate, vertebrate and plant trace fossils and the common occurrences of monospecific suites of meniscate ichnotaxa are all characteristics of this ichnofacies (Frey et al., Reference Frey, Pemberton and Fagerstrom1984b; Buatois and Mángano, Reference Buatois and Mángano2004). The Scoyenia Ichnofacies indicates that sediments were periodically exposed to air or periodically inundated (Frey et al., Reference Frey, Pemberton and Fagerstrom1984b; Frey and Pemberton, Reference Frey and Pemberton1984, Reference Frey and Pemberton1987). A low-energy setting is suggested by the abundance of horizontal trace fossils (Buatois and Mángano, Reference Buatois and Mángano2011), whereas the lack of ornamentation characterizes the soft substrate suite of the Scoyenia Ichnofacies (Buatois et al., Reference Buatois, Mángano and Aceñolaza1996; Savrda et al., Reference Savrda, Blanton-Hooks, Collier, Drake, Graves, Hall, Nelson, Slone, Williams and Wood2000; Buatois and Mángano, Reference Buatois and Mángano2002, Reference Buatois and Mángano2004). Dwelling structures, such as Skolithos Haldeman, Reference Haldeman1840 and Cylindricum Linck, Reference Linck1949, may occur, but tend to be subordinate in the Scoyenia Ichnofacies (e.g., Buatois and Mángano, Reference Buatois and Mángano1995). In the Tremp Formation, dwelling structures, such as Arenicolites and Loloichnus, are subordinate to the meniscate trace fossils, but they may be abundant in some paleochannel deposits characterized by higher-flow velocities. Finally, Planolites in the lower paleochannel of the first paleochannel cluster (Fig. 9) most likely illustrates a poorly developed aquatic suite that cannot be included within the Scoyenia Ichnofacies.

Implications for the characterization of tide-influenced meandering channels

Trace fossils of tide-influenced meandering channels have been described in delta plains (e.g., Rebata et al., Reference Rebata, Gingras, Räsänen and Barberi2006a; Hovikoski et al., Reference Hovikoski, Lemiski, Gingras, Pemberton and MacEachern2008a; Sisulak and Dashtgard, Reference Sisulak and Dashtgard2012) and inner zones of estuaries (e.g., Gingras et al., Reference Gingras, Pemberton, Saunders and Clifton1999, Reference Gingras, Räsänen and Ranzi2002; Pemberton et al., Reference Pemberton, Spila, Pulham, Saunders, MacEachern, Robbins and Sinclair2001; Mángano and Buatois, Reference Mángano and Buatois2004; Rebata et al., Reference Rebata, Räsänen, Gingras, Vieira, Barberi and Irion2006b; Hovikoski et al., Reference Hovikoski, Räsänen, Gingras, Ranzi and Melo2008b). In these marginal-marine environments, the ichnofauna is controlled by the stressful conditions affecting the benthic biota, such as salinity fluctuation, increased sediment discharge, and high clay content (e.g., Dörjes and Howard, Reference Dörjes and Howard1975; Pemberton and Wightman, Reference Pemberton and Wightman1992; MacEachern and Pemberton, Reference MacEachern and Pemberton1994; Buatois et al., Reference Buatois, Mangano and Maples1997; Mángano and Buatois, Reference Mángano and Buatois2004; MacEachern and Gingras, Reference MacEachern and Gingras2007; Carmona et al., Reference Carmona, Buatois, Ponce and Mángano2009; Dashtgard, Reference Dashtgard2011). For instance, tide-influenced deposits from brackish-water deltaic or estuarine systems show low-diversity marine trace-fossil assemblages (Pemberton and Wightman, Reference Pemberton and Wightman1992; Mángano and Buatois, Reference Mángano and Buatois2004), whereas the freshwater inner parts may display relatively high diversity of assemblages produced by a terrestrial to freshwater fauna (Buatois et al., Reference Buatois, Mangano and Maples1997). However, examples exhibiting a continuous ichnologic record from the open to the inner part of the estuarine/deltaic system are virtually inexistent.

The ichnofauna from the Tremp Formation does not display marked changes in ichnodiversity through the stratigraphic section, but it shows a subtle change in the trace-fossil assemblages from a poorly developed aquatic suite in the lower part of the first cluster of paleochannel deposits to a relatively well-developed Scoyenia Ichnofacies in the third one (Fig. 9). In addition, small variations in burrow sizes have been detected between the elements of these two assemblages (Fig. 8, Table 2). Therefore, the two trace-fossil assemblages may reflect differences in salinity during the development of the meander loops. The assemblage of the lower part of the first cluster could reflect higher stress conditions due to extreme salinity fluctuations, and brackish-water. This interpretation agrees with the presence in the first cluster of authigenic glauconite (Díez-Canseco et al., Reference Díez-Canseco, Arz, Benito, Díaz-Molina and Arenillas2014).

The Scoyenia Ichnofacies is typical of non-marine, inundated environments, such as lake margins and floodplains (Buatois and Mángano, Reference Buatois and Mángano2011, p. 75 and references therein). However, the Scoyenia Ichnofacies is also present in marginal-marine environments (Buatois et al., Reference Buatois, Mangano and Maples1997), particularly in the fluvial-tidal transition where the ichnofauna distribution is controlled by the limits of maximum salinity and tides. Between both limits, a freshwater tide-influenced area is formed, commonly tens of kilometres wide (e.g., Buatois et al., Reference Buatois, Mangano and Maples1997; Dalrymple and Choi, Reference Dalrymple and Choi2007; Shiers et al., Reference Shiers, Mountney, Hodgson and Cobain2014). The occurrence of elements of the Scoyenia Ichnofacies in the tidal-fluvial transition has been also reported by Netto and Rossetti (Reference Netto and Rossetti2003), Mángano and Buatois (Reference Mángano and Buatois2004), and Hovikoski et al. (Reference Hovikoski, Gingras, Räsänen, Rebata, Guerrero, Ranzi, Melo, Romero, del Prado and Jaimes2007, Reference Hovikoski, Räsänen, Gingras, Ranzi and Melo2008b). Netto and Rossetti (Reference Netto and Rossetti2003) attributed monospecific assemblages of Taenidium in this setting to inner mangrove areas. Thus, the upper part of the section of Tremp Formation was deposited most likely under freshwater conditions within the fluvial-tidal transition.

