2...: a. v Linn. .1 :3: )i: . «1.... 13s :9 .3. 5. O l .n. .2 .1; l :92: d... I... :5. a :5... . exzhsswf. l!‘..\~rl V .. £51... A. (2...... . 2... A rim. .. 1: 1 ‘ t g IlllHilllll’llllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllll 3 1293 01410 243 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Quantitative Taphonomic Analysis, Classification and Correlation of Kope Formation Limestones (Cincinnatian Series, Upper Ordovician), Cincinnati Arch Region presented by Ann Catherine Purdy has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctoral degree in Phi 105(3th //Amia Major professor Date MW /£(/ /?7f MSU i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLAOE a RETURN sex to man this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU I: An Affirmative ActioNEqud Opportunity Imitation WW1 QUANTITATIVE TAPHONOMIC ANALYSIS, CLASSIFICATION AND CORRELATION OF KOPE FORMATION LIMESTONES (CINCINNATIAN SERIES, UPPER ORDOVICIAN), CINCINNATI ARCH REGION By Ann Catherine Purdy A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Geological Sciences 1995 ABSTRACT QUANTITATIVE TAPHONOMIC ANALYSIS, CLASSIFICATION AND CORRELATION OF KOPE FORMATION LIMESTONES (CINCINNATIAN SERIES, UPPER ORDOVICIAN), CINCINNATI ARCH REGION By Ann Catherine Purdy The interbedded limestones and mudstones of the Upper Ordovician Kope Formation represent mixed carbonate-elastic deposition on a storm-dominated, intracratonic ramp. Despite the structural simplicity of the strata and the abundance of diverse, well preserved fossil material, the Kope limestone beds and the faunal assemblages they contain have a complex taphonomic and sedimentologic history. Superficially similar deposits can be produced in any of the high-energy environments in storm-dominated systems. The similarity of texture and bedding style produced by high- energy deposition or reworking can obscure depth-related facies associations. Classification of the limestones on both taphonomic and sedimentological criteria facilitates the interpretation of beds that exhibit a range of characteristics, yet are still associated with Similar facies. Taphonomic analysis is also sensitive to subtle variation within texturally similar beds, that may actually reflect different facies associations. The Kope Formation contains a range of limestone types that may be categorized into eleven taphonomically distinct groups. The taphonomic variation between the groups reflects a range of depth/energy-intensity conditions that existed within the Kope environment. In this study, comparasions between taxonomic groups indicates that differences in skeletal composition, complexity, density, size and Shape-related hydrodynamic properties results in different susceptibilities to biostratinomic processes. Comparative taphonomic analysis of all taxonomic components within a polytaxic assemblage provides greater insight into the history of the fossil assemblage and conditions of the depositional environment. Quantitative taphonomic analysis allows for the genetic classification of limestone beds, providing insight into the biostratinomic history of the fossil assemblages, as well as the environmental factors that contributed to the variation between the beds. Dispite limited exposure and lateral discontinuity of the beds, quantitative taphonomic analysis and genetic classification of the Kope limestones facilitates stratigraphic correlation across the study area. To Joshua Boice Nielsen ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Robert Anstey and the members of my committee Duncan Sibley, Ralph Taggart and particularly Danita Brandt, for their constructive suggestions and helpful input during manuscript review. I also wish to thank Robert Sachs for his invaluable contribution of time and expertise with statistical analysis and program modification, and Douglas Card for his assistance with photography and manuscript preparation. Thanks also to my family and friends who have provided me with encouragement and support throughout all my endeavors. Financial assistance for this project was provided by Cheveron-Standard Oil Field Oriented Research grants, and a grant from the Michigan Mineral Society. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ ix LISTOFFIGURES ............................................................................................ x INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 Previous Work ....................................................................................... 1 Purpose ................................................................................................... 3 Taphonomy ............................................................................................. 3 Methods .................................................................................................. 7 Data Base and Statistical Analysis ............................................................ lO GEOLOGICBACKGROUND ............................................................................ 1 6 Geologic Setting ...................................................................................... l6 Cyclicity .................................................................................................. l8 Shoaling Sequences ................................................................................. 18 Depositional Cycles .................................................................................. 21 Bedding Cycles ........................................................................................ 24 Stratigraphy of the Study Interval ............................................................. 25 Lithology ................................................................................................. 25 Storm Beds Within the Kope Formation ................................................... 27 ANALYSIS OF TAPHONOMIC DATA ........................................................... 29 Taphonomic Alteration of Taxonomic Groups ........................................... 29 Breakage ................................................................................................. 31 Abrasion .................................................................................................. 34 Sorting .................................................................................................... 37 vi Sorting as a Function of Shape ................................................................. 39 Discussion of Taphonomic Alteration within Taxonomic Groups .............. 42 Summary .................................................................................................. 48 FACTOR ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 51 Results .................................................................................................... 51 Interpretation ........................................................................................... 52 CLUSTER ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 60 Results of Cluster Analysis ....................................................................... 61 Cluster 1 .................................................................................................. 61 Cluster 2 .................................................................................................. 63 Cluster 3a ................................................................................................ 64 Cluster 3b ................................................................................................ 64 Cluster 3c ................................................................................................ 65 Cluster 4 .................................................................................................. 65 Cluster 5 .................................................................................................. 66 Cluster 6 .................................................................................................. 66 Cluster 7 .................................................................................................. 67 Cluster 8 .................................................................................................. 67 Cluster 9 .................................................................................................. 68 Distribution of Clusters on Factor Axis ..................................................... 68 F acies Associations of Cluster Groups ....................................................... 72 Deeper-Water Facies ................................................................................ 73 Shallower-Water Facies ............................................................................ 77 vii GRADIENT ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 88 Results .................................................................................................... 88 Distribution of Beds Within Sections ......................................................... 92 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................... 103 Cyclicity in the Kope Formation ............................................................... 103 Stratigraphic Correlation ........................................................................... 104 Temporal Scale and Causes of Cyclicity .................................................... 107 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 1 09 Future Work ............................................................................................. 110 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 112 APPENDIX A - Data Base ................................................................................. 119 APPENDIX B - Data Transformations and Z-scores ............................................. 145 APPENDIX C - Factor Analysis .......................................................................... 156 APPENDIX D - Cluster Analysis ......................................................................... 163 APPENDIX E - Detrended Correspondence Analysis .......................................... 176 APPENDIX F - Locations of Measured Sections ................................................. 189 viii 99’!” \) LIST OF TABLES Taphonomic characteristics considered in this study ..................................... 6 Sedimentologic characteristics recorded for each bed .................................... 7 Taphonomic characteristics (within Taxon) recorded for each sample ............ 10 Susceptibility of skeletal material to Biostratinomic processes ....................... 30 Comparison of relative levels of breakage, abrasion and size-sorting in 178 beds with mixed bryozoan-brachiopod assemblages ............................. 45 Factor Analysis .............................................................................................. 52 . Relationship of taphonomic cluster groups to depth / intensity gradients .......... 75 ix LIST OF FIGURES 1. Study area and locations of measures sections of the Kope Formation ............... 8 2. Paleolatitude and depositional environments of Eastern North America ............ 17 3. Approximate relationships of major stratigraphic units in Cincinnatian Region. 19 4. Three orders of cyclicity preserved within Cincinnatian strata ........................... 20 5. Lithotype interpretation of Shoaling-upward sequences in the Cincinnatian Series ................................................................................................................ 22 6. Comparison of "average" carbonate/shale hemicycles from Cincinnatian Formations ...................................................................................................... 23 7. Vertical sequence of fining upward lithologies and sedimentary structures associated with storn deposits .......................................................................... 26 8. Comparison of breakage levels exhibited in the major taxonomic groups within KopeAssemblages ............................................................................................ 33 9. Comparison of abrasion levels exhibited in the major taxonomic groups within Kope Assemblages .......................................................................................... 36 10. Comparison of sorting tendencies by taxonomic group .................................... 38 l 1. Comparison of sorting tendencies by Shape ..................................................... 41 12. Comparison of variables based on ranking across the cluster groups ............... 62 13. Distribution of cluster groups (mean values) on factor axes ............................. 70 14. Example of a Cluster Group 3c bed ................................................................ 78 15. Example of a Cluster Group 6 bed ................................................................. 