A comparison of crayfish burrow morphologies: Triassic and Holocene fossil, paleo‐ and neo‐ichnological evidence, and the identification of their burrowing signatures

Abstract

The architectural and surficial morphologies of crayfish burrows from the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation and Holocene sediments were compared in order to determine: 1) if Triassic burrows could truly be attributed to crayfish activity; 2) how comparable the burrowing mechanisms are; and 3) whether or not a common set of burrowing signatures could be identified for both ancient and modern freshwater crayfish. Materials used in this study include burrows from the members of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation, casts of modern burrows constructed by Procambarus clarkii Hobbs and Procambarus acutus acutus (Girard) in the laboratory, and casts of naturally constructed modern burrows of Cambarus diogenes di‐ogenes (Girard). Triassic and Holocene crayfish burrow morphologies exhibit simple to complex architectures, varying degrees of branching, chamber, and chimney development. They also exhibit relatively textured surficial morphologies (bioglyphs) such as scrape and scratch marks, mud‐ and lag‐liners, knobby and hummocky surfaces, pleopod striae, and body impressions. Holocene crayfish construct distinctive burrows due to their conservative limb arrangement, functional morphology, and behavior with respect to environmental stimuli. Similarities between Holocene and Triassic crayfish burrows suggest that extant and Triassic crayfish employed identical burrowing mechanisms. Features of the surficial and architectural morphologies impart a distinctive signature to burrows of both ancient and modern freshwater burrowing crayfish. Burrowing signatures of crayfish can be used to identify new and previously misinterpreted continental trace fossils. These are useful in studies of the paleohydrogeology, paleoclimatology and paleoecol‐ogy of burrow‐bearing deposits.