On the other hand, Arenicolites is more abundant in the lower part of the section, particularly in the second cluster of paleochannel deposits (Fig. 9). The higher abundance of Arenicolites may indicate areas occasionally subjected to higher-energy tidal currents and/or brackish-water conditions. Arenicolites in the Tremp Formation closely resembles the enlarged Arenicolites observed in the intertidal areas of Bay of Fundy, where it is produced by the crustacean Corophium volutator (Pallas, Reference Pallas1766) (Fig. 10). Corophium volutator inhabits mud flats, salt-marsh pools, and brackish-water ditches, and tolerates a wide range of salinities from seawater to almost freshwater (Kluijver and Ingalsuo, Reference Kluijver and Ingalsuo1999; Percy, Reference Percy1999). The differences in abundance of Arenicolites in the studied section can be explained as a result of salinity fluctuations, as well as by tidal fluctuations. Salinity fluctuations may control the distribution of the producer, whereas tidal fluctuations may act as a control factor for the erosion and enlargement of burrow entrances. The second cluster of paleochannel deposits most likely represents an intermediate situation within the fluvial-tidal transition characterized by the Scoyenia Ichnofacies and areas with high density of Arenicolites.

The ichnofaunal variation through the stratigraphic section agrees with the shallowing-upwards tendency detected in the Tremp Formation, based on the decrease in abundance of planktonic foraminifera transported by tidal currents (Díez-Canseco et al., Reference Díez-Canseco, Arz, Benito, Díaz-Molina and Arenillas2014). In the same vein, the ichnofaunal changes reflect the landward location of the younger meandering loop deposits since a decrease in salinity and a passage to freshwater conditions is inferred (Fig. 11). The higher abundance of root trace fossils, paleosols and vertebrate tracks in the third cluster of paleochannel deposits, together with the widespread Scoyenia Ichnofacies indicates formation under freshwater conditions in a landward location. The ichnofauna of the Tremp Formation records deposits within the fluvial-tidal transition of a delta (Díez-Canseco et al., Reference Díez-Canseco, Arz, Benito, Díaz-Molina and Arenillas2014), particularly located in the mixed-energy area and the fluvial-tidal channel (sensu Dalrymple and Choi, Reference Dalrymple and Choi2007) and controlled by the maximum salinity limit (Fig. 11).

Figure 11 Summary model of ichnofaunal distribution in the fluvial-tidal transition of the Tremp Formation. The mixed area and the fluvial-tidal channel are marked in terms of current dominance, whereas ichnology responds to salinity and is controlled by the salinity limit (modified from Buatois et al., Reference Buatois, Mangano and Maples1997; Dalrymple and Choi, Reference Dalrymple and Choi2007; Díez-Canseco et al., Reference Díez-Canseco, Arz, Benito, Díaz-Molina and Arenillas2014; and Shiers et al., Reference Shiers, Mountney, Hodgson and Cobain2014).

Conclusions

The ichnofauna of the tide-influenced meandering channels recorded in the Maastrichtian Tremp Formation consists of Taenidium barretti types 1 and 2, Loloichnus isp., Arenicolites isp., Planolites isp., Palaeophycus isp., and Taenidium bowni. The meniscate trace fossils are the most abundant elements of the ichnofauna. Taenidium barretti is interpreted as produced by a deposit feeder based in the structure of its meniscate backfill.

This ichnofauna reflects paleoenvironmental changes in the meandering channels along the stratigraphic section with a poorly developed aquatic suite in the lowest part of the stratigraphic section and the Scoyenia Ichnofacies in the remaining part. The two suites reflect specific characteristics associated with salinity conditions. The lowermost suite was likely formed seaward of the maximum salinity limit, under extreme brackish-water conditions, whereas the Scoyenia Ichnofacies records a freshwater assemblage that was formed landward of the maximum salinity limit. The presence of brackish-water and freshwater assemblages together within the stratigraphic succession of marginal-marine deposits has been rarely documented in the geological record. Continental ichnofacies occur not only in purely fluvial meandering deposits, but also in deposits of meandering channels emplaced at the fluvio-marine transition.

Acknowledgments

Financial support for this study was provided by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación of Spain via project CGL2009–09000, and a FPI Predoctoral contract and two FPI mobility fellowships awarded to D. Díez-Canseco. We thank J. Cuevas for helping with the statistical analysis and for his assistance in field work, M. Gingras for providing information on the locations in the Bay of Fundy, B. Töró for his assistance in the Bay of Fundy and for providing the photographs of Corophium, and B. Pratt for providing valuable comments on thin sections. We also thank the staff of the Departamento de Estratigrafía of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid who did the thin sections, and B. Novakovski and B. Pratt from the Department of Geological Sciences of the University of Saskatchewan for technical assistance with thin sections and microphotographs. The authors are grateful to A. Martin and an anonymous referee who performed insightful reviews of the manuscript and the editors, S. Hageman and L. Tapanila, for their useful comments and their editing work.