79 16. Example of a Cluster Group 8 bed ................................................................ 78 17. Example of a Cluster Group 1 bed ................................................................. 81 18. Example of a Cluster Group 5 bed ................................................................ 84 19. Example of a Cluster Group 2 bed ................................................................. 85 20. Example of a Cluster Group 3b bed ................................................................ 86 21. Example of a Cluster Group 4 bed ................................................................. 87 22. R-Mode distribution of variables on detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) axes 1 and 2 ...................................................................................... 89 23. Q-Mode distribution of beds on detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) axes 1 and 2 ...................................................................................... 91 24. Q-Mode distribution of beds from the Sandfordtown section on (DCA) axes 1 and 2 ........................................................................................................ 94 25. Q-Mode distribution of beds from the North Brent section on (DCA) axes 1 and 2 ....................................................................................................... 96 26. Q-Mode distribution of beds from the South Brent section on (DCA) axes 1 and 2 ........................................................................................................ 98 27. Q-Mode distribution of beds from the Mount Airy section on (DCA) axes 1 and 2 ........................................................................................................ 100 28 Q-Mode distribution of beds from the Miamitown section on (DCA) axes 1 and 2 ........................................................................................................ 101 29. Stratigraphic correlation of depth/intensity cycles across the study area ........... 106 xi INTRODUCTION Previogg Work The interlayered limestones and shales of the Upper Ordovician Cincinnatian Series have received the attention of geologists for more than a century (for historical review see Weiss and Norman, 1960). While the early work was generally descriptive in nature (e.g. Nickles, 1902; Cumings, 1908), the mixed carbonate / elastic units and the well preserved fauna within them have continued to be the focus of many studies. The original subdivision of the relatively repetitive limestone and shale layers within the type Cincinnatian was based on distinctive faunal differences within the limestones. The acceptance of the Code of Stratigraphic Nomenclature in 1961 required that stratigraphic units be defined on lithologic, rather than paleontologic criteria. Interest in the Cincinnatian Series was renewed as the traditional formation boundaries were redefined according to lithologic parameters (e.g. Weiss and Sweet, 1964; Brown and Lineback, 1966; Peck, 1966). At this same period of time, developments in the field of carbonate petrography brought about by the work of Folk (1959 and 1962) and Dunham (1962), encouraged petrographic reevaluation of the Cincinnatian limestones (Weiss and Norman, 1960b; Wetzel, 1968; Farber, 1968; Martin, 1975; Hay et. a1., 1981; Wier et a1., 1984). As the field of paleoecology developed in the 1970's, several studies attempted to describe the distribution, structure and succession of paleocommunities preserved within the fossiliferous units of the Cincinnatian (e.g. Lorenz, 1973; MacDaniel, 1976; Harris and Martin, 1979). While much of this work initially appeared fruitful, advances in the and taphonomy (e.g. Schindel, 1980; Kidwell et al., 1986; Brandt, 1989) have resulted in the reevaluation of the original conclusions of these early studies. The highly disturbed nature of Cincinnatian limestones has been widely recognized (Anstey and Fowler, 1969; Meyer et al., 1981; Harrison, 1984; Tobin and Pryor, 1985). A significant proportion, if not the majority of the limestone beds may be interpreted as event beds. Despite the abundant, well-preserved fossil material they contain, the taphonomic complexity of the limestone beds has made paleoecological analysis of these units extremely difficult. Over the past two decades, paleontologic studies conducted within the Cincinnatian Series have focused on a wide range of subjects that include the autecology (e.g. Anstey and Perry, 1973; Alexander, 1975; Frey, 1980) and biostratinomy (e.g. Brandt, 1980; Meyer etal., 1981) of the predominant faunal groups within these rocks. Various aspects of the sedimentology of Cincinnatian strata have been examined. Lithologies associated with sedimentary environments that range from deep water to supratidal have been described within the Cincinnatian. The complexity and number of the event beds preserved in the Cincinnatian (Anstey and Fowler, 1969; Meyer et al., 1981; Tobin, 1982;) are attributable to storm processes (eg. Kreisa and Bambach, 1982; Aigner, 1985) and multiple episodes of reworking. The cyclic nature of the lithologies in the Cincinnatian Series has been the focus of investigation. Several studies have offered interpretations of the causes and mechanisms that produced the Shoaling cycles and depositional sequences found within the Cincinnatian; and to the stratigraphic correlation of those sequences (eg. Tobin, 1982; Jennette and Pryor, 1993; Holland, 1993). Purpose Although the structural simplicity of the flat lying strata and the abundance of diverse, well-preserved fossil material initially made the Cincinnatian limestones appealing targets for paleoecological study, the recognition of the complex taphonomic history of these limestone beds has made interpretation of the faunal assemblages extremely difficult. Over the past decade, developments in the field of taphonomy have resulted in a reevaluation of the nature and range of paleoecological and biostratinomic information that may be preserved within fossiliferous assemblages (Springer and Bambach, 1985; Kidwell and Aigner, 1985; Kidwell 1982; 1986; Brandt, 1989; Meldahl and Flessa, 1989). The limestones of the Kope Formation, like the majority of Cincinnatian limestones, have strong hydrodynamic and taphonomic overprints, making paleoecological interpretation, without taphonomic analysis, impossible. Taphonomy Simply defined, taphonomy is the study of all of the processes, biological, sedimentological and diagenetic, that are involved in the accumulation, preservation and alteration of biogenetic material. Taphonomic processes may be separated into two broad categories. The first is the field of biostratinomy, which involves all of the processes in the sedimentary environment that may affect biogenetic material between the death of an organism and its final burial. The second group of taphonomic processes are those that affect biogenetic material after burial. These processes include fossilization and diagenetic alteration. This study focuses on the biostratinomic process that contributed to the accumulation of the biogenetic material preserved within the limestones of the Kope Formation. Biostratinomic processes are primarily physical, or mechanical processes that generally occur in the following sequential order; 1) in situ reorientation of skeletal material followed by disarticulation through decay of connective tissue; 2) subsequent breakage and corrosion resulting from bioerosion and/or dissolution during preburial exposure on the sea floor; 3) further fragmentation and abrasion brought about through winnowing and transport by waves and currents prior to final deposition and burial. Any preserved accumulation of biogenetic material will Show evidence of the biostratinomic processes that acted on that material prior to and during final burial. The effects of these processes will vary along environmental gradients. The duration of preburial exposure, as well as the amount and intensity of reworking and transport, are dependent on conditions within the environment in which the material accumulates. Therefore, the condition of the bioclasts and the final orientation and fabric of the skeletal material preserved in a fossil assemblage will depend on chemical conditions at the sediment / water interface, water depth, and the nature and intensity of bottom energy, as well as the background sedimentation rate (Johnson, 1960; Brett and Baird; 1986; Kidwell et al., 1986; Kidwell, 1986; Speyer and Brett, 1987; Brandt, 1989). The interbedded limestones and shales of the Kope Formation span the entirety of the first progradational cycle (discussed below) within the Cincinnatian Series. These deposits formed during the highest stand of the Cincinnatian Sea and represent deposition in the deepest-water environment preserved within the five sequences (Holland, 1993). The amount of bottom energy, frequency of reworking and degree of amalgamation of beds corresponds to water depth (Norris, 1986; Speyer and Brett, 1988). Particularly in a storm-dominated ramp environment, the deeper the water, the greater is the likelihood that a bed will be preserved. Therefore, the greatest variety and maximum number of discrete event, as well as fair weather, beds preserved within the Cincinnatian Series, should be contained within the Kope Formation. Previous studies, as well as field observation of overlying Cincinnatian strata support this premise (Tobin, 1982; Rabbio, 1988; Jennette and Pryor, 1993). Although this study focuses on the limestones of the Kope Formation, the object of the study is to develop a systematic method for quantitative taphonomic analysis that may be applied to a broad range of fossil assemblages, but is sensitive enough to differentiate subtle difference between assemblages of the same taphonomic grade ( sensu Brandt, 1989). The goal of this analysis will be (1) to determine the nature and relative intensity of the forces that acted on the skeletal material in the sedimentary environment, and to assess the degree in which the variation evidenced in the fossilized assemblages reflects those forces; (2) to determine how taphonomic processes affected the primary components of the biota; (3) to identify key features that may be useful indicators of the taphonomic history of an assemblage; and (4) to develop a genetic classification approach that reflects the taphonomic history of a limestone bed. Once the taphonomic history of a fossil assemblage is understood, it is possible to assess the nature and range of paleontological, paleoecological and sedimentological information that may be retrieved from the assemblage or limestone bed. The purpose of this study is to develop a quantitative approach for the analysis and genetic classification of taphonomically complex fossil assemblages. This approach entails viewing skeletal material as authigenic sedimentary particles (sensu Meldahl and Flessa, 1990). In this study, the sedimentologic characteristics of the Kope limestone beds and the taphonomic attributes of the fossil assemblages contained within them (Table 1) were analyzed. An attempt was then made to determine the environmental factors that contributed to the variation of the taphonomic properties reflected in the beds. The vertical distribution of limestones of differing taphonomic type was also examined, and used as the basis for a paleoenvironmental facies model, that is compared beam £5 E 820238 8332885 0388:an ; mqmfir SE 58:2 82 583.5. 531.2% 23. .655 ME 5203 a. .685 55 .=8..._.5 £2 .33 a. .35 £2 .85 a seam as: .655 $2 328m £2 .35 a seam some .830. £2 .mEoz awe cease $2 .5858 a. sea. $3.223 33 .8552 £2 .35 a. exam 8.: .88on ”£2 .85 a seam $2 5.3m SE 835. com— .:cm_Eo_. 63— 58th $3 £8382 6mg £0230— ”82 £822 55 5835 MEREEB 8 02mg ”28 8:85:83 casewxomm conga: can mac—833 383 $82880 3.25 SE: 05898 8 Ewan: zoo—mom 8289.80 25 099 .328: :o 8:096 353383 3.283 3:239: ”2838.80 RES 8988 £28.83 8 28 ”3:3 8 23a: soocum 8283.3 con 8 83a: .83 .8 cozaanEEm 95 820358 60:32:08 ”33832 8 teams“: u>a3 8 82.50 82885 32.853 5983 eunuch—vocab.— .oSmoaxo cameo—ca .mExEBB 82.50 can 053 .835 .8 2:82 8283?: 98 ton—mam: $539.53 93823 8258538 82383 .m> .._au_:m:ooE.. 828% 3332888 238299: :0 809.38 03 OER—cum ennui—3083* 83888 Esme—coo ”mac—832 5:82 888m acumen? owmxaem 25mm :ocficecoOm wfitom 32m .8805 whfl .sfiflam Amway seem? a. =OBEM 228:0on 82:28.83 ” 82.288 35:30.8»: coEmanoU ”£2 48269 ”$2 gnu—30m a. 863‘ 589688 .8 858980 8538 388”. egocoxfl. 805.08% Ban—om Sconces outgoing. 