Jason Brougham | 1 Aug 2012 18:19
Favicon

Yixian Trees

Does anyone know of any data (published or otherwise) on tree trunk diameters from the Yixian Formation?

I know many silicified trunks have been collected, and I have read the data on the occurrences of fossil wood
taxa. But none that I've read mention the diamters. That would be  a first step toward figuring out the
canopy structure. I am thinking in terms of emergents, canopy, and sub canopy plants.

Interestingly, most extant conifer families have members that span from prostrate ground covers to 50
meter canopy trees. Thus foliage alone is of little use in determining whether different taxa were tall or short.

There is the excellent paper:

Howard J. Falcon-Lang and David J. CantrillTerrestrial paleoecology of the Cretaceous (early Aptian)
Cerro Negro Formation, South Shetlands Islands, Antarctica; a record of polar vegetation in a volcanic
arc environment
Palaios(October 2002)

Which suggests that some Early Cretaceous forests had araucarians and podocarps as the canopy trees. But
Yixian also had cheirolepids which, in other habitats, can have trunks 70cm in diameter. I wonder if they
could have been emergents.

Also is anyone familiar with this paper?

Journal of Precious Metallic Geology》 2003-01
STUDY ON THE PALEOECOLOGY OF YIXIAN FORMATION IN BEIPIAO AREA, WESTERN LIAONING PROVINCE, CHINA DING
Qiu-hong, ZHANG Li-dong, GUO Sheng-zhe, ZHANG Chang-jie, PENG Yan-dong, JIA Bin, CHEN Shu-wang, XING
De-he (1. Institute of Resources and Civil Engineering, Northeast University, Shenyang 110004, China;
2. Shenyang Institute of Geology and Mineral Resources, Shenyang 110033, China)  

It suggests four communities based on two diagnostic taxa each, but the abstract does not mention the
distribution of several other common tree species in the Yixian Formation. I assume that the text is only
(Continue reading)

Ben Creisler | 1 Aug 2012 21:54
Picon

Re: Yixian Trees

From: Ben Creisler
bcreisler <at> gmail.com

Unfortunately, the fossil log in this photo is said to come from the
Late Jurassic in Yixian, not the Early Cretaceous. However, it does
give a diameter of 1.5 to 1.9 meters. Clearly big trees existed
earlier.

http://art.people.com.cn/GB/41067/41121/7142516.html

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | 1 Aug 2012 22:05
Picon
Favicon

RE: Yixian Trees

I wonder how secure that date is? Some Chinese paleos once considered the typical Yixian outcrops as Late
Jurassic under out-of-date
stratigraphic considerations, but these same sites were later securely shown to be Early Cretaceous.

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Email: tholtz <at> umd.edu	Phone: 301-405-4084
Office: Centreville 1216			
Senior Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
Dept. of Geology, University of Maryland
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/
Fax: 301-314-9661		

Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars
http://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc
Fax: 301-314-9843

Mailing Address:	Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
			Department of Geology
			Building 237, Room 1117
			University of Maryland
			College Park, MD 20742 USA 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-DINOSAUR <at> usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR <at> usc.edu] 
> On Behalf Of Ben Creisler
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 3:55 PM
> To: dinosaur <at> usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Yixian Trees
> 
> From: Ben Creisler
(Continue reading)

Jason Brougham | 1 Aug 2012 23:47
Favicon

RE: Yixian Trees

Cool, thanks. 1.9 meters in diameter might be comparable to a modern day podocarp standing 30 meters tall.

The tricky part is correlating the wood taxon to the the diameters. In other words, were the largest logs of
Protopodocarpoxylon larger in diameter, on average, than the largest Araucarioxylon from the Yixian? 