References

Alonso-Zarza, A.M., 2003, Palaeoenvironmental significance of palustrine carbonates and calcretes in the geological record: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 60, p. 261298.Google Scholar
Ansell, A.D., 1962, Observations on burrowing in the Veneridae (Eulamellibranchia): Biological Bulletin, Woods Hole, v. 123, p. 521530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Astre, G., 1937, Un annélide sabellien dans le Garumnien de Saldes: Bulletin de la Société d’Histoire Naturalle de Toulouse, v. 71, p. 192194.Google Scholar
Baceta, J.I., Pujalte, V., Serra-Kiel, J., Robador, A., and Orue-Etxebarria, X., 2004, El Maastrichtiense final, Paleoceno e Ilerdiense inferior de la Cordillera Pirenaica, in Vera, J.A., ed., Geología de España, Madrid, Sociedad Geológica de España-Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, p. 308313.Google Scholar
Baucon, A., and Felletti, F., 2013, Neoichnology of a barrier-island system: the Mula di Muggia (Grado lagoon, Italy): Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 375, p. 112124.Google Scholar
Bedatou, E., Melchor, R.N., Bellosi, E., and Genise, J.F., 2008, Crayfish burrows from Late Jurassic–Late Cretaceous continental deposits of Patagonia: Argentina. Their palaeoecological, palaeoclimatic and palaeobiogeographical significance: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 257, p. 169184.Google Scholar
Bottjer, D.J., and Droser, M.L., 1991, Ichnofabric and basin analysis: Palaios, v. 6, p. 199205.Google Scholar
Bown, T.M., and Kraus, M.J., 1983, Ichnofossils of the alluvial Willwood Formation (lower Eocene), Bighorn basin, northwest Wyoming, USA: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 43, p. 95128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, M.A., 1981, Paleoenvironmental interpretations and systematics of Devonian trace fossils from the Taylor Group (lower Beacon Supergroup), Antarctica: New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, v. 24, p. 615652.Google Scholar
Brady, L.F., 1947, Invertebrate tracks from the Coconino Sandstone of northern Arizona: Journal of Paleontology, v. 21, p. 466472.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., 1996, Trace fossils. Biology, Taphonomy and Applications, (second edition): London, UK, Chapman and Hall, 361 p.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., and Ekdale, A., 1984, Trace fossil preservation in flint in the European chalk: Journal of Paleontology, v. 58, no. 2, p. 298311.Google Scholar
Buatois, L.A., and Mángano, M.G., 1995, The paleoenvironmental and paleoecological significance of the lacustrine Mermia ichnofacies: an archetypical subaqueous nonmarine trace fossil assemblage: Ichnos, v. 4, p. 151161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buatois, L.A., and Mángano, M.G., 2002, Trace fossils from Carboniferous floodplain deposits in western Argentina: implications for ichnofacies models of continental environments: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 183, p. 7186.Google Scholar
Buatois, L.A., and Mángano, M.G., 2004, Animal-substrate interactions in freshwater environments: applications of ichnology in facies and sequence stratigraphic analysis of fluvio-lacustrine successions, in McIlroy, D., ed., The Application of Ichnology to Palaeoenvironmental and Stratigraphic Analysis: Geological Society Special Publication, v. 228, p. 311333.Google Scholar
Buatois, L.A., and Mángano, M.G., 2011, Ichnology: Organism-substrate interactions in space and time, New York, USA, Cambridge University Press, 358 p.Google Scholar
Buatois, L.A., Mángano, M.G., and Aceñolaza, F.G., 1996, Icnofaunas paleozoicas en sustratos firmes no marinos: evidencias del Pérmico de la cuenca de Paganzo: Ameghiniana, v. 33, p. 265270.Google Scholar
Buatois, L.A., Mangano, M.G., and Maples, C.G., 1997, The paradox of nonmarine ichnofaunas in tidal rhythmites; integrating sedimentologic and ichnologic data from the Late Cretaceous of eastern Kansas, USA: Palaios, v. 12, p. 467481.Google Scholar
Buatois, L.A., Mangano, M.G., Maples, C.G., and Lanier, W.P., 1998, Ichnology of an upper Carboniferous fluvio-estuarine paleovalley: the Tonganoxie sandstone, Buildex quarry, eastern Kansas, USA: Journal of Paleontology, v. 72, p. 152180.Google Scholar
Buatois, L.A., Gingras, M.K., MacEachern, J., Mángano, M.G., Zonneveld, J.P., Pemberton, S.G., Netto, R.G., and Martin, A., 2005, Colonization of brackish-water systems through time: evidence from the trace-fossil record: Palaios, v. 20, p. 321347.Google Scholar
Buatois, L.A., Uba, C.E., Mángano, M.G., Hulka, C., and Heubeck, C., 2007, Deep and intense bioturbation in continental environments: evidence from Miocene fluvial deposits of Bolivia, in Bromley, R.G., Buatois, L.A., Mángano, M.G., and Genise, J.F., eds., Sediment-Organism Interactions: A Multifaceted Ichnology: Society for Sedimentary Geology Special Publication, v. 88, p. 123136.Google Scholar
Carmona, N.B., Buatois, L.A., Ponce, J.J., and Mángano, M.G., 2009, Ichnology and sedimentology of a tide-influenced delta, Lower Miocene Chenque Formation, Patagonia, Argentina: trace-fossil distribution and response to environmental stresses: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 273, p. 7586.Google Scholar
Carmona, N.B., Mángano, M.G., Buatois, L.A., and Ponce, J.J., 2010, Taphonomy and paleoecology of the bivalve trace fossil Protovirgularia in deltaic heterolithic facies of the Miocene Chenque formation, Patagonia, Argentina: Journal of Paleontology, v. 84, p. 730738.Google Scholar
Counts, J.W., and Hasiotis, S.T., 2009, Neoichnological experiments with masked chafer beetles (coleoptera: scarabaeidae): implications for backfilled continental trace fossils: Palaios, v. 24, p. 7491.Google Scholar