223m to other taphofacies and sedimentary facies models proposed for the Kope Formation and other Cincinnatian and shallow shelf / ramp environments. Methods To generate the data used in this study, samples of 232 limestone beds collected in situ from five measured sections within the Kope Formation were examined. The geographic locations of the measured sections are shown on Figure 1. Petrographic and taphonomic information was obtained from 172 polished slabs and 325 acetate peels. Observations were made, and information recorded pertaining to thirteen taphonomically significant characteristics for each bed (Table 2). Table 2: Sedimentologic Characteristics Recorded for Each Bed Bed Thickness Allochem Size coarse) 5m: Lower Contact 925ml: Cross lamination Primary Matrix Secondag Matrix Percent Matrix & Bioturbation Fossil Assemblage Amalgamation evident (cm) (fine,mediurn-fine, medium, medium-coarse, (poor, moderately poor, moderate, moderately well, well ) ( gradational, sharp, undulose) ( none, fining upward, coarsening upward, multitrend) ( present, absent) ( mud, silt, ooze, micrite, microspar,spar) ( if present) (>90%; 75-90%; 50-75%; <50%) (>50%, 50-20%; 20-10%; 10-5%; <5%) (none,minimal-confined to top of bed, moderate, extensive-bedding obscured) (monotaxic/ polytaxic) (yes / no) The bed-specific variables included both nominal variables such as presence or absence of grading or cross lamination, the nature of the lower contact, matrix composition, and whether the allochemical component was monotaxic or polytaxic, as 1-275 Kentucky ‘0 ‘0‘" Florence 2 l - 75 IO ‘5'! Rte. 8 Ohio River Figure 1: Study area and locations of measures sections of the Kope Formation (1- North Brent; 2- Sanfordtown; 3- Mt. Airy; 4- Miamitown; 5- South Brent) well as ordinal variables such as bed thickness (measured in centimeters), and ranked values for allochem size, sorting and percent matrix. Ranked values (1= fine through 5 = coarse) were assigned for allochem size based on the average or most frequently occurring (mode) size of the bioclasts within the bed. Similarly, ranked values (1= poor through 5 = very well) were assigned for the degree of size sorting exhibited within the bed. The classification of these attributes was adapted from Folk (1974). The percent silt and matrix were determined petrographically (see Folk, 1962; Dunham, 1962). A ranked value (1 = >90% through 4 = <50%) was assigned for percent matrix and a ranked value ( 1= >50% through 5 = <5% ) was assigned for the percent silt observed. The allochems within the beds were broadly grouped at phylum or class level and by shape categories that presumably reflect similar hydrodynamic properties. The vast majority (91%) of the beds contained fossil assemblages that were polytaxic. Preliminary observation of these assemblages indicated that evidence of taphonomic effects (eg. breakage, abrasion, orientation, etc.) varied between the taxonomic groups within the same assemblage. Therefore, each taxonomic group present in the bed was evaluated and values for taphonomically significant variables were recorded for each taxonomic group present in the assemblage. Based on the observed condition of the skeletal material, each taxon within the assemblage was assigned a numerical score for all quantifiable variables (Table 3). Taxon-specific data, recorded for each taxon observed in the assemblage, included the nominal variables 1) taxon , 2) predominant shape category and 3) secondary shape category (if any); and ordinal variables such as l) the relative abundance of the taxon (based on point count), 2) the size range of individuals within each taxon (measurement of maximum and minimum size); and ranked variables that reflected 1) the overall degree of sorting within the taxon (very-poor = 1, poor =1.5, moderately-poor = 10 2, moderate = 2.5, moderately-well = 3, well = 3.5,very well = 4); 2) the percentage of specimens exhibiting reorientation (parallel alignment or concordance sensu Kidwell, 1986; Brandt, 1989) (<10% = l, 10%-50% = 2, 50%-75% = 3, >75% = 4); 3) depositional fabric (random = 0, random/concordant = 0.5, concordant = 1, concordant/oblique = 1.5, oblique = 2, oblique/perpendicular = 3, clustered/nested = 4); 4) the average state of disarticulation and breakage (unbroken and/or fully articulated = 1, minimal peripheral = 1.5, disarticulated or broken at suture (bryozoans) = 2.0, minor internal breakage = 2.5, internal breakage = 3, extensive = 3.5, and fragmented = 4); and 5) the percentage of the abraded specimens observed within that taxonomic group (<10% =1, 10%-205% = 1.5, 20%-40% = 2, 40%-50% = 2.5, 50%-60% = 3, 60%-80% = 3.5, >80% = 4). Table 3: Taphonomic Characteristics (within taxon) Recorded for Each Sample Taxon (phylum/class) Abundance (approximate %) Small Size ( smallest individuals present) Large Size ( largest individuals present) Sorting ( uniformity of size within taxon) Shape l ( predominant shape category - branching, platey, discoidal, concavo/convex,semi-spheroidal.solid- cylindrical,hollow-cylindrical, elongate or "stick -like") Shape 2 ( secondary shape category, if any. See list above) Reorientation (percentage of taxon oriented parallel to bedding) Fabric (nature of reorientation within the bed: random, concordant, oblique, imbricated) Disarticulation (articulated and! or unbroken, disarticulated and/or minimal & Breakage peripheral, disarticulated, minor internal, internal, extensive, fragmented) Abrasion (percentage of taxon with observed abrasion Data Base and Statistical Analysis The bed and taxon-specific information detailed above was compiled into a data base (Appendix A). The sedimentological and taphonomic data were then analyzed to ll determine general characteristics of the Kope limestones beds. Most of the limestone beds within the Kope Formation are of low taphonomic grade (Grades C and D of Brandt (1989)), yet still exhibit a visible range of variation. One of the objects of this study is to characterize the variation within limestones of similar taphonomic grade, and determine if the degree of variation may be useful in determining relatively small scale variations in biostratinomic process that may in turn reflect interpretable changes in environmental conditions. In preliminary observations of the Kope limestones, it was noted that while the beds were generally of similar taphonomic grade, the bioclasts within many of the beds exhibited a range of taphonomic alteration. In some polytaxic assemblages, it was observed that bioclasts of one taxonomic group often exhibited a different degree of breakage, abrasion, reorientation or sorting than bioclasts from another taxonomic group. Possible explanations for the observed variation in taphonomic alteration between taxonomic groups within the same bed could be 1) different exposure and/or transport history; 2) reworking and mixing of material during storm events ; or 3) different susceptibilities based on skeletal shape, composition, or other taxon specific properties, to sedimentary processes. All three scenarios are possible, and each has very different paleoecological and sedimentological implications. To address this question, comparisons were made of the observed condition for each of the taphonomic variables listed in Table 3 between each taxon present in a bed, and between all other occurrences of that taxon. The number of beds in the study ( N= 232) was large enough that an "average" or typical condition for each of the taphonomic variables (Table 3) could be determined for each taxonomic group. The taphonomic condition of each taxon within in a given bed could then be compared to the "average" for that taxon. If a bed contained a polytaxic assemblage where all taxa exhibited a 12 relatively similar degree of taphonomic alteration (based on within taxon comparisons) then it may not be unreasonable to assume a similar exposure history for both groups (case 3 above). If a polytaxic assemblage was comprised of material where specimens of one taxonomic group exhibited less taphonomic alteration than average, while specimens of another taxonomic group exhibited significantly more alteration than average for their respective taxonomic groups, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the two groups had a different exposure and / or transport history (case 1, or possibly case 2 above). A range of taphonomic alteration exhibited within specimens of the same taxon (some specimens exhibit significantly more degradation than average and some significantly less) may indicate a mixed assemblage of reworked material (case 2). In this study, variation in the extent of taphonomic effects between the different taxonomic groups was examined first. The reasons for analyzing each taxonomic group separately were; 1) To establish a standard by which to measure variance in within group alteration as discussed above. 2) To develop a method for taphonomic characterization of polytaxic beds. The overall characterization of a bed may be quite different if it is classified based on the taphonomic characteristics of one taxon alone, as opposed to a comprehensive, comparative approach that considers the degree of taphonomic alteration of all taxa within the bed. 3) To determine if certain taxa were more reliable indicators of particular taphonomic processes than others, so that, assuming those processes were discernible, the state of alteration within that group might serve as an index for characterizing the taphonomic history of the bed. 4) To determine the reliability and constraints upon comparisons between beds of different taxonomic composition. For example, can a bed composed of well sorted, disarticulated ostracod valves, with 20% to 40% of the valves showing abrasion, be 13 compared to a bed composed of well sorted, disarticulated crinoid columnals, with 20% to 40% of the columnals showing evidence of abrasion? Do these beds reflect the same type and intensity of biostratinomic processes? Is it possible to determine if similar environmental and sedimentological conditions are reflected in a bed composed of imbricated brachiopod valves and one composed of ramose bryozoan colonies with less than 50% exhibiting parallel alignment? These concerns need to be addressed before comparisons between beds of different taxonomic composition are made, or affiliation with a particular taphofacies or set of environment conditions inferred. Preliminary analysis of taphonomic alteration between the taxonomic groups within the polytaxic assemblages (see taphonomic alteration of taxonomic groups below) indicated that an across-taxa, comparative approach to taphonomic characterization of the beds was warranted for taphonomic classification. To use this comparative approach, it was necessary to determine the average value of a taphonomic variable for each taxon (as discussed above), then determine the degree of variation from average that was displayed by the observed specimens of that taxon within each bed. To this end, averages were computed for all variables for each taxon and Z-scores were generated (Appendix B) for every taxon present in each bed. Z Score = Data value - Mean Standard Deviation The standardized scores for each taxa were then summed and averaged within each bed in order to obtain a single aggregate value for each taxon-specific variable within the bed. These normalized values, combined with bed-specific variables were utilized in the taphonomic classification (cluster and gradient analysis) of the beds. 14 In an attempt to illuminate underlying causes of the taphonomic variation between beds, R-mode factor analysis was performed on the data. This ordination technique utilizes correlations between a larger number of observable variables, to produce a pattern that may reflect a smaller, more interpretable number of underlying factors responsible for the variation in the data. This statistical method is a useful interpretive tool in large data sets, such as the one generated in this study, that have a limited range of variation (Gauch, 1991). Q- mode cluster analysis was performed as an exploratory technique to delineate patterns of similarity between the samples ( beds) in the data set. The cluster analysis used unweighted pair-group method to link clusters. Cluster analysis is a widely used classification technique. It has been used successfully in other studies dealing with taphonomic data (Meldahl and Flessa, 1990; Miller and Cummings, 1990; Springer and Bambach, 1985). Although the method has a tendency to obscure gradational relationships and overlap within the data , it is an effective and appropriate classification technique for both numeric and ranked data. Because of the tendency for cluster analysis to produce artificial discontinuities within continuous data, gradient analysis was used as a complimentary ordination technique along with factor and cluster analysis. Ordination techniques more accurately reflect gradual transitions and overlap within samples than classification techniques. Gradient analysis was developed to relate community composition (species abundance) to environmental variation (Ter Braak, 1986 and 1987; Whittaker, 1987; Hill and Gauch, 1980). Q-mode gradient analysis was used as a confirmatory canonical technique for the cluster analysis. R-mode gradient analysis was utilized as a complimentary canonical technique to factor analysis. Similar complimentary and/or confirmatory use of 15 classification and ordination techniques are not uncommon (e.g. Miller and Cummings, 1990; Springer and Bambach, 1985; Gauch 1991). Statistical analysis of the data was performed using SPSS for cluster analysis and factor analysis. Gradient analysis was performed using the detrended correspondence analysis program DECORANA (Hill, 1979). The original fortran program was modified (by increasing the size of the dimensioned arrays) to accommodate the large data base generated in this study. 