The Neoichnology of Juliform Millipedes and Upper Monongahela to Lower Dunkard Group Paleosols: A Multi-Proxy Approach to Paleolandscape Variability A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science Jared J. Bowen December 2013 © 2013 Jared J. Bowen. All Rights Reserved. 2 This thesis titled The Neoichnology of Juliform Millipedes and Upper Monongahela to Lower Dunkard Group Paleosols: A Multi-Proxy Approach to Paleolandscape Variability by JARED J. BOWEN has been approved for the Department of Geological Sciences and the College of Arts and Sciences by Daniel I. Hembree Associate Professor of Geological Sciences Robert Frank Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 ABSTRACT BOWEN, JARED J., M.S., December 2013, Geological Sciences The Neoichnology of Juliform Millipedes and Upper Monongahela to Lower Dunkard Group Paleosols: A Multi-Proxy Approach to Paleolandscape Variability Director of Thesis: Daniel I. Hembree Ichnology and paleopedology are becoming increasingly important to understanding the complexities of continental paleoclimatic, paleoenvironmental, and paleoecological conditions. Forming and behaving in direct response to external conditions, studies of paleosols and the organisms that were interacting with these ancient soils are imperative to making accurate interpretations. In order to further facilitate the understanding of how soils, organisms, and external factors are related, two separate studies were conducted. The first study consisted of an investigation into the morphology of traces produced by two species of extant burrowing millipedes; Narceus americanus and Floridobolus penneri. Biogenic structures produced included vertical, subvertical, helical, O- and J- shaped burrows. By comparing these structures to those of two other juliform millipedes, Orthoporus ornatus and Archispirostreptus gigas, using statistical analyses differences in burrow morphology were attributed to the function of the burrow rather than environmental conditions. The second study consisted of a paleopedologic, ichnologic, and paleontologic investigation into the upper Monongahela and lower Dunkard group paleosols in southeastern Athens County, Ohio. Eight distinct pedotypes were identified based on micro- and macro-morphological features and were interpreted as variations of Vertisols, Inceptisols, Entisols, and a Histosol in a mostly fluvial-dominated, 4 aggradational floodplain. Large lateral and vertical variations in the studied sections were attributed to changes in climatic, topographic, and depositional settings. The results of these studies can be directly applied to understanding ancient continental settings and stresses the importance of combining all available information in order to make educated, accurate, paleoclimatic, paleoenvironmental, and paleoecological interpretations. 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Daniel Hembree for taking me on as his student and teaching me things about paleosols and ichnofossils that I would never have known otherwise, as well as his patience with me while working on this project. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Alycia Stigall and Dr. Gregory Nadon for their suggestions and advise in their areas of expertise. I would like to thank Allison Durkee for her hard work in the field and in the Continental Ichnology Laboratory that made completion of this work possible. I thank the other paleontology graduate students, Hannah Brame and Mike Hils for their advice, discussions, and lending an ear as the scope of this project increased. Additionally, I would like to thank the other graduate students in the department for providing much needed stress relieving activities and support. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their endless support in my desire for higher education and their understanding of my busy schedule. This work would not have been possible without funding from the National Science Foundation (EAR-0844256), the Ohio University Department of Geological Sciences Alumni Graduate Research Grant, and the SEPM Ed Picou Fellowship Grant for Graduate Studies in the Earth Sciences. 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... 5 List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 9 List of Figures ................................................................................................................... 10 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 22 1.1 References ......................................................................................................... 25 2 The Neoichnology of Juliform Millipedes: Burrows of Soil Macrodetritivores ...... 29 2.1 Abstract ............................................................................................................. 29 2.2 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 30 2.3 Millipede Ecology and Behavior ...................................................................... 33 2.4 Materials and Methods ...................................................................................... 37 2.5 Experimental Results ........................................................................................ 45 2.5.1 Behavior ........................................................................................................ 45 2.5.2 Surface Trace Morphology ........................................................................... 58 2.5.3 Burrow Morphology ..................................................................................... 60 2.5.4 Environmental Effects .................................................................................. 77 2.6 Analysis of Burrow Architecture ...................................................................... 78 2.6.1 Burrows of N. americanus ............................................................................ 78 2.6.2 Burrows of F. penneri ................................................................................... 82 2.6.3 Narceus americanus and F. penneri Burrows ............................................... 83 2.6.4 Spirobolid and Spirostreptid Burrows .......................................................... 85 2.6.5 Environmental Conditions and Burrow Morphology ................................... 87 2.7 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 93 2.7.1 Organism and Burrow Morphology .............................................................. 93 2.7.2 Burrow Morphology and Behavior ............................................................... 97 2.7.3 Burrow Morphology and Sediment Properties ........................................... 101 2.7.4 Millipede Burrows: Function and Similarity .............................................. 102 2.8 Significance .................................................................................................... 104 7 2.8.1 Recognition of Juliform Millipede Burrows in the Fossil Record .............. 104 2.8.2 Paleontologic and Paleoecologic Significance ........................................... 106 2.8.3 Paleopedologic and Paleoenvironmental Significance ............................... 109 2.9 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 112 2.10 References ....................................................................................................... 115 3 A Multi-Proxy Approach to Complex Variability in Ancient Terrestrial Landscapes . ................................................................................................................................. 124 3.1 Abstract ........................................................................................................... 124 3.2 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 125 3.3 Geologic Setting ............................................................................................. 129 3.4 Methodology ................................................................................................... 136 3.5 Stratigraphy and Sedimentology ..................................................................... 139 3.5.1 Upper Monongahela Group ........................................................................ 140 3.5.2 Lower Dunkard Group ................................................................................ 143 3.6 Continental Ichnology of the Uppermost Monongahela and Lower Dunkard Groups ........................................................................................................................ 145 3.6.1 Rhizoliths .................................................................................................... 148 3.6.2 Animal-Soil Interactions ............................................................................. 158 3.6.3 Coprolites ...................................................................................................