Crandall, K.A., and Buhay, J.E., 2008, Global diversity of crayfish (Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae-Decapoda) in freshwater: Hydrobiologia, v. 595, no. 1, p. 295301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuevas, J.L., 1992, Estratigrafía del” Garumniense” de la Conca de Tremp. Prepirineo de Lérida: Acta Geológica Hispánica, v. 27, p. 95108.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, A., and Bromley, R.G., 1987, Meniscate trace fossils and the Muensteria-Taenidium problem: Palaeontology, v. 30, p. 743763.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, A., Ekdale, A., and Picard, M.D., 1987, Trace fossils in fluvial deposits of the Duchesne River Formation (Eocene), Uinta basin, Utah: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 61, p. 285301.Google Scholar
Dafoe, L.T., Gingras, M.K., and Pemberton, S.G., 2008, Analysis of mineral segregation in Euzonus mucronata burrow structures: one possible method used in the construction of ancient Macaronichnus segregates: Ichnos, v. 15, p. 91102.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, R.W., and Choi, K., 2007, Morphologic and facies trends through the fluvial-marine transition in tide-dominated depositional systems: a schematic framework for environmental and sequence-stratigraphic interpretation: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 81, p. 135174.Google Scholar
Dashtgard, S.E., 2011, Linking invertebrate burrow distributions (neoichnology) to physicochemical stresses on a sandy tidal flat: implications for the rock record: Sedimentology, v. 58, p. 13031325.Google Scholar
Dashtgard, S.E., Venditti, J.G., Hill, P.R., Sisulak, C.F., Johnson, S.M., and La Croix, A.D., 2012, Sedimentation across the tidal-fluvial transition in the lower Fraser River, Canada: The Sedimentary Record, v. 10, p. 49.Google Scholar
Díez-Canseco, D., Arz, J., Benito, M., Díaz-Molina, M., and Arenillas, I., 2014, Tidal influence in redbeds: A palaeoenvironmental and biochronostratigraphic reconstruction of the Lower Tremp Formation (South-Central Pyrenees, Spain) around the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary: Sedimentary Geology, v. 312, p. 3149.Google Scholar
Dörjes, J., and Howard, J.D., 1975, Estuaries of the Georgia coast, U.S.A.: Sedimentology and biology. IV. Fluvial-marine transition indicators in an estuarine environment, Ogeechee River–Ossabaw Sound: Senckenbergiana Maritima, v. 7, p. 137179.Google Scholar
Ekdale, A.A., 1985, Paleoecology of the marine endobenthos: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 50, p. 6381.Google Scholar
Ekdale, A.A., and Bromley, R.G., 1991, Analysis of composite ichnofabrics: an example in uppermost Cretaceous chalk of Denmark: Palaios, v. 6, p. 232249.Google Scholar
Esteban, M., and Klappa, C.F., 1983, Subaerial exposure environments, in Scholle, P.A., Bebout, D.G., and Moore, C.H., eds., Carbonate Depositional Environments: Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir, v. 33, p. 196.Google Scholar
Fillion, D., and Pickerill, R.K., 1990, Ichnology of the Upper Cambrian? to Lower Ordovician Bell Island and Wabana groups of eastern Newfoundland, Canada: Palaeontographica Canadiana, v. 7, p. 1119.Google Scholar
Frey, R.W., and Pemberton, S.G., 1984, Trace fossils Facies Models, in Walker, R.G., ed., Facies Models: Geoscience Canada Reprint Series, p. 189207.Google Scholar
Frey, R.W., and Pemberton, S.G., 1987, The Psilonichnus ichnocoenose, and its relationship to adjacent marine and nonmarine ichnocoenoses along the Georgia coast: Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, v. 35, p. 333357.Google Scholar
Frey, R.W., Curran, H.A., and Pemberton, S.G., 1984a, Tracemaking activities of crabs and their environmental significance: the ichnogenus Psilonichnus: Journal of Paleontology, v. 58, p. 333350.Google Scholar
Frey, R.W., Pemberton, S.G., and Fagerstrom, J., 1984b, Morphological, ethological, and environmental significance of the ichnogenera Scoyenia and Ancorichnus: Journal of Paleontology, v. 58, p. 511528.Google Scholar
Freytet, P., 1973, Petrography and paleo-environment of continental carbonate deposits with particular reference to the Upper Cretaceous and Lower Eocene of Languedoc (southern France): Sedimentary Geology, v. 10, no. 1, p. 2560.Google Scholar
Fürsich, F.T., 1972, Thalassinoides and the origin of nodular limestone in the Corallian beds (Upper Jurassic) of southern England: Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie, und Paläontologie, v. 3, p. 136156.Google Scholar
Fürsich, F.T., 1974, On Diplocraterion Torell 1870 and the significance of morphological features in vertical, spreiten-bearing, U-shaped trace fossils: Journal of Paleontology, v. 48, no. 5, p. 952962.Google Scholar
Fürsich, F.T., 1981, Invertebrate trace fossils from the Upper Jurassic of Portugal: Comunicaçôes dos Serviços Geológicos de Portugal, v. 67, p. 153168.Google Scholar
Gerdol, V., and Hughes, R.G., 1994, Feeding behaviour and diet of Corophium volutator in an estuary in southeastern England: Marine Ecology Progress Series, v. 114, p. 103108.Google Scholar
Gibert, J.M., and Domènech, R., 2008, Trazas fósiles de nuculoideos (Protovirgularia) del Mioceno marino de la Cuenca del Vallès-Penedès: Revista Española de Paleontología, v. 23, p. 129138.Google Scholar
Gingras, M.K., Pemberton, S.G., Saunders, T., and Clifton, H.E., 1999, The ichnology of modern and Pleistocene brackish-water deposits at Willapa Bay, Washington; variability in estuarine settings: Palaios, v. 14, p. 352374.Google Scholar
Gingras, M.K., Räsänen, M., and Ranzi, A., 2002, The significance of bioturbated inclined heterolithic stratification in the southern part of the Miocene Solimoes Formation, Rio Acre, Amazonia Brazil: Palaios, v. 17, p. 591601.Google Scholar
Goldring, R., and Pollard, J., 1996, Ichnotaxonomic revision and the importance of type material: Palaeontology Newsletter, v. 31, p. 78.Google Scholar
Goldring, R., Pollard, J., and Taylor, A., 1997, Naming trace fossils: Geological Magazine, v. 134, no. 2, p. 265268.Google Scholar
Gregory, M.R., Martin, A.J., and Campbell, K.A., 2004, Compound trace fossils formed by plant and animal interactions: quaternary of northern New Zealand and Sapelo Island, Georgia (USA): Fossils and Strata, v. 51, p. 88105.Google Scholar