15 classification and ordination techniques are not uncommon (e. g. Miller and Cummings, 1990; Springer and Bambach, 1985; Gauch 1991). Statistical analysis of the data was performed using SPSS for cluster analysis and factor analysis. Gradient analysis was performed using the detrended correspondence analysis program DECORANA (Hill, 1979). The original fortran program was modified (by increasing the size of the dimensioned arrays) to accommodate the large data base generated in this study. 16 GEOLOGIC BACKGROUND 99.1mm In the Ordovician, a broad carbonate platform covered the North American midcontinent. At that time, the eastern portion of continent was located at approximately 20° S latitude, and was rotated several degrees dextrally from its present orientation (Scotese and McKerrow, 1991). In the Early Middle Ordovician, subduction of the Iapetus ocean resulted in the emergence of the Taconic Highlands. Erosion of the highlands produced a prograding wedge of elastic sediments resulting in a broad band of mixed carbonate and clastic deposition in the midcontinent area, between the highlands in the southeast and the clearwater deposits still forming further to the north and west (Weir, Swadley and Pojeta, 1984) (Figure 2). Thrust loading associated with the Taconic Orogen produced the Appalachian F oreland Basin and uplifted the Cincinnati Arch 'as a peripheral bulge (Beaumont et al., 1988). As the zone active tectonism shifted from the southern Appalachians into eastern Pennsylvania during Middle Ordovician time, a topographic high, interpreted as representing the incipient Cincinnati Arch, was propagated northward from Tennessee into Kentucky (Jennette and Pryor, 1992). A carbonate shoal known as the Tanglewood Bank developed in central Kentucky (Cressman, 1973). Coarse bioclastic carbonate accumulated on the shoal, while silts and muds, representing deeper-water deposition, were deposited further out on the gently northward-dipping intracratonic ramp. The Lexington Limestone, which underlies the Cincinnatian Kope Formation, represents carbonate accumulation on the shoal (Cressman, 1973). In the Late Ordovician, deepening occurred which resulted in the drowning of the shoal, and the subsequent deposition of the siliciclastic muds, silts, and deeper water LLLBBLg‘. L. LLLLLL Land 20': .06 V 9‘9 V 0 350 SN no KILOMEWIS i 1 I r l ‘ o no 500 was EXPLANATION fl Sandstone. elk-tone, Dolomite. shale. and and shale ltmcnoac Sh.“ "'4 “""m" E Limestone and shale [Lu 1 Shale and llmcuonc Figure 2: Paleolatitude and depositional environments of Eastern North America in Late Cincinnatian time from Wier et a] (1984, fig. 69, p. 109). l8 bioclastics that comprise the Kope Formation (Anstey and Fowler, 1969; Jennette and Pryor, 1993). Continued development of the Taconic landmass and infilling of the Appalachian Basin resulted in gradual Shoaling through the remainder of the Ordovician Period. Infilling of the Appalachian Basin allowed fine-grained clastics to periodically enter the Cincinnati region, disrupting the formerly predominant pattern of carbonate sedimentation, resulting in the deposition of the interlayered carbonates and shales of the Cincinnatian Series (Weir et al., 1984) (Figure 3). Cyclicity The cyclic nature of the mixed carbonate-siliciclastic lithologies that compose the Cincinnatian Series was recognized more than a century ago (Orton, 1878). More recently, several studies ( e.g. Tobin, 1982; Tobin and Pryor, 1985; Jennette and Pryor, 1993) have documented three orders of cyclicity within the Cincinnatian strata (Tobin, 1982) (Figure 4). The first-order cycles are large-scale Shoaling upward cycles. The Shoaling cycles are in turn composed of a series of carbonate-clastic parasequences or "megacycles" sensu Tobin (1982). The parasequences in turn are composed of small- scale fining upward sedimentary sequences that are generally interpreted as tempestite deposits (Tobin, 1982; Jennette and Pryor, 1993) . Shoaling Seguences First order cycles are large scale (40 to 200 meter) shallowing upward sequences that have been interpreted as reflecting long term eustatic change, or tectonically controlled variation in accommodation space due to thrust loading across the ramp (Anstey and Fowler, 1969; Hay, 1981; Tobin, 1982; Holland, 1993). Three-to-six shallowing upward depositional sequences, interpreted as eustatically controlled l9 :8 a .8 .3 .33: a e as, a £0 a .m .9» as: 30% see cacao: .5me 533050 3 9:5 cans—macaw 8.3:. we minnows?— ounfimxoant. um 9:55 Cub—.035 0:01» 0:03.81. «Ow-now"; vcwcwnous catch .5333 :30; ¢!.ct..0n he... urn—U co..oE.Ou zQ-I-od ‘3 3‘0 O‘O—UOEJ .000 ’0‘...” NVIJMOOIO co..oE.es a§¢u< H n. C U u u .1 w m .o. o - ' u v IQEEI. c.3350; 505 .055 33. um! Ann M w-ovowvam c3333.; 592:.- ifizuu 0.6 «2502. :55: 02¢ 131.50: 2:333:50» zap—9‘28“ 51m 3....” Shoaling-Ununrd Cycle l lllllll' 'IW ,lfill ,I in illlllll I I 'alrvlo- For-anon For—anon LIIOIIOIO 20 Mogacyclc ‘ Storm Cycle W V Figure 4: Three orders of cyclicity preserved within Cincinnatian strata from Tobin (1982, fig. 30, p. 97) 21 progradational successions across the ramp, have been described within the Cincinnatian Series (Tobin, 1982; Anstey and Fowler, 1969; Holland, 1993) (Figure 5). The progradational sequences are defined by a sharp contact at the base of each successive transgressive systems tract (Holland, 1993 and 1995). The first of the Shoaling upward sequences is recorded in the Kope Formation. The maximum deepening of the Cincinnatian sea is represented in this sequence. The thickest of the progradational cycles, this lithologic spans the entireEdenian Stage (Holland, 1995). The second cycle is represented by the Fairview-to-Bellevue sequence which spans most of the Maysvillian stage. The third Shoaling cycle is represented in the upper Maysvillian Corryville sequence. The fourth cycle is recorded in the Oregonia sequence in the lower Richmondian Stage. The fifth transgressive cycles resulted in formation of the Waynesville-to-Saluda Shoaling sequences, which spans the remainder of the Richmondian and is truncated by the unconformity that marks the Ordovician Silurian boundary. Holland (1993) has suggested that the Upper Whitewater Formation represents a final sixth transgressive cycle in the Upper Richmondian. De ositional cles The large scale Shoaling upward depositional sequences described above are in turn composed of one-to-three meter thick, fining upward parasequences of limestones and siliciclastic shales. These depositional or "megacycles" (sensu Tobin, 1982) are composed of a basal carbonate hemicycle overlain by a shale hemicycle. The carbonate/shale cycles are thickest and most completely preserved within the Kope Formation (Tobin, 1982) (Figure 6). Recent work indicates that they are laterally continuous across wide areas of the Cincinnatian ramp, and may represent fluctuations in depth-related hydrodynamic conditions (i.e. changes in storm wavebase), possibly 22 I I INOII’ACI out I 0 Y a l A I f OIFSNOIE SHOREFACE OFFSHORE Corryville to Oregonia OFFSHORE I l I I E N O z N m N s N A I T Waynesville to Saluda Lithotype interpretation of Shoaling-upward sequences within the Figure 5 Series from Tobin (1982, figs. 52, 55 and 64). lncmnatian C fit '5 Wayncsvillc in; 6 hi Corryville 1" Kope Figure 6: " cannon" 23 SHALI ”IIICYCLI .u‘L‘ neuucvctr 0.85m ........ CAQIONATI NEIHCVCLE "(MICVCLI Liberty sunk! an“! MEHICVCLI nemc'ICL! cannon“?! cannoua‘rl uuMCVCLl nculcvcu Sunset suALl NIIICVCLI IHALI ngmcva A. u ------- c Io A?! CAIIONAT! ”IUICVCLI _,,._‘ uuuevcu Fairview Comparison of "average" carbonate / shale hemicycles from six Cincinnatian formations from Tobin (1982. fig.43, p. 136). 24 resulting from short term (20,000 -100,000 years) glacio-eustatic variation in sea level (Brookfield and Brett, 1988; Jennette and Pryor, 1993). Beddin cles Over the past decade, the role of storms as a depositional agent in shallow marine environments has been widely explored (Aigner, 1982; 1985; Allen, 1984; Kreisa, 1981). The preservation of tempestites deposits, with their fining-upward bedding character, has produced the appearance of small scale carbonate/clastic cycles. The bedding-scale fining-upward sedimentary sequence preserved in storm deposits was first described by Kreisa (1981) in the Upper Ordovician Martinsburg Formation of Southwestern Virginia. The ideal Kreisa sequence consists of a graded packstone with an erosional base, overlain by a laminated silt or mudstone unit deposited during the waning stage of the storm. This produces a couplet with a basal carbonate layer overlain by a fining upward elastic /carbonate mudstone layer ( Kreisa, 1982) (Figure 7). During the upper Ordovician, the Cincinnati arch was part of a gently northward- dipping carbonate ramp located at approximately 220 S latitude (Wier et al., 1984). Given the latitudinal position of the region at that period of time, and based on analogy with modern storm tracts, it is highly probable that occasional hurricane force storms would pass over the region and seasonal storms would be annual events (Marsaglia and Klein, 1983). Sedimentological evidence indicates that Cincinnati arch was a relatively shallow area, and storm wave base may have periodically exceeded water depth ( Jennette and Pryor, 1993). The abundance and variety of tempestite beds preserved within Cincinnatian strata are typical of deposition on a storm dominated carbonate ramp (Tobin and Pryor, 1981; Tobin, 1982). Tobin (1982) recognized nine variations of tempestite deposits 25 within the Cincinnatian. The majority of limestone beds preserved within the Kope Formation have been interpreted as storm beds (Rabbio, 1988). Stratigraphy of tl_1e Study Interval, Formerly known as the Eden Shale ( Anstey and Fowler, 1969), the Kope Formation is the lowermost unit of the Cincinnatian Series. It was renamed by Weiss and Sweet (1964) to avoid confusion with the chronostratigraphic Edenian Stage which the formation intersects. The Kope Formation ranges in thickness from approximately 60 meters in southeastern Indiana (Brown and Lineback, 1966) to approximately 80 meters in the Maysville Kentuckyarea (Peck, 1966). In the study area, the Kope Formation overlies the Shermanian age Point Pleasant Formation. Farther to the south, the Kope intergrades laterally into the Clays Ferry Formation. The two formations are similar in many respects, except that the Clays Ferry Formation has a higher percentage of limestone, which occurs in planar to lenticular beds, and thinner and fewer shale layers (Tobin, 1982). The upper Kope grades into the overlying Fairview Formation which consists of evenly bedded limestone interlayered with siltstone and shale. The proportion of limestone to shale is approximately subequal in the Fairview (Tobin, 1982). Lithology The Kope Formation consists of interbedded mudstone, siltstone and limestone. Mudstones represent 60 to 80 percent of the beds within the Kope Formation (Weir et al., 1984). These mudstones are medium to greenish gray in color, and are collectively referred to as shales, a term that has been applied to all fine grained argillaceous rock layers within the Cincinnatian regardless of fabric, texture or composition. The mudstones are predominantly siliceous with minor calcitic content. The predominant 26 IDEALIZED STORM SEQUENCE SHALE LAMINATED UNIT WHOLE FOSSIL PACKSTOME SHALE SILT GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE —>- Figure 7: Vertical sequence of fining upward litholigies and sedimentary structures associated with storm deposits from Kresia (1982, fig. 3). 