I fear no one has done such a correlation, nor published a database of specimens big enough for me to do it.
________________________________________
From: owner-DINOSAUR <at> usc.edu [owner-DINOSAUR <at> usc.edu] on behalf of Ben Creisler [bcreisler <at> gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 3:54 PM
To: dinosaur <at> usc.edu
Subject: Re: Yixian Trees

From: Ben Creisler
bcreisler <at> gmail.com

Unfortunately, the fossil log in this photo is said to come from the
Late Jurassic in Yixian, not the Early Cretaceous. However, it does
give a diameter of 1.5 to 1.9 meters. Clearly big trees existed
earlier.

http://art.people.com.cn/GB/41067/41121/7142516.html

David Marjanovic | 2 Aug 2012 00:46
Picon
Picon

Re: Yixian Trees

> Cool, thanks. 1.9 meters in  diameter might be comparable to a modern
 > day podocarp standing 30 meters tall.

But are such logs preserved in their original 3D shape? Or are they 
squished flat to some degree? The bones from there are almost completely 
flattened after all...

Jason Brougham | 2 Aug 2012 00:56
Favicon

RE: Yixian Trees

>From the photos they seem pretty circular in cross section:

http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/a-few-notes-on-the-preservation-of-the-yixian-formation/imgp3474/

Publications on fossil tree trunks from the much earlier Tiaojishan Formation report that they were
preserved in situ, standing upright, in tuff. So flattening should not be expected as it would if they were
deposited on a bedding plane.

________________________________________
From: owner-DINOSAUR <at> usc.edu [owner-DINOSAUR <at> usc.edu] on behalf of David Marjanovic [david.marjanovic <at> gmx.at]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 6:46 PM
To: DML
Subject: Re: Yixian Trees

> Cool, thanks. 1.9 meters in  diameter might be comparable to a modern
 > day podocarp standing 30 meters tall.

But are such logs preserved in their original 3D shape? Or are they
squished flat to some degree? The bones from there are almost completely
flattened after all...

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | 2 Aug 2012 02:44
Picon
Favicon

Re: Yixian Trees

Easy enough to check. If the major and minor axes of the cross-section
oval are close, they are probably not deformed; if there is a great
disparity, they have been distorted.

Also, check the paleobotanical literature re: calculations of original
diameter vs. height. I am relatively certain I have seen equations to that
effect.

On Wed, August 1, 2012 6:46 pm, David Marjanovic wrote:
>> Cool, thanks. 1.9 meters in  diameter might be comparable to a modern
>  > day podocarp standing 30 meters tall.
>
> But are such logs preserved in their original 3D shape? Or are they
> squished flat to some degree? The bones from there are almost completely
> flattened after all...
>

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Email: tholtz <at> umd.edu	Phone: 301-405-4084
Office: Centreville 1216
Senior Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
Dept. of Geology, University of Maryland
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/
Fax: 301-314-9661

Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars
http://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc
Fax: 301-314-9843

Mailing Address:	Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
(Continue reading)

Paul H. | 6 Aug 2012 03:49
Picon

Re: Yixian Trees

Jason Brougham wrote,

“Does anyone know of any data (published or otherwise) 
on tree trunk diameters from the Yixian Formation?

I know many silicified trunks have been collected, and I 
have read the data on the occurrences of fossil wood taxa. 
But none that I've read mention the diameters. That would 
be  a first step toward figuring out the canopy structure. 
I am thinking in terms of emergents, canopy, and sub 
canopy plants.”

The only papers about fossil trees from the Yixian 
Formation, which I can find, is:

Qiuhong, D., Z.Wu, and Z. Shaolin, 2004, Growth 
rings observed in fossil wood from the Lower 
Cretaceous Yixian Formation in western Liaoning 
Province, China, and their implications. Dizhi Keji 
Qingbao [Geological Science and Technology 
Information]. vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 38-41.
http://159.226.74.2/wxdata/En/Show.asp?id=2849

and “Research on Fossil wood from the Yixian 
formation in western Liaoning Province, China.” in
“Acta Palaeontologica Sinica (vol.39) Supplement -
Contributions to the Sixth Conference of International 
Organization of Palaeobotany (IOPC-VI)
http://www.hceis.com/book.asp?id=7654

(Continue reading)


Gmane