Haldeman, S.S., 1840, Supplement to number one of ‘A monograph of the Limniades, and other freshwater bivalve shells of the apparently new animals in different classes, and names and characters of the subgenera in Paludina and Anculosa, Philadelphia, J. Dobson.Google Scholar
Hall, J., 1847, Palaeontology of New York, Albany, C. Van Benthuysen, v. 1, 338 p.Google Scholar
Häntzschel, W., 1975, Trace fossils & Problematica, in Teichert, C., ed., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part W, Miscellanea, 2d ed.: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America (and University of Kansas Press), 269 p.Google Scholar
Hasiotis, S.T., 2004, Reconnaissance of Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation ichnofossils, Rocky Mountain Region, USA: paleoenvironmental, stratigraphic, and paleoclimatic significance of terrestrial and freshwater ichnocoenoses: Sedimentary Geology, v. 167, p. 177268.Google Scholar
Hasiotis, S.T., and Mitchell, C.E., 1993, A comparison of crayfish burrow morphologies: Triassic and Holocene fossil, paleo-and neo-ichnological evidence, and the identification of their burrowing signatures: Ichnos, v. 2, p. 291314.Google Scholar
Hasiotis, S.T., Mitchell, C.E., and Dubiel, R.F., 1993, Application of morphologic burrow interpretations to discern continental burrow architects: lungfish or crayfish?: Ichnos, v. 2, p. 315333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heer, O., 1876–77, Flora fossilis Hevetiae. Die vorweltliche Flora der Schweiz: J. Würster & Co, 182 p.Google Scholar
Heinberg, C., 1974, A dynamic model for a meniscus filled tunnel (Ancorichnus n. ichnogen.) from the Jurassic Pecten Sandstone of Milne Land, East Greenland: Grønlands Geologiske Undersøgelse Rapport, v. 62, 20 p.Google Scholar
Hovikoski, J., Gingras, M.K., Räsänen, M., Rebata, L.A., Guerrero, J., Ranzi, A., Melo, J., Romero, L., del Prado, H.N., and Jaimes, F., 2007, The nature of Miocene Amazonian epicontinental embayment: High-frequency shifts of the low-gradient coastline: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 119, p. 15061520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovikoski, J., Lemiski, R., Gingras, M.K., Pemberton, S.G., and MacEachern, J.A., 2008a, Ichnology and sedimentology of a mud-dominated deltaic coast: Upper Cretaceous Alderson Member (Lea Park Fm), western Canada: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 78, p. 803824.Google Scholar
Hovikoski, J., Räsänen, M., Gingras, M.K., Ranzi, A., and Melo, J., 2008b, Tidal and seasonal controls in the formation of Late Miocene inclined heterolithic stratification deposits, western Amazonian foreland basin: Sedimentology, v. 55, p. 499530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, J.D., and Frey, R.W., 1975, Estuaries of the Georgia coast, U.S.A.: Sedimentology and biology, II. Regional animal-sediment characteristics of Georgia estuaries: Senckenbergiana Maritima, v. 7, p. 33103.Google Scholar
Howard, J.D., Elders, C.A., and Heinbokel, J.F., 1975, Estuaries of the Georgia Coast, U.S.A.: Sedimentology and biology, V. Animal-sediment relationships in estuarine point bar deposits, Ogeechee River–Ossabaw Sound: Senckenbergiana Maritima, v. 7, p. 181203.Google Scholar
Johnson, S.M., and Dashtgard, S.E., 2014, Inclined heterolithic stratification in a mixed tidal-fluvial channel: Differentiating tidal versus fluvial controls on sedimentation: Sedimentary Geology, v. 301, p. 4153.Google Scholar
Keighley, D., and Pickerill, R., 1994, The ichnogenus Beaconites and its distinction from Ancorichnus and Taenidium: Palaeontology, v. 37, p. 305338.Google Scholar
Kluijver, M.J., and Ingalsuo, S.S., 1999, Macrobenthos of the North Sea-Crustacea, Marine Species Indentification Portal. http://www.species-identification.org/species.php?species_group=crustacea&id=303&menuentry=soorten (accessed November 2014).Google Scholar
Krapovickas, V., Ciccioli, P.L., Mángano, M.G., Marsicano, C.A., and Limarino, C.O., 2009, Paleobiology and paleoecology of an arid–semiarid Miocene South American ichnofauna in anastomosed fluvial deposits: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 284, p. 129152.Google Scholar
Krapovickas, V., Mancuso, A.C., Arcucci, A.B., and Caselli, A.T., 2010, Fluvial and eolian ichnofaunas from the Lower Permian of South America (Patquía Formation, Paganzo Basin): Geologica Acta, v. 8, no. 4, p. 449462.Google Scholar
Larsen, R.J., and Marx, M.L., 1990, Statistics, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 800 p.Google Scholar
Lewis, D.W., and Ekdale, A.A., 1992, Composite ichnofabric of a mid-Tertiary unconformity on a pelagic limestone: Palaios, v. 7, p. 222235.Google Scholar
Linck, O., 1949, Lebens-Spuren aus dem Schilfsandstein (Mittl. Keuper km 2) NW-Württemberfs und ihre Bedeutung für die Bildungsgeschichte der Stufe: Jahreshefte des Vereins für vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg, v. 97–101, p. 1100.Google Scholar
López-Martínez, N., 2001, La extinción de los dinosaurios y su registro en los Pirineos Meridionales: Actas de las II Jornadas Internacionales sobre Paleontología de Dinosaurios y su Entorno, Salas de los Infantes, Spain, Colectivo Arqueológico-Paleontológico de Salas, p. 7198.Google Scholar
López-Martínez, N., Arribas, M., Robador, A., Vicens, E., and Ardèvol, L., 2006, Los carbonatos Danienses (Unidad 3) de la Fm Tremp (Pirineos Sur-Centales): Paleogeografía y relación con el límite Cretácico-Terciario: Revista de la Sociedad Geológica de España, v. 19, p. 233255.Google Scholar
MacEachern, J.A., and Gingras, M.K., 2007, Recognition of brackish-water trace fossil suites in the Cretaceous Western interior seaway of Alberta, Canada, in Bromley, R.G., Buatois, L.A., Mangano, G., Genise, J.F., and Melchor, R.N., eds., Sediment-Organism Interactions: A Multifacted Ichnology: Society for Sedimentary Geology Core Workshop, v. 88, p. 149194.Google Scholar