27 siliciclastic clays are illite, chlorite and vermiculite. Silt content is variable (Bassarab and Huff, 1969). In general, the Kope shales are devoid of fossils, although some layers contain well sorted sand to silt sized skeletal fragments (Tobin, 1982). Trace fossils in the form of vertical and horizontal burrows are present in some of the shales, and conspicuously absent in others. Grading is also present in some of the shale beds. These units generally have a sharp basal contact and fine upwards. Burrowing, when present, is typically confined to the upper surface of the bed (Jennette and Pryor, 1993). The siltstones within the Kope Formation are generally thin, well-defined beds. Their mineral composition is primarily quartz, with some clay and occasionally bioclastic fragments (Tobin, 1982). Many of the siltstones display storm-related sedimentary characteristics such as amalgamation, hurnmocky cross-stratification, parallel orientation of elongate bioclasts and gutter casts, as well as bidirectional and multidirectional tool marks (Jennette and Pryor, 1993). Interbedded with the argillaceous shales and siltstones, are limestones. Limestones comprise approximately 20 to 40 percent of the Kope Formation and contain diverse, abundant fossils, and a wide range of bedding styles (Jennette and Pryor, 1993; Tobin, 1982). The limestones within the study area range from thin (I to 8 cm), discontinuous lenses of packstone, to laterally continuous grainstone layers up to 35 cm thick (Rabbio, 1988). Many of the limestones exhibit grading, cross lamination, and variable amounts of bioturbation, winnowing and reworking. Storm Beds within the Kope Formation The intensity of storm effects on the sea floor are dependent on water depth and storm intensity (Kreisa, 1981; Aigner, 1985). The character of event beds will vary with depth, creating variation within the resulting deposits that reflects a proximality trend or 28 gradient that results from differences in bottom energy during storm events (Aigner, 1982; 1985). Thus, proximal tempestites, which reflect near-shore or shallow-water conditions will differ in character from distal tempestites that form under off-shore or deeper-water conditions. Proximal tempestites within the Kope Formation are generally thicker than distal tempestites (Jennette and Pryor, 1993). They have erosional bases, are typically sparry, medium to coarse grained, graded and are frequently rippled (Rabbio, 1988). The bioclasts typically undergo more cycles of reworking and therefore exhibit more breakage and abrasion than the material associated with more distal environments (Jennette and Pryor, 1993). The limestone portion of the tempestite couplet is generally overlain by a thin, occasionally burrowed, laminated siltstone. As would be expected, amalgamation is more common in proximal beds than in distal (Brett, 1983); therefore the laminated siltstone portion of the bed may be truncated or absent ( Tobin, 1982; Jennette and Pryor, 1993). Distal tempestites within the Kope Formation are quite variable, and may range from thin graded shale layers to siltstone layers with erosional, tool-marked bases and hummocky cross-stratification to planar or lenticular packstone beds overlain by laminated silt or mudstone (Jennette & Pryor, 1993). The skeletal material associated with distal tempestites presumably would be subjected to lower bottom energy conditions and fewer cycles of reworking than their counterparts in more proximal environments. Therefore, the allochems preserved in distal tempestite deposits typically exhibit lower levels of breakage and abrasion, as well as higher diversity than those incorporated in more proximal deposits (Seilacher, 1982; Kreisa, 1981; Aigner, 1985). 29 ANALYSIS OF TAPHONONIIC DATA Characteristics of the Kope Limestones At first glance the limestones within the Kope Formation appear to be relatively simple, flat bedded to lenticular, packstone and grainstone units of varying thickness and texture. However; closer examination indicates that many of the limestone units contain multiple beds with complex sedimentological features. The 172 limestone layers that were examined from the measured sections in the Kope Formation contained at least 232 distinct beds. 40% of these beds showed evidence of amalgamation in the form of scoured or erosional horizons and multiple trends in internal sorting and fabric. 176 of the beds (76%) exhibited some form of grading. The most common form of grading was fining upward, which was observed in 155 (67%) of the beds. Coarsening upward trends were observed in 7 (< 3%) of the beds, and 14 of the beds (6%) exhibited both coarsening and f'ming trends. These internally complex beds are probably amalgamations of several partially cannibalized deposits. Planar to cross lamination was noted in 188 (81%) of the beds. Occasionally the entire bed was cross-laminated, but generally cross lamination was confined to the fine-grained bioclastic material and/or silt near the upper surface of the bed. Allochem composition of the individual beds was variable. Bryozoans were the most commonly occurring bioclast and were present in 95% of the beds. Brachiopod material was present in 91% of the beds. Although less abundant than bryozoa and brachiopods, trilobite remains were the third most frequently observed bioclast and were present in nearly 70% of the beds. Echinoderm material was present in 60% of the beds and ostracods were present in 13% of the beds. Molluscan remains, in the form of gastropods and pelecypods were also encountered, as were graptolites. However, these last taxonomic groups were relatively rare in the assemblages, and were volumetrically 30 unimportant in terms of bioclast contribution within the bed samples observed. Overall bioclast size (adapted from Folk, 1980) was variable between the beds, with 18.5% of the beds characterized as coarse grained; 8.2% medium-coarse; 27.5% medium grained, 15% medium-fme grained and 30.8% classified as fine grained. Taphonomic alteration of taxonomic groups The various taxonomic components of a fossil assemblage may exhibit different degrees of taphonomic alteration even though subjected to similar environmental conditions (Meldahl and Flessa, 1990; Kidwell, Fursich and Aigner, 1986; Driscoll, 1970). This is due to differences in skeletal composition and complexity, robustness, density, size and shape-related hydrodynamic properties (Brett and Baird, 1986). Table 4 summarizes the predicted susceptibility of various skeletal types to biostratinomic processes (adapted from Brett and Baird, 1986). Table 4: Susceptibility of Skeletal Types to Biostratinomic Process (adapted from Brett and Baird, 1986) Cor Intact Current Wave Skeletal Type Disart Breal_( lAbr Trans Reorient Reorient Single Unit a. massive NA (-) (+) (-) (-) (-) b. encrusting NA (-) (++) (-) (-) (-) c. ramose- robust NA* (-) (-) (+) (+) (-) d. ramose- fragile NA“ (++) (-) (-) (++) (-) e. univalved NA (-) (+) (+) (++) (+) Multiple Unit a. bivalved - thick (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) b- biVfllVCd- thin (++) (++) (') (++) (+) (+) c. tightly sutured (++) (+) (+) (+) (+) H d. loosely articulated (++) (++) (-) (-) (+) (-) disart =Disarticulation; Break = breakage; Cor/Abr = corrosion & abrasion; Int. Trans = intact transport of complete skeleton; NA=not applicable; NA*= breakage at joints; (-) = usually not susceptible to process; (+) = susceptible to process; (++) very susceptible to process. 31 This range of responses to biostratinomic processes indicates that while the conditions of skeletal remains are useful indicators of taphonomic history, the same biostratinomic process may affect the remains of different taxa preferentially. To determine the net effects of the biostratinomic processes acting on bioclasts that accumulated in the Kope Formation, the range of taphonomic alteration exhibited within each taxonomic group was examined. The degree of breakage and sorting, and amount of abrasion characteristic of each group was then compared. The results of these comparisons are summarized in Figures 8 through 11, and comparisons of the five most abundant taxonomic groups (volumetrically important) are discussed below. Within a single bed, the degree of breakage and abrasion evidenced by individual specimens of a taxonomic group may vary. This was ofien the case in beds that showed sedimentological evidence of amalgamation, and is typically attributed to the mixing of relatively new, articulated and/or unbroken material with more degraded, or "taphonomically mature" skeletal debris during high energy storm events or episodes of reworking (Seilacher, 1982). However; in most beds, the observed range of variation for a particular taphonomic characteristic within one taxonomic group was limited. Within each taxon, a mean was calculated for each of the taxon specific variables (Appendix B). This allowed for comparison of taxon specific variables (see methods) between different taxa within the same assemblage, and determination of the way different taxa were affected by similar taphonomic and sedimentological processes. Breakage Comparisons of the degree and pattern of breakage observed among brachiopods, bryozoa, crinoids, trilobites and ostracods in the Kope assemblages indicate that the percentages of specimens showing breakage, as well as the extent of breakage exhibited, 32 differ markedly between the taxonomic groups. Analysis of the taphonomic data obtained for brachiopods preserved in the limestone samples from the Kope Formation indicate that the overall degree of breakage is relatively skewed toward the fragmented end of the continuum (Figure 8). Brachiopod skeletal material was present in 212 (91%) of the beds examined. In these assemblages, less than 2% preserved the majority of brachiopods in an articulated and unbroken state; in approximately 20% of the assemblages brachiopods were disarticulated, but unbroken; an additional 15% contained disarticulated brachiopod valves that exhibited minimal breakage, which was generally confined to the perimeter of the valve; 35% of the assemblages contained disarticulated valves that showed extensive fracturing and breakage; and in 27% of the beds, brachiopod material was present only as fragments. The general distribution pattern of breakage among bryozoa was notably different than for brachiopods. Approximately 3% of the assemblages contained substantially intact colonies; 32% of the assemblages were composed of zoarial sections that were broken at joints or sutures. An additional 22% showed further evidence of minor peripheral breakage; and 29% evidenced significant internal fracturing and breakage; extensive breakage was characteristic of 4% of the assemblages, and fragmentation of 9%. Echinoderm (pelmatozoan material) was present in 139 (60%) of the beds. The distribution of breakage states in crinoids followed a normal distribution curve. Due to the rapid rate of post mortem disarticulation of crinoid skeletal material (Schaefer, 1972; Meyer and Meyer, 1986), intact calyx and stems containing 20 or more articulated columnals were scored as unbroken. Less than 2% of beds examined contained intact lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllll ll lllllllllllllllllllll i lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lll lllllll llllllllll lllllll lll llllllllll ll : llll lllllllll llllllllll lllllllllllllll lll llll:llll llllllll l :: ,, llllllll "lll llllll lll ll lllll lll lllllllll llllll ll'" lllll lll ll lllll lllll llllll lll y lmll llll ml l m E5 ===: ~§§ E g l ll E g fig ==—=E_— g 2 ll ===E E = E "" —_———.=.."% E— E _—_-—"'—' 80% lj Figure 9: Comparison of the levels of abrasion exhibited in the major taxonomic groups in the Kope assemblages. <10% = assemblages where fewer than 10% of the observed specimens within the taxon evidenced abrasion; 11-40% = assemblages where evidenced of abrasion was observed on more than 10%, but fewer than 40% of the specimens within the taxon; 41-80% = assemblages where evidenced of abrasion was observed on more than 40%, but fewer than 80% of the specimens within the taxon; >80% = assemblages where abrasion was noted on more than 80% of the specimens within that taxonomic group. % frequency = the relative percentage of beds where that level of abrasion was observed (N= number of assemblages in which the taxon was present). 