1
Carolyn Carter
Lab 5 & 6 write up
GLG 204
Introduction
To perform the data analysis of fossils, various samples were taken from several sites
around Brookville, Indiana. The first outcrop was the Causeway Outcrop right near Brookville
Lake, this outcrop has two parts: the lower part exposes the Waynesville Formation and the
upper part exposes the Liberty Formation. The next outcrop that we visited were along Route 1
and were also the lower Waynesville, upper Liberty but this outcrop included a separate area
exposing the Whitewater Formation.
The purpose of visiting these sites and collecting data was to determine the species found,
their abundance, and their evenness among the different locations. These things were found
using various graphs and charts discussed later on in the results and discussion sections. The
purpose of this lab was to see what the diversity of the Paleozoic was like.
Methods
The first step at each outcrop was to walk around and see which types of fossils were
abundant in the area and get to know the outcrop. This was done for about 10 minutes at each
location. The next step was to, with a partner, find different types of species and number them
within about a 1 foot by 1 foot cross-sectional area. This was only by their physical appearance,
not yet identifying their respective species. Once the fossil was given a number, it was placed
into a plastic bag, there was a separate bag for each location. In our areas, all of the fossil were
counted. If the species matched one that was already numbered, it was counted as that number.
For example, if a Branching Bryozoan was found first it would have been labeled as a number 1
and then every Branching Bryozoan found after that would be counted as a number 1.
2
The next step was done in lab the next week. The bags of fossils from all 5 locations were
sorted for each of the groups in class. The class was presented with a list A-Z for each species,
for example the Branching Bryozoan was given a letter F. The class worked together to sort out
the species of each fossil and match the fossil with its alphabetical letter. There were a high
number of Brachiopod species throughout the class. These were set aside until the end when the
class was able to go through and determine every species of each brachiopod, these were each
assigned a letter as well.
After lab, each group in the class went through an Excel sheet that had the species listed
and put in the number of each species they found in each outcrop. Here is an example of one
group’s Excel plot:
Letter
s
Group given
s
in lab Species
Waynesvill LibertyeCausewa Waynesvill Liberty Whitewate
Causeway y
e- Rt 1
- Rt 1 r- Rt 1
Group 1
A
Bivalve
1
0
0
0
0
B
Onniella
meeki
76
0
0
22
20
C
Tetraphalerell
a neglecta
4
0
14
20
57
D
Hisobeccus
capax
0
22
4
19
10
E
Crinoid
7
1
0
0
0
F
Branching
Bryozoa
0
0
0
7
6
G
Trepostome
14
33
12
0
14
H
Tentaculites
0
0
0
0
0
I
Encrusting
Bryozoa
0
0
0
0
0
J
Plaesiomys
subquadrata
0
0
4
0
0
K
Rugose Coral
0
0
0
1
0
L
Leptaena
richmondensi
s
0
0
0
0
50
3
M
Hebertella
occidentalis
0
7
4
18
0
N
Coral (on
brachs)
0
2
0
0
0
O
Rafinesquina
sp.
0
33
2
10
0
P
Gastropod
0
0
0
0
0
Q
Glyptorthis
insculpta
0
0
0
5
0
R
Retrosirostra
carleyi
0
4
0
0
0
S
Thaerodonta
clarksvillensis
0
0
0
0
0
T
Trilobite
0
0
0
0
0
U
Zygospira
modesta
0
0
0
0
0
V
Strophomena
sp.
0
0
0
0
0
W
(WW3)
Plectorthis
sp.
0
0
0
0
0
X
Cephalopod
0
0
0
0
0
Y
Onniella
multisecta
0
0
0
0
0
Z
Strophomena
planumbona
0
0
0
0
0
AA
Lepidocyclus
sp.
0
0
0
0
0
BB
Platystrophia
clarksvillensis
0
0
0
0
0
102
102
40
102
157
Group Total
This process was done for all nine groups in the class. The plots were used to find rarefaction
curves next. To find a rarefaction curve, Group 1’s first column would be copy and pasted into
the Notepad feature on the computer and saved as rarefact.txt. Next, the Rarefact application was
opened and asked for the name of the file, “rarefact.txt” (the Notepad document) was typed in
and then it asked for “n specimens” in which the number 10 was typed in. This was saved into
the computer and then through Excel, this could be opened onto a spreadsheet. The first two
columns, number of individuals and number of species, were copied and pasted into a new Excel
4
sheet. This was done for each outcrop for the group and a graph was made with number of
individuals on the X- axis and number of species on the Y- axis for each outcrop.
Results
Pooled Data
WC LC WR1 LR1 WW
A
Bivalve
5
0
B
Onniella meeki
C
Tetraphalerella neglecta
D
Hisobeccus capax
E
Crinoid
48
F
Branching Bryozoa
65 110
G
Trepostome
38 122 150
H
Tentaculites
1
0
0
0
8
I
Encrusting Bryozoa
2
11
28
18
6
J
Plaesiomys subquadrata
0
2
34
30
45
K
Rugose Coral
0
26
10
85
9
L
Leptaena richmondensis
0
3
8
3
50
M
Hebertella occidentalis
0
88
87 209
70
N
Coral (on brachs)
0
6
8
18
0
O
Rafinesquina sp.