MacEachern, J.A., and Pemberton, S.G., 1994, Ichnological aspects of incised valley fill systems from the Viking Formation of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, Alberta, Canada, in Boyd, R., Zaitlin, B.A., and Dalrymple, R.W., eds., Incised Valley Systems: Origin and Sedimentary Sequences: Society for Sedimentary Geology Special Publication, v. 51, p. 129157.Google Scholar
Mángano, M.G., and Buatois, L.A., 2004, Ichnology of Carboniferous tide-influenced environments and tidal flat variability in the North American Midcontinent, in McIlroy, D., ed., The application of ichnology to palaeoenvironmental and stratigraphic analysis, London, UK, Geological Society Special Publications, v. 228, p. 157178.Google Scholar
Mángano, M.G., Buatois, L.A., West, R.R., and Maples, C.G., 1998, Contrasting behavioral and feeding strategies recorded by tidal-flat bivalve trace fossils from the Upper Carboniferous of eastern Kansas: Palaios, v. 13, p. 335351.Google Scholar
Mángano, M.G., Buatois, L.A., Maples, C.G., and West, R.R., 2002, Ichnology of a Pennsylvanian equatorial tidal flat; the Stull Shale Member at Waverly, eastern Kansas: Kansas Geological Survey, v. 245, p. 1133.Google Scholar
Maples, C.G., and West, R.R., 1990, Trace-fossil taxonomy and substrate fluidity: An example using Late Carboniferous bivalve traces: 13th International Sedimentological Congress, Abstracts of Papers, 328 p.Google Scholar
Mayoral, E., and Calzada., S, 1998, Reinterpretación de Spirographites ellipticus Astre, 1937 como una pista fósil de Artrópodos no marinos en el Cretácico superior (facies Garumn) del Prepirineo Catalán (NE de España): Geobios, v. 31, p. 633643.Google Scholar
McIlroy, D., Worden, R., and Needham, S., 2003, Faeces, clay minerals and reservoir potential: Journal of the Geological Society, v. 160, p. 489493.Google Scholar
Meadows, P., and Reid, A., 1966, The behaviour of Corophium volutator (Crustacea: Amphipoda): Journal of Zoology, v. 150, p. 387399.Google Scholar
Melchor, R.N., Genise, J.F., Farina, J.L., Sánchez, M.V., Sarzetti, L., and Visconti, G., 2010, Large striated burrows from fluvial deposits of the Neogene Vichina Formation, La Rioja, Argentina: A crab origin suggested by neoichnology and sedimentology: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 291, p. 400418.Google Scholar
Mey, P., Nagtegaal, P., Roberti, K., and Hartevelt, J., 1968, Lithostratigraphic subdivision of post-hercynian deposits in the south-central Pyrenees, Spain: Leidse Geologische Mededelingen, v. 41, p. 221228.Google Scholar
Minter, N.J., Braddy, S.J., and Davis, R.B., 2007, Between a rock and a hard place: arthropod trackways and ichnotaxonomy: Lethaia, v. 40, p. 365375.Google Scholar
Morrissey, L.B., and Braddy, S.J., 2004, Terrestrial trace fossils from the Lower Old Red Sandstone, southwest Wales: Geological Journal, v. 39, no. 3–4, p. 315336.Google Scholar
Nagtegaal, P.J.C., Vanvliet, A., and Brouwer, J., 1983, Syntectonic coastal offlap and concurrent turbidite deposition-the Upper Cretaceous Aren Sandstone in the South-Central Pyrenees, Spain: Sedimentary Geology, v. 34, p. 185218.Google Scholar
Needham, S., Worden, R., and Cuadros, J., 2006, Sediment ingestion by worms and the production of bio-clays: a study of macrobiologically enhanced weathering and early diagenetic processes: Sedimentology, v. 53, p. 567579.Google Scholar
Netto, R.G., and Rossetti, D.F., 2003, Ichnology and salinity fluctuations: A case study from the early Miocene (Lower Barreiras Formation) of Sao Luís Basin, Maranhano, Brazil: Revista brasileira de Paleontología, v. 6, p. 518.Google Scholar
Nicholson, H.A., 1873, Contributions to the study of the errant annelides of the older Palaeozoic rocks: Royal Society London Proceedings, v. 21, p. 288290.Google Scholar
O’Geen, A.T., and Busacca, A.J., 2001, Faunal burrows as indicators of paleo-vegetation in eastern Washington, USA: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 169, p. 2337.Google Scholar
Pallas, P.S., 1766, Miscellanea zoologica: Hagae Comitum, Apud Petrum Van Cleef, 224 p.Google Scholar
Pemberton, S.G., and Frey, R.W., 1982, Trace fossil nomenclature and the Planolites-Palaeophycus dilemma: Journal of Paleontology, v. 56, p. 843881.Google Scholar
Pemberton, S.G., and Gingras, M.K., 2005, Classification and characterizations of biogenically enhanced permeability: AAPG bulletin, v. 89, p. 14931517.Google Scholar
Pemberton, S.G., and Wightman, D.M., 1992, Ichnological characteristics of brackish water deposits, in Pemberton, S.G., ed., Applications of ichnology to petroleum exploration: A core workshop: Society for Sedimentary Geology Core Workshop, v. 17, p 141167.Google Scholar
Pemberton, S.G., Spila, M., Pulham, A.J., Saunders, T., MacEachern, J.A., Robbins, D., and Sinclair, I.K., 2001, The application of Ichnofacies analysis to the evaluation of marginal marine reservoirs: Ichnology & Sedimentology of Shallow to Marginal Marine Systems. Geological Association of Canada Short Course, v. 15, p. 155179.Google Scholar
Percy, J.A., 1999, Keystone Corophium: Master of the Mudflats: Fundy Issues Series BoFEP, v. 13, http://www.bofep.org/corophium.htm (accessed June 2016).Google Scholar
Puigdefàbregas, C., Muñoz, J., and Vergés, J., 1992, Thrusting and foreland basin evolution in the southern Pyrenees, in McClay, K.R., ed., Thrust Tectonics, Berlin, Germany, Springer, p. 247254.Google Scholar
Rebata, L.A., Gingras, M.K., Räsänen, M.E., and Barberi, M., 2006a, Tidal-channel deposits on a delta plain from the Upper Miocene Nauta Formation, Marañón Foreland Sub-basin, Peru: Sedimentology, v. 53, p. 9711013.Google Scholar
Rebata, L.A., Räsänen, M.E., Gingras, M.K., Vieira, V. Jr, Barberi, M., and Irion, G., 2006b, Sedimentology and ichnology of tide-influenced Late Miocene successions in western Amazonia: The gradational transition between the Pebas and Nauta formations: Journal of South American Earth Sciences, v. 21, p. 96119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riera, V., Oms, O., Gaete, R., and Galobart, A., 2009, The end-Cretaceous dinosaur succession in Europe: The Tremp Basin record (Spain): Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 283, p. 160171.Google Scholar