37 observed skeletal material. Similarly ostracods within the Kope assemblages do not exhibit extensive abrasion. In the 31 beds that contained ostracods, only one contained ostracod valves that showed evidence of abrasion. Sortin As with other taphonomic characteristics, comparisons of within taxon sorting in the Kope assemblages varied widely between groups ( Figure 10). Because sorting is inherently linked to the hydrodynamic properties of a bioclast's shape, the degree of overall sorting was also determined for each "shape" category independently in assemblages in which a taxonomic group was represented by several phenotypically diverse genera. The bryozoan assemblages in the Kope limestones exhibited a wide range of size- sorting. In approximately 30% of the beds that contained them, the size-sorting of bryozoan material was poor to moderately poor (see Methods). Moderate to moderately well-sorted bryozoan material was observed in 35% of the beds; 35% contained well to very well-sorted bryozoan material. Braehiopods displayed a range of sorting within their associated assemblages. In 26% of the beds containing brachiopods, the sorting of the brachiopod material was poor to moderately poor. Brachiopods were moderately to moderately well sorted in 32% of the assemblages, and well to very well sorted in 42% of the assemblages that contained them. In 50% of the assemblages containing trilobite material, sorting of that material was poor to moderately poor. In 22% of the beds containing trilobite material, the material was moderately to moderately-well sorted, and in 29% of the assemblages, Sortinachhrateri stics csby'l‘ax 5555 5555555555 5555555555555555 5 555555555 555555555 , 5 lll ll 55555 I555 Lev eol ofSorting Poor-Mod I Moderate-Well I Well-Very Well lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllll : llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll :Wlllllllllllllllllll' lllllllllllllllllllll lll §= a lllllll l D F1gm‘:Cotmparisoortfsoimegs:endmsyb taxon oicm gru.op reatl tive elpereen of beds wehr mg cfor the toax n was charac moder ateyl poo rg(Poo r-oM d); mo ode:ro oermod teyl -ew 11(Mo der % efrirequ uenc y = the zed as poor to well); and well to ve-wry wele-l(WllV ee.rlel)Nfo achttonax =the number caifbedte whichthattaxon waso oe.bservd 39 primarily those composed of very fine-grained, highly fragmented skeletal debris, the trilobite material was well to very-well sorted. Crinoid material tended toward better within-group sorting in the beds in which it was preserved. Poor to moderately-poor sorting of crinoid material was observed in approximately 17% of the beds containing pelmatazoan debris. Crinoid material was moderate to moderately-well sorted in 28% of the beds, and well to very-well sorted in 55% of the beds where this material was preserved. Ostracods displayed the highest degree of sorting and were only observed in well to very-well sorted accumulations whenever present in a bed. Sorting as a Function of Shape As disarticulation and breakage occurs, the size and shape of a bioclast change, so that the hydrodynamic properties of a particular type of skeletal grain can vary greatly as it undergoes taphonomic alteration. The tendency to form either poorly or well-sorted associations may be more dependent on characteristics of shape than size or taxonomic affiliation (Speyer and Brett, 1986). Because of the strong correlation between sorting- and shape-related hydrodynamic properties, sorting as a function of shape was examined. To determine the effect of bioclast shape on sorting, independent of taxonomic affiliation, the bioclasts in each assemblage were categorized by shape into one of nine basic categories. The shape categories were semi-spheroidal, conical, discoidal, concave/convex, hollow cylinder, solid cylinder, branching stick-like and platey. Although some shape categories are associated with specific taxonomic groups (e.g. branching with ramose bryozoans and concave/convex with brachiopods), the shape category of the skeletal material changes as it undergoes progressive degrees of breakage, 40 so that skeletal remains that were once branching in shape may become solid cylinders; or a bivalved skeleton that was originally semi-spheroidal, may disarticulate into two concave/convex bioclasts, which may in turn break into smaller, platey bioclasts. The results of the analysis of shape related sorting are shown in Figure 11 and discussed below. In the assemblages examined from the Kope limestones, spheroidal and conical bioclasts, represented by articulated ostracods, brachiopods, and gastropods, exhibited the highest tendency toward sorting, with approximately 87% of spheroidal and conical shaped skeletal elements being classified as very well sorted, and 22% as well-sorted within the assemblages in which they were preserved. Stick-like bioclasts were also associated with high degrees of sorting. In this shape category only 2% were associated with poorly sorted groupings, 12% and 16% were associated with moderate and well sorted accumulations respectively, and approximately 70% with very well sorted accumulations. Discoidal bioclasts also tended to form well-sorted accumulations, with approximately 3% classified as poorly sorted; 12% as moderately sorted; 37% classified as well sorted; and 45% classified as very well sorted. A similarly skewed distribution of sorting was found in concave/convex bioclasts where approximately 11% were classified as poorly sorted; 18% as moderately sorted; 32% as well sorted; and 39% as very well sorted. Sorting was not as pronounced among bioclasts categorized as hollow cylinders. In this category, 11% of the accumulations were classified as poorly sorted; 18% as moderately sorted; 50 % as well sorted and 21% as very well sorted. 23% of the accumulations of branching bioclasts were characterized as poorly sorted; 25% exhibiting moderate sorting, 33% were well sorted; and 19% very well sorted. Solid cylinder shaped bioclasts exhibited a range of sorting conditions in the accumulations in which they were found. Approximately 27% of the bioclasts in this shape category were in poorly sorted accumulations, 17% were in moderately sorted accumulations, 28% were Sorting by Sha peCatago ry 55 55 5 . l e60l llll CONCAVICOINVX [ND sr1c1< BRANCHING DISCOIDAL snm-srnmo HOLLOW/CYLIND I I I C] D Poor Mode rate Mode Very-Well Figure 11 Cmpan ofs intg enend by hp %freueq =aeth reatl per entage oefbds wher siozesorti mig nubio ctslas within the shape ateogrywas charac1zedaasp9”, _. .. :. mwhmmfl'flNx-O 63 Cluster 2 The beds in cluster group 2 are relatively thick (mean thickness 8 cm), coarse grained wackestones. This cluster contains 8 beds and represents only 3.5% of the beds analyzed. These beds are only moderately winnowed and retain at least 75% matrix material composed of silt-sized biogenetic debris and micrite or spar. Both overall sorting and within taxon sorting are poor to moderate. Levels of breakage and abrasion are moderate, with relative levels of abrasion greater than breakage. Grading is present in some of the beds, as is evidence of bioturbation. Fabric is random to concordant depending on bioclast shape. These beds are interpreted as autochthonous to parautochthonous assemblages. The poor to moderate sorting within this cluster group suggests little transport. The thickness of the beds, as well as grading and the presence of cross laminations within some of the beds suggest event deposition and some degree of amalgamation. Although the level of breakage and abrasion, as well as the preservation of grading and cross- lamination in some of the beds, indicates formation under periodic high energy conditions, the amount and nature of the matrix material indicates little winnowing of the beds. In some of these beds, the original depositional fabric is obscured by bioturbation. The fme-grained matrix and presence of biosiltite, which is generally absent in the graded and/or coarse-grained beds observed in this study (see Appendix A), may indicate bioerosion, rather than mechanical processes as a factor in the degradation of some of the bioclasts. The extent of bioturbation indicates colonization of the beds under relatively low-energy conditions (Driscoll, 1969; Kidwell and Jablonski, 1983; Speyer and Brett, 1988) Based on the sedimentological characteristics and taphonomic condition of the bioclasts, it may be reasonable to interpret these beds as forming in mid-depth environments where quiet-bottom conditions predominate, but occasional hi gh-energy events may periodically affect the bottom. This would account for the grading and amalgamation evidenced in these beds, as well as for the extent of postdepositional colonization, the lack of subsequent winnowing and preservation of the predominantly bioturbated-texture in these beds. Cluster 3 Cluster group three is the largest group, containing 61 (approximately 26%) of the beds analyzed. Within this cluster are three lower-order clusters with characteristics distinct enough to warrant individual description (Appendix D). Cluster 3a This subcluster includes 35 (15%) of the beds examined and is composed of thinly bedded (mean thickness 2 cm), medium to coarse grained packstones/wackestones. These are well-sorted, fining-upward beds. Some are cross-laminated. The tops of beds are frequently truncated and secured by the overlying bed. The levels of bioclast breakage and abrasion are relatively high within these beds. Some of the beds in this group contain a robust fauna that includes gastropods and encrusting bryozoa. The beds in this group are interpreted as representing winnowed, shallow-water deposits. The bioclasts have undergone some transport and size-selective redeposition under high- energy bottom conditions. Cluster 3b The limestone beds within this subcluster are thinly bedded, fine to medium- grained, moderately-sorted wackestones. These beds are graded but generally not cross- 1aminated. Levels of breakage are relatively high, but abrasion is low. The beds exhibit 65 incomplete winnowing, and some appear to be amalgamated. 22 (approximately 9.5%) of the beds analyzed were included in this group. The bioclasts within the beds in cluster 3b contain a higher percentage of fme- grained matrix material, indicating less wave/current reworking than those within the beds in cluster 3a. The higher matrix content and lower degree of overall bioclast sorting suggest deposition under lower energy conditions. However, the graded nature of these beds and the amount of reorientation and concordant fabric exhibited by the bioclasts indicates that these are event beds. The incomplete winnowing of these beds indicates a lower-energy environment than that of the beds in cluster 3a, probably below fair- weather wave-base, where postdepositional reworking would be less intense (Kidwell, Fursich and Aigner, 1986; Speyer and Brett, 1988). Cluster 3c This group is composed of only 5 beds (1.8% of the beds in the study). The mean thickness of beds in this subcluster is 4 cm. These are ungraded, poorly sorted mudstones (sensu Dunham). The bioclasts are medium to coarse. The levels of breakage and abrasion are low, as is within-taxon sorting. The bioclasts exhibit reorientation, but the depositional fabric is generally random. The beds within this group are interpreted as low energy, possibly autochthonous deposits, that accumulated below wave base, and were subjected to little postdepositional winnowing, reworking or transport. Cluster 4 16 beds (approximately 7% of the beds analyzed) are included in this cluster group. The beds within this cluster consist of moderately thick (mean thickness 8 cm), fine to medium textured grainstones. The beds are graded and cross-laminated. Allochems are well to very well sorted. The levels of reorientation, breakage, abrasion 66 and within taxon sorting are high. Most of the beds in this group are texturally mature, cross-laminated crinoidal grainstones. These beds are interpreted as high energy, allochthonous deposits that represent proximal tempestites and multiply reworked beds in proximal environments (Seilacher,1982; Kreisa and Bambach, 1982; Jennette and Pryor, 1993) Cluster 5 This cluster group is composed of thick (mean thickness 11 cm) medium textured, moderately well sorted packstones/wackestones. All beds in this cluster are graded. Complex fabrics or multiple fining upward trends suggests amalgamation. Most beds exhibit some degree of bioturbation, generally confined to the upper portion of the bed. Average levels of reorientation, breakage and abrasion are high, but variable between taxa (e. g. articulated crinoid stems incorporated with broken and abraded brachiopod and bryozoan material). Within taxon sorting is moderately poor. These beds are interpreted as mixed assemblages of poorly-winnowed parautochthonous material. The degree of amalgamation, sorting and variable breakage states of allochems within the beds, suggests mixing of fresh and reworked skeletal material during storm events in an a mid-depth area below fair-weather wave-base, but shallow enough to be reworked during subsequent storm events. Cluster 6 The beds within this cluster are of medium thickness (mean thickness 4.2 cm), poor to moderately-sorted, medium to coarse-textured packstones. Most of the beds are graded. Bioclast fabric is random to concordant. Most of the beds are bioturbated. The degree of winnowing is variable. Some of the beds have thin shale partings and silt preserved under larger bioclasts. Breakage and abrasion are generally low, indicating that the bioclasts have not been subject to extensive reworking. These beds are 67 interpreted as parautochthonous accumulations that have undergone varying amounts of winnowing under relatively low energy conditions. 