0 113
23
26
67
P
Gastropod
0
1
18
Q
28 115
22
473 101
12
3
26
42 218 314
11 112 128
0 250
6
20
57
84 327 135
9
41
85
92 114 135
62 108
25
7
Glyptorthis insculpta
946
4
R
Retrosirostra carleyi
0
37
0
36
0
S
Thaerodonta clarksvillensis
0
31
0
6
0
T
Trilobite
4
1
1
1
2
U
Zygospira modesta
0
0
4
0
38
V
Strophomena sp.
12
0
8 572
0
W (WW3) Plectorthis sp.
0
0
0
0
24
X
Cephalopod
0
2
0
1
4
Y
Onniella multisecta
5
0
0
0
0
Z
Strophomena planumbona
0
13
0
5
0
AA
Lepidocyclus sp.
0
0
37
0
0
BB
Platystrophia clarksvillensis
0
0
1
0
0
Table 1: This is a list of the total number of species found at each outcrop from each group
5
6
Table 2: the names of each species
A
Bivalve
B
Onniella meeki
C
Tetraphalerella neglecta
D
Hisobeccus capax
E
Crinoid
F
Branching Bryozoa
G
Trepostome
H
Tentaculites
I
Encrusting Bryozoa
J
Plaesiomys subquadrata
K
Rugose Coral
L
Leptaena richmondensis
M
Hebertella occidentalis
N
Coral (on brachs)
O
Rafinesquina sp.
P
Gastropod
Q
Glyptorthis insculpta
R
Retrosirostra carleyi
S
Thaerodonta clarksvillensis
T
Trilobite
U
Zygospira modesta
V
Strophomena sp.
W (WW3) Plectorthis sp.
X
Cephalopod
Y
Onniella multisecta
Z
Strophomena planumbona
AA
Lepidocyclus sp.
BB
Platystrophia clarksvillensis
Table 3: Amount of species at each outcrop
7
Figure 6 Pool table with 95% curves
8
9
Discussion
The class looked at samples from Liberty and Waynesville formations at two different
locations but a lot of the time there didn’t seem to be a consistency between the two locations
even though they were the same formation. I noticed on a lot of different group’s censuses there
would be a significantly higher amount of species comparatively at Route 1 or Causeway. For
example, group 1 found a high number of Omniella meeki at the Waynesville Causeway
Formation but none at the Waynesville Route 1. This could have just been from people getting
bored towards the end counting so many different types of Brachiopods and perhaps their
counting got lazier so they missed some. Although some of these species varied, there were some
similarities. For example, group 1 found almost the same amount of Trepostome at both
Waynesville Formations. Besides human error, another problem that was encountered while
doing the census was at the Route 1 Waynesville Formation. The problem here was that a lot of
samples appeared to have washed down from above and it was hard to tell if they actually
belonged in the correct outcrop. These samples could have been miscounted and included within
the wrong outcrop.
My group, group 6, had a similar species diversity as compared to the bulk sample but
not exactly the same. For us, the most diverse outcrop seemed to be Liberty Causeway but
overall, it appeared that the Whitewater Formation was the most diverse. In terms of abundance,
our Liberty Route 1 and Waynesville Causeway were the highest on our rank abundance plot
which is the same as the bulk sample.
The evenness between the Liberty, Waynesville and Whitewater formations varied for
each species. The Whitewater appeared to be the most even but the Liberty and Waynesville had
10
no consistent pattern. The Liberty Causeway was much more even than Liberty Route 1 and the
Waynesville Route 1 was more even than the Waynesville Causeway. Most types of
Brachiopods prefer deeper water which is what the Waynesville and Liberty formations came
from. This could make the species less even because there could have been a very high number
of some species of Brachiopod and then very few other types of species. The Whitewater is the
shallowest so species could have washed up into this region in addition to the species that
already lived there giving the species a more even layout.
There are a lot of different aspects that could affect the changes in the evenness and
diversity of each formation. The location of the formations is the biggest aspect of richness and
evenness because of which kind of sediment is formed in each location and which organisms
prefer which sediment or water depth. Another factor affecting the evenness could have been the
turbidity of the water maybe from different storm events mixing around the species.
Once the species samples are collected, it is important to rarefy the data because it is a
clear way to show each group’s data and make it easy to compare. The rarefaction curves show
the amount of individuals vs. the amount of species for each group so the diversity of each
location can be easily compared to one another. Rarefaction curves are a good way to compare
evenness of species within a location instead of having to go through a bunch of large, confusing
Excel plots.
Conclusion
The importance of this study was to find species abundance between different formations
and that using rarefaction curves is far easier than sifting through large Excel plots. It was also a
chance for the class to learn about different habitats each species lived in and some ways that
11
error could have disrupted some of the data. From the curves and graphs we rarefied, we could
get a feel for the diversity of the species living in the Paleozoic.