Rosell, J., 1965, Estudio geológico del sector del Prepirineo com-prendido entre los ríos Segre y Noguera Ribagorzana (Provincia de Lérida): Pirineos, v. 21, p. 1225.Google Scholar
Rosell, J., Linares, R., and Llompart, C., 2001, El “Garumniense” Prepirenaico: Revista de la Sociedad Geológica de España, v. 14, no. 1–2, p. 4756.Google Scholar
Rossi, C., 1997, Microcodium y trazas fósiles de invertebrados en facies continentales (Paleoceno de la Cuenca de Áger, Lérida): Revista de la Sociedad Geológica de España, v. 10, p. 371391.Google Scholar
Salter, J.W., 1857, On annelide-burrows and surface-markings from the Cambrian rocks of the Longmynd. Quarterly: Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 13, p. 199206.Google Scholar
Sarkar, S., and Chaudhuri, A.K., 1992, Trace fossils in Middle to late triassic fluvial redbeds, Pranhita-Godavari Valley, South India: Ichnos, v. 2, p. 719.Google Scholar
Savrda, C.E., Blanton-Hooks, A.D., Collier, J.W., Drake, R.A., Graves, R.L., Hall, A.G., Nelson, A.I., Slone, J.C., Williams, D.D., and Wood, H.A., 2000, Taenidium and associated ichnofossils in fluvial deposits, Cretaceous Tuscaloosa Formation, eastern Alabama, southeastern USA: Ichnos, v. 7, p. 227242.Google Scholar
Schlirf, M., Uchman, A., and Kümmel, M., 2001, Upper Triassic (Keuper) non-marine trace fossils from the Hassberge area (Franconia, south-eastern Germany): Paläontologische Zeitschrift, v. 75, p. 7196.Google Scholar
Scotese 2001, Paleomap project. http://www.Scotese.com/K/t.htm (accessed November 2014).Google Scholar
Seilacher, A., 1964, Biogenic sedimentary structures, in Imbrie, J., and Newell, N., eds., Approaches to Paleoecology, New York, John Wiley and Sons, p. 296316.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A., 1967, Bathymetry of trace fossils: Marine Geology, v. 5, p. 413428.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A., and Seilacher, E., 1994, Bivalvian trace fossils: a lesson from actuopaleontology: Courier Forschungsinstitut Institut Senckenberg, v. 169, p. 515.Google Scholar
Shiers, M.N., Mountney, N.P., Hodgson, D.M., and Cobain, S.L., 2014, Depositional controls on tidally influenced fluvial successions, Neslen Formation, Utah, USA: Sedimentary Geology, v. 311, p. 116.Google Scholar
Sisulak, C.F., and Dashtgard, S.E., 2012, Seasonal controls on the development and character of Inclined Heterolithic Stratification in a tide-influenced, fluvially dominated channel: Fraser River, Canada: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 82, p. 244257.Google Scholar
Smith, J.J., Hasiotis, S.T., Kraus, M.J., and Woody, D.T., 2008, Naktodemasis bowni: New Ichnogenus and Ichnospecies for Adhesive Meniscate Burrows (AMB), and Paleoenvironmental Implications, Paleogene Willwood Formation, Bighorn Basin, Wyoming: Journal of Paleontology, v. 82, p. 267278.Google Scholar
Squires, R.L., and Advocate, D.M., 1984, Meniscate burrows from Miocene lacustrine-fluvial deposits, Diligencia Formation, Orocopia Mountains, Southern California: Journal of Paleontology, v. 58, p. 593597.Google Scholar
Stanley, K.O., and Fagerstrom, J.A., 1974, Miocene invertebrate trace fossils from a braided river environment, western Nebraska, USA: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 15, p. 6382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A., and Goldring, R., 1993, Description and analysis of bioturbation and ichnofabric: Journal of the Geological Society, v. 150, no. 1, p. 141148.Google Scholar
Thomas, R.G., Smith, D.G., Wood, J.M., Visser, J., Calverley-Range, E.A., and Koster, E.H., 1987, Inclined heterolithic stratification-terminology, description, interpretation and significance: Sedimentary Geology, v. 53, p. 123179.Google Scholar
Torell, O, 1870, Petrificata Suecana Formationis Cambricae, Lunds, Univ. Arsskr. 6. Avdel. 2, v. 8, p. 114.Google Scholar
Trueman, E.R., 1966, Bivalve mollusks: fluid dynamics of burrowing: Science, v. 152, p. 523525.Google Scholar
Uchman, A., 1995, Taxonomy and palaeoecology of flysch trace fossils: the Marnoso-arenacea Formation and associated facies (Miocene, Northern Apennines, Italy): Beringeria, v. 15, p. 3115.Google Scholar
Vialov, O.S., 1962, Problematica of the Beacon Sandstone at Beacon Height West, Antarctica: New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, v. 5, p. 718732.Google Scholar
Vila, B., Galobart, À., Canudo, J., Le Loeuff, J., Dinarès-Turell, J., Riera, V., Oms, O., Tortosa, T., and Gaete, R., 2012, The diversity of sauropod dinosaurs and their first taxonomic succession from the latest Cretaceous of southwestern Europe: clues to demise and extinction: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 350–352, p. 1938.Google Scholar
Vila, B., Oms, O., Fondevilla, V., Gaete, R., Galobart, À., Riera, V., and Canudo, J.I., 2013, The latest succession of dinosaur tracksites in Europe: hadrosaur ichnology, track production and palaeoenvironments: PloS one, v. 8, p. e72579.Google Scholar
White, D., 1929, Flora of the Hermit Shale, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Publications Carnegie Institution 405, 221 p.Google Scholar
Zenker, J. C., 1836, Historisch-topographisches Taschenbuch von Jena und seiner Umgebung besonders in naturwissenschaftlicher und medizinischer Bezjehung, Wackenhoder, Jena, Germany338 p.Google Scholar
Zonneveld, J.P., Lavigne, J.M., Bartels, W.S., and Gunnell, G.F., 2006, Lunulichnus tuberosus ichnogen. and ichnosp. nov. from the Early Eocene Wasatch Formation, Fossil Butte National Monument, Wyoming: an arthropod-constructed trace fossil associated with alluvial firmgrounds: Ichnos, v. 13, p. 8794.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1 (1) Map of the Tremp-Graus Basin, South-Central Pyrenees, showing the Orcau study area. (2) Orcau field site with the location of the logged section along the Cantals and Carant gullies.