23 (10%) of the beds are in this cluster. Cluster 7 The beds grouped in this cluster are moderately thin beds (mean thickness 3.5 cm), medium to coarse-textured, poorly-sorted wackestones. The levels of breakage and abrasion are low. Bioclast fabric is random to random/concordant. Matrix material typically contains biosiltite and micrite or spar. Although the major bioclast are typically medium to coarse, small, fragile bioclasts such as ostracods and graptolites are preserved as well. These beds represent approximately 8% (19) of the beds examined, and are interpreted as autochthonous/parautochthonous deposits that formed in low- energy environments below wave base. Cluster 8 The beds within this cluster are relatively thin (mean thickness 2.6 cm), fine- textured packstones/wackestones. These beds are graded and many are laminated. The bioclasts within these beds exhibit high levels of reorientation, breakage, abrasion, and within-taxon sorting. 39 (approximately 17%) of the beds analyzed are included in this cluster group. The sedimentological and taphonomic characteristics of beds in this group are consistent with distal tempestite deposits (Aigner,1982 and 1985; Tobin, 1982; Brett and Baird, 1985; Jennette and Pryor, 1993). These beds differ from the proximal tempestite beds in Cluster 4 in several ways. The amount of matrix within the beds in Cluster 8 is greater than in Cluster 4 beds, and while the orientation of bioclasts within both groups is concordant, the fabric is less pronounced than in the proximal beds, suggesting lower 68 levels of depositional energy and a lack of postdepositional reworking. The level of abrasion and breakage is slightly higher in Cluster 8 beds, while the level of sorting (both over all and within-taxon) are slightly lower than in the proximal beds. This may be attributable to the greater taxonomic diversity of the bioclastic material observed within these beds as well as lower environmental energy. Crinoid material is abundant in many of the assemblages within both clusters, but consists of finer-sized columnals in Cluster 8. Several of the assemblages in Cluster 8 are dominated by ostracods, which were not observed in the fme-grained, high-energy deposits of Cluster 4. Cluster 9 There is only one limestone unit associated with this cluster. This is a thick (15 cm) coarse textured packstone layer that appears to consist of at least three amalgamated beds. It is graded and cross-laminated. The bioclasts within the unit exhibit a higher degree of sorting and lower levels of breakage and abrasion than other coarse-textured beds associated with clusters 7, 5 and 3a. The bioclasts within the bed(s) consist of bryozoa, brachiopod and trilobite material, with a notable absence of crinoid material. The brachiopod valves exhibit both convex-up and convex-down orientation. These characteristics are interpreted as the product of high-energy post-depositional resuspension and winnowing by wave activity. Distribution of Clusters on Factor Axis Estimated factor scores for the three factors extracted during the factor analysis discussed above were calculated and averaged across beds within each of the nine cluster groups. The clusters were plotted on the factor axis (Figure 13). Factor One, which correlates breakage, abrasion and bioclast size, fabric and sorting, was interpreted as reflecting the transport and exposure history of the skeletal 69 material . Factor Two, which correlates within-taxon sorting, fabric, percent matrix and reorientation was interpreted as reflecting depth-related bottom energy (see interpretation of factor analysis above). When plotted on factor axis 1 and 2 (Figure 13) the distribution of cluster groups indicates the relative amount of bioclast transport, depositional energy and subsequent reworking recorded in the beds. Location of clusters on the lower portion of axis one (Figure 13) indicates less than "average" transport. Clusters 7, 6, 2 and 9 all are located at the low end of this axis. However; their distribution on axis two reflects a difference in energy conditions between beds associated with those cluster groups. Cluster 7 is located at the low ends of both axis one and two. The beds in Cluster 7 are interpreted as autochthonous assemblages that show little indication of transport or reworking. These beds are interpreted as relatively undisturbed deposits. The beds in Cluster 6 are in many ways similar to Cluster 7. Cluster 6 is located in a higher position on axis one, indicating a slightly different exposure and/or transport histories between the beds in the two clusters. The location of Cluster 6 on axis two indicates a much greater difference in environmental energy between the two groups. This is supported by subtle differences in taphonomic and sedimentological characteristic preserved within the beds. lBoth clusters are composed of poor to moderately-sorted, medium to coarse-textured bioclasts that exhibit low levels of breakage and abrasion relative to other beds in this study. However, the beds in Cluster 6 contain less matrix material and exhibit more evidence of winnowing and grading. These beds also show a slightly higher degree of over-all sorting, and significantly better within-taxon sorting. Cluster 6 represents accumulations of parautochthonous / autochthonous material, similar in composition to Cluster 7 beds, that have undergone some degree of intermittent reworking and winnowing during storm events. Both of these cluster groups are associated with deeper-water environments 70 .u 93 _ 8.2 8.8m co A822, 525 232m 8.85% cousfiufi ”2 85mm 28.88% nwi: fl ”HOBO/Nu Egan—H 33.. 04 NA w.o v.0 o- to- wd- NJ; .5 _..Aweo:m 2. as. no- N . - m be 0N we 0 o o a w m o o o o _ m ed < o a 4 _ a no _ .. a... - NA KORDVHNNM mmrmmbqw 71 relative to other beds within the Kope. The difference in bottom energy may be related to fluctuations in water depth, or to the intensity of particular storms events. The beds in Clusters 2 and 9 are located at the low end of axis one, but at higher levels on axis two than Cluster 7, which is consistent with the degree of winnowing and amalgamation noted in the beds within these clusters. The beds within Clusters 2 are coarse-textured, moderately-winnowed, bioturbated wackestones. The beds in this cluster were interpreted as representing event deposition in generally quiet-bottom, mid- depth environments. Cluster 9 is composed of coarse-textured, very well sorted, wave- winnowed packstone. F inc-grained skeletal material, appears to have been selectively removed from these beds producing parautochthonous lag- type accumulation of skeletal material. The location of these clusters on axis two is suggestive of depth-related, bottom-energy gradients. Cluster 5 is located midway between Clusters 2 and 9 on axis two, indicating a level of bottom energy intermediate between the latter two. The location of Cluster 5 on axis one indicates a more extensive transport history for the bioclasts within the beds in this cluster, than for those in Clusters 7, 6, 2 and 9. The beds within Cluster 5 are medium-textured, graded and amalgamated, and exhibit a range of winnowing. The bioclasts within these beds typically exhibit a greater range of breakage and abrasion and within-taxon sorting. The beds in this cluster are interpreted as event-beds composed of mixed-assemblages of moderately transported allochthonous/parautochthonous material. Cluster 3 also is interpreted as representing parautochthonous/autochthonous accumulations. The averaged factor score for Cluster 3 places the group near the mid- range of both axes. The variation between the subclusters within the group indicates a range of breakage, abrasion and sorting that actually indicates a fairly wide distribution 72 along both axes. The location of the cluster on the factor axis plot generally reflects the characteristics of subcluster 3a, which contains the preponderance of beds associated with Cluster 3. Based on sedimentological characteristics, (i.e. Kreisa [1981] sequences) Clusters 1, 4 and 8 are all interpreted as representing event-beds. Cluster 1 has a low position on axis one relative to axis two. The beds in Cluster 1 are interpreted as representing accumulations of parautochthonous material that was deposited during high energy events and subject to little postdepositional reworking. Cluster 4 has a positive position on both axis. This cluster is composed of fine to medium- textured grainstones. The level of breakage and abrasion evidenced in this group is indicative of repeated cycles of transport and reworking under high energy conditions. These beds were interpreted as proximal tempestites (see cluster description above). Cluster 8 is located at the high end of axis one, reflecting the highest degree of transport. The location of Cluster 8 on axis two indicates that the depositional energy of these beds is significantly lower than event beds associated with Cluster 1 or Cluster 4. This suggests deposition of allochthonous material under waning energy conditions in storm-generated gradient flows. Facies Associations of C1u_ster Gropp_s The sedimentological and biostratinomic characteristics of each of the cluster groups are associated with particular depth-related facies within the Kope environment. The strata that compose the shale / carbonate hemicycles within the Kope Formation have been traditionally categorized into two groups interpreted as representing deposition in two distinct facies. Distal facies, representing comparatively deeper-water deposition, are composed primarily of terrigenous shales interlayered with thin silt and packstone beds. Proximal facies representing comparatively shallower-water deposition are predominantly carbonate and are composed of amalgamated beds of abraded, winnowed 73 and reworked skeletal material. The facies are defined by fluctuating energy levels that have been interpreted as corresponding to depth-related changes in wave-base and bottom-energy (Jennette & Pryor, 1992; Holland 1993). (For a more detailed discussion of "distal /proxima1" facies characteristics within the Kope Formation see Jennette and Pryor, 1993). The proximal/distal terminology used to describe the carbonate/ shale cycles within the Cincinnatian may be misleading when applied to the taphonomic facies within the limestones. This terminology implies position relative to sediment source. In marine environments this generally implies location along an onshore-offshore gradient. The taphonomic facies within the limestones of the Kope Formation reflect changes in water- depth, as well as variations in the nature and intensity of bottom-energy. The relationship between water depth and bottom-energy as related to normal wave-base is relatively straight-forward. However; in "off-shore" regions on a storm-dominated ramp, the nature and intensity of the wave and/or current activity on seafloor will also reflect the intensity of storm events, and relative distance from storm centers. Therefore, the taphonomic facies within the Kope limestones reflect differences in water depth, as well as the nature and intensity of reworking and depositional events. Table 7 shows the relationship of cluster groups relative to the depth, depositional energy and reworking intensity. Deeper-Water Facies The facies representing comparatively deep-water conditions within the Kope are composed primarily of terrigenous shales and calcitic to dolomitic mudstones, interlayered with thin silt and packstone beds. Although these units may appear massive, they actually contain relatively thin bedding layers that represent interruptions in background deposition (Jennette and Pryor, 1993). The shale units may contain 74 numerous discrete beds of bioturbated muds, unbioturbated graded silty muds, occasional thin sheets or discontinuous lenses of fossil material (Tobin, 1982). Skeletal material, when present within the shales, may range from unbroken, articulated material, covered by several centimeters of unbioturbated silt or mud representing an in situ, smothered bottom assemblage; to thin layers of fme-grained comminuted allochthonous skeletal debris (Jennette and Pryor, 1993). Siltstones associated with distal facies form thin, well defined beds, that typically display some range of storm-related features such as planar-lamination to hummocky cross-stratification, amalgamation, parallel aligned gutter-casts, tool- marks, orientated body-fossils, erosional sole-marks and mud-filled scours (Tobin, 1982; Jennette and Pryor, 1993). The limestones associated with deeper-water facies are generally described as thin, parautochthonous packstones that form moderately-continuous planar beds, to small lenticular units composed of coarse-grained skeletal fragments. The lenticular nature of many of these beds may be attributable to the patchy distribution of the benthic communities within this environment (Anstey and Fowler, 1969; Meyer et al. 1981). Fossil content of the packstones is fairly diverse (Jennette and Pryor, 1993). Most beds are dominated by either bryozoa or brachiopods. Trilobites, crinoids and pelecypods are generally present as subordinate constituents. Skeletal breakage and abrasion are fairly low (Jennette and Pryor, 1993; this study). 