Figure 1

Table 1 Sedimentologic and paleontologic features in the “redbed” facies (Maastrichtian Tremp Formation; modified from Díez-Canseco et al., 2014).

Figure 2

Figure 2 Arenicolites isp. preserved as negative epirelief and full relief at the top of layers: (1) general view of the paired circular openings, field photo, scale bar represents 10 cm; (2) close-up of paired circular openings, field photo, scale bar represents 1 cm; (3) burrow wall and passive fill in thin-section; note the subtle lining and the massive and fine-grained fill (left) contrasting with the host rock (right), microscope photo, scale bar represents 500 μm; (4) cross-section view of a straight and cylindrical arm of the burrow, oriented perpendicular to the bedding plane, DEUC-IC 5, scale bar represents 1 cm.

Figure 3

Figure 3 Loloichnus isp. preserved as full relief: (1) general view of the cylindrical and gently sinuous burrow with knobby surface, field photo, scale bar represents 1 cm; (2) detail of the knobby surface texture on the burrow fill, DEUC-IC 16, scale bar represents 1 cm; (3) burrow wall and fill in thin-section; note the micritic wall (white arrow) and the semicircular sections in the inner wall of the transversal grooves (white dashed lines), microscope photo, scale bar represents 500 μm.

Figure 4

Figure 4 Palaeophycus isp. preserved as full relief at the top of the layers: (1) general view of the cylindrical burrow oriented parallel to the bedding plane, field photo, scale bar represents 5 cm; (2) general view of various specimens oriented gently inclined to the bedding plane; note the circular section and the dust film wall, field photo, scale bar represents 5 cm.

Figure 5

Figure 5 Planolites isp. preserved as full relief: (1, 2) cross-section view of several specimens tubular shaped and oriented parallel to inclined to the bedding plane; note the common overlapping, field photos, scale bar represents 1 cm; (3) burrows displaying circular and cylindrical sections and coarser sized fill contrasting with the finer host rock, field photo, scale bar represents 1 cm; (4) burrow wall and fill (dark patch) in thin-section; note the massive fill and the unlined nature of the wall (arrow), microscope photo, scale bar represents 1 mm; (5) close-up of the active fill showing glauconite grains (white arrows) and foraminifera (black arrows), microscope photo, scale bar represents 500 μm.

Figure 6

Figure 6 Taenidium isp. preserved as full relief: (1) straight to sinuous meniscate burrows of Taenidium barretti type 1. They are variably oriented with respect to the bedding plane; note the circular cross sections and the common overlapping of the specimens, DEUC-IC 10, scale bar represents 1 cm; (2) meniscate burrows of Taenidium barretti type 2 are oriented parallel to the bedding plane, reaching up to 70 cm long, arrows pointing the length of the specimen illustrated, field photo, scale bar represents 15 cm; (3) cross-section view of the meniscate fill of Taenidium barretti. Meniscate fills display similar (type 1) or contrasting (type 2) grain size with respect to the host rock, DEUC-IC 42, scale bar represents 1 cm; (4) Meniscate Taenidium bowni; note the menisci grouped in elliptical shaped packets, field photo, scale bar represents 1 cm.

Figure 7

Figure 7 Photomicrographs in transmitted light with line drawings of Taenidium barretti. Menisci are marked by coloured oxides (larger dashed lines) and by lined grains of quartz (circles); note the unlined wall (shorter dashed lines): (1) Meniscate fill in Taenidium barretti type 1, texturally similar to the host rock, longitudinal view, scale bar represents 1 mm; (2) Meniscate fill in Taenidium barretti type 2, contrasting with the host rock; note the subtle concentric fill when the trace fossil is observed in cross-section view, scale bar represents 1 mm.

Figure 8

Figure 8 Descriptive statistics for the measures of burrow width: (1) distribution of burrow widths grouped by ichnotaxa; note the burrow width ranging from 3 to 28 mm; (2) Interquartile Range (IQR) plotted for each ichnogenus and showing three populations of burrow widths based in the position and size of the IQR; note that “variable” is here synonymous of relative high dispersion of values. Mean is indicated with the black transversal line. Ichnogenera displayed are from the bottom to the top, Palaeophycus, Planolites, Taenidium, Arenicolites, and Loloichnus.

Figure 9

Table 2 Statistical data for the measures of burrow width.

Figure 10

Figure 9 Stratigraphic section of the Maastrichtian “redbeds” of the Tremp Formation at Orcau locality, showing the vertical distribution of biogenic structures and other features: (1) mottling; (2) carbonate nodules; (3) paleosols; (4) root traces; (5) vertebrate tracks; (6) invertebrate burrows (modified from Díez-Canseco et al., 2014). Note invertebrate burrows are indicated in decreasing abundance from left to right.

Figure 11

Figure 10 Incipient Arenicolites produced by Corophium volutator (Pallas, 1766) in intertidal deposits of the Bay of Fundy: (1) paired large oval openings preserved as negative epirelief at the top of the layers; (2) close-up of paired openings; note the similitude with the trace fossil in Figure 4.2; (3) cross-section in the intertidal deposit, showing small U-shaped tubes preserved as full relief (black arrow); (4) detail of the tracemaker, the amphiphod Corophium volutator, scale bar represents 0.5 mm.

Figure 12

Figure 11 Summary model of ichnofaunal distribution in the fluvial-tidal transition of the Tremp Formation. The mixed area and the fluvial-tidal channel are marked in terms of current dominance, whereas ichnology responds to salinity and is controlled by the salinity limit (modified from Buatois et al., 1997; Dalrymple and Choi, 2007; Díez-Canseco et al., 2014; and Shiers et al., 2014).