75 Table 7: Relationship of taphonomic cluster groups relative to depth/intensity gradients. Inferred Depth Gradient LMllower-water Mid-Depth Deeper-Wager High-Intensity Reworking XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX Cluster 3a Cluster 9 (n=35) (n=3 ?) Moderate Intensig / Intermittent Reworking XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX Cluster 3b Cluster 5 (n=22) (n= 6) Low- Energy Reworking XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Cluster 3c Cluster 2 XXXXXXXXX (n=5) (n= 8) Cluster 6 (n=23) Low-Energy Accumulation / Minimal Reworking XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Cluster 7 (n=19) Event Beds (Tempestites) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXX Cluster 4 (n=l6) XXXXXXXXXXXX )O(XXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX)O(X Cluster 1 Cluster 8 ( n= 28) (n= 39) 76 In this study four of the cluster groups are associated with deeper-water facies. The beds in Cluster 7 are interpreted as representing accumulation under relatively quiet, deep-water conditions. The skeletal material in these beds exhibits very little evidence of transport. The amount of matrix and orientation of the bioclasts indicated minimal reworking by waves or currents. The beds grouped in Cluster 3c are in many respects similar to the beds in Cluster 7, except that these beds are generally thinner and contain a higher percentage of matrix (Appendix A and Appendix D). The bioclasts within these mudstones display a random fabric and exhibit minimal breakage and abrasion. These beds are relatively deep-water deposits associated with very quiet, low-energy bottom conditions. In Cluster 6 beds, sorting, breakage, the incidence of cross-lamination increases, while the percentage of matrix decreases with respect to the beds in Clusters 7 and 3c. Thin silt partings within the beds, and the presence of silt in shelter-voids indicate that these are wave-winnowed accumulations that have under gone little transport (Kreisa and Bambach, 1982; Jennette and Pryor, 1992 ). Like Cluster 7, Cluster 6 beds are associated with deeper water facies. The difference between the two cluster groups is defined by a higher energy level associated with wave reworking (see Figures 13 and 14). Both groups are interpreted as representing deposits that formed below normal wave-base. Cluster 6 beds may have been deposited in slightly shallower water, or simply been exposed during high-energy (hurricane-force) events when wave-base extended to greater than usual depths. Cluster 1 beds are also associated with mid to deep-water environments. These are well-sorted, medium-grained, graded packstones interpreted as storm deposits. These beds are frequently capped by a siltstone veneer, forming storm-generated couplets 77 (Kreisa, 1981; Aigner, 1982). The preservation of grading, depositional fabric, and occasional siltstone cap, indicates that many of these beds were deposited at depths great enough to prevent reworking during subsequent high-energy events. The beds in Cluster 8, interpreted as deeper-water tempestites, are composed of highly-comminuted and fine-grained material transported by storm-generated gradient currents and deposited in quiet-bottom environments below wave-base. wllower-Water Fgc_ies The carbonate portion of the Kope hemicycles are associated with shallower- water facies (Tobin,l982). These facies are equivalent to the highstand transition zone shoreface lithofacies of Holland (1993). The lithotypes interpreted as representing shallow-water environments are highly variable and frequently considered complex (Holland, 1993). Thin silt layers associated with shallow water facies are composed of bioclastic material that forms fissile, poorly-indurated layers between the grainstone beds. These bioclastic silts are distinctly different in character from the siltstones and shales of the deeper-water facies. They are generally fossiliferous, and do not contain trace fossils ( Jennette and Pryor, 1992). Shallower-water limestones consist of grainstones, poorly-washed grainstones and winnowed packstones that form thick, laterally continuous bed-sets (Jennette and Pryor, 1992). Amalgamation is common in proximal deposits so that a single bed may actually record multiple events of reworking (Brett, 1983; Aigner, 1985). The mixed states of breakage and abrasion of bioclasts within a single bed has been interpreted as indicating multiple episodes of recolonization and reworking, or sediment-mixing during storm events (Seilacher, 1982). A single limestone layer may frequently contain several 78 O x 3 — Figure 14: Example of a Cluster 3c bed. The beds grouped in this cluster are moderately thin beds (mean thickness 3.5 cm), medium to coarse-textured, poorly-sorted wackestones. The levels of breakage and abrasion are low. Bioclast fabric is random to random/concordant. Matrix material typically contains biosiltite and micrite or spar. Although the major bioclast are typically medium to coarse, small, fragile bioclasts such as ostracods and graptolites are preserved as well. These beds represent approximately 8% (19) of the beds examined, and are interpreted as ‘ L“ ’.r.,.. ‘ L“ deposits that formed in low-energy environments below wave base. is ULUHQ / ) 79 Figure 15: Example of a Cluster 6 bed. Beds within this cluster are of medium thickness (mean thickness 4.2 cm), poor to moderately-sorted, medium to coarse-textured packstones. Most of the beds are graded. Bioclast fabric is random to concordant. Some of the beds are bioturbated. The degree of winnowing is variable. Some of the beds have thin shale partings and silt preserved under larger bioclasts. Breakage and abrasion are generally low, indicating that the bioclasts have not been subject to extensive reworking. These beds are interpreted as parautochthonous accumulations that have undergone varying amounts of winnowing under relatively low energy conditions. 23 (10%) of the beds are in this cluster. 80 Figure 16: Example of a Cluster 8 bed. The beds within this cluster are relatively thin (mean thickness 2.6 cm), fine-textured packstones/wackestones. These beds are graded and many are laminated. The bioclasts within these beds exhibit high levels of reorientation, breakage, abrasion, and within-taxon sorting. 39 (approximately 17%) of the beds analyzed are included in this cluster group. These beds are interpreted as deeper- water / lower-energy storm deposits. 81 Figure 17: Example of a Cluster 1 bed. This cluster group is composed of moderately thick (mean thickness 5.6 cm), fine to medium grained packstones and includes 28 (12 %) of the beds analyzed . The beds within this cluster group are graded. Some are cross laminated. The degree of bioclast reorientation is high, and platey allochems exhibit a concordant fabric. The bioclasts generally show a higher degree of breakage than abrasion. Overall sorting within the beds is moderately well to well, but within-taxon sorting is poor to moderate. These beds are interpreted as event beds deposited under moderately high energy conditions. 82 beds displaying different ranges of bioclast size, sorting, breakage and abrasion, as well as variation in matrix type and content (Appendix A). In this study, the beds grouped in Cluster 5 represent mixed assemblages of reworked and relatively fresh (i.e. unbroken and unabraded) material. The grading and cross-lamination frequently preserved in these beds suggests rapid deposition of sediment during high-energy events at depths below normal wave-base, but within wave- base during high energy storm events. This, and two other cluster groups defined in this study ( Clusters 2and 3b) are interpreted as representing mid-depth deposits. These beds are associated with shallower-water facies, but are taphonomically distinct from the higher energy grainstone and packstones that define the shallow-water end members of the deep to shallow-water continuum. The bioclasts in these beds exhibit less breakage and/or abrasion, and are less size-sorted and generally have a lower order of depositional fabric (i.e. concordant rather than edgewise or imbricated). The beds grouped in Cluster 2 are interpreted as representing deposition in an environment intermediate between the comparatively deeper-water deposits of Cluster 6 and the higher-energy bottom conditions reflected in Cluster 5 beds. Some of the beds in Cluster 2 exhibit evidence of amalgamation near their upper surfaces. Most of these beds are poorly-winnowed as evidenced by the preservation of sand and silt-sized fossil fragments within the matrix. The extent of bioturbation indicates that these deposits formed at mid-depths, below fairweather and seasonal-storm wave-base, but at depths shallow enough to be affected by occasional major storm events. The beds grouped in Cluster 3b are also associated with mid-depth environments. These fine to medium-grained wackestones beds are thinner than the beds associated with Clusters 5 and 2 (Appendix A). The relatively high level of breakage, relatively fine 83 bioclast size and graded bedding suggest that the bioclastic material in these beds was transported and selectively redeposited below wave base under waning storm condition conditions (Kelling and Mullin, 1975; Jennette and Pryor, 1992). The fabric of these beds indicates lower depositional energy conditions and less postdepositional reworking than the beds in Cluster 5. The characteristics of the amalgamated unit associated with Cluster 9 are interpreted as representing a transition between mid-depth to shallow-water deposits. This layer consists of well-sorted, coarse-textured packstones. The fabric of the layer suggests multiple resuspension of bioclasts during high-energy events. The low-levels of breakage and abrasion are not consistent with the more extensively wave-reworked skeletal material associated with the shallower-water deposits. This layer is interpreted as representing amalgamated lag deposits that accumulated below fairweather, but within storm wave-base. The beds in Cluster 3a are representative of comparatively shallower-water deposits. These beds are thin, well-sorted, medium to coarse-grained packstones / wackestones that frequently contain robust skeletal forms not generally observed in the beds associated with deeper-water deposits. The bioclasts in these beds are broken and abraded indicating prolonged high energy reworking. Most beds are graded, and many are cross- laminated. Cluster 4 beds are fine to medium-grained, typically well-sorted and contain highly abraded and rounded bioclasts, indicating that these grains experienced prolonged exposure and extensive or multiple events of transportation. These fine—grained beds are frequently enriched in crinoid material forming fine to medium-grained, cross-laminated crinoidal grainstones associated with shallow-water tempestite deposits. 84 Figure 18: Example of a Cluster 5 bed. This cluster group is composed of thick (mean thickness 11 cm) medium textured, moderately well sorted packstones/wackestones. All beds in this cluster are graded. Complex fabrics or multiple fining upward trends suggests amalgamation. Average levels of reorientation, breakage and abrasion are high, but variable between taxa (e.g. articulated crinoid stems incorporated with broken and abraded brachiopod and bryozoan material). Within taxon sorting is moderately poor. These beds are interpreted as mixed assemblages of poorly-winnowed parautochthonous material. The degree of amalgamation, sorting and variable breakage states of allochems within the beds, suggests mixing of fresh and reworked skeletal material during storm events in an a mid-depth area below fair-weather wave-base, but shallow enough to be reworked during subsequent storm events. Bioturbation, if present is generally confined to the upper portion of the bed. 85 Figure 19: Example of a Cluster 2 bed. These beds are interpreted as autochthonous to parautochthonous assemblages. The poor to moderate sorting within this cluster group suggests little transport. These beds are only moderately winnowed and retain at least 75% matrix material composed of silt-sized biogenetic debris and micrite or spar. Both overall sorting and within taxon sorting are poor to moderate. Levels of breakage and abrasion are moderate, with relative levels of abrasion greater than breakage. Grading is present in some of the beds, as is evidence of bioturbation. Fabric is random to concordant depending on bioclast shape. This cluster contains 8 beds and represents only 3.5% of the beds analyzed 86 Figure 20: Example of a Cluster 3b bed. The limestone beds within this subcluster are thinly bedded, fine to medium-grained, moderately-sorted wackestones. These beds are graded but generally not cross-laminated. Levels of breakage are relatively high, but abrasion is low. The beds exhibit incomplete winnowing, and some appear to be amalgamated. 22 (approximately 9.5%) of the beds analyzed were included in this group. 87 Figure 21: Example of a Cluster 4 bed. The beds within this cluster consist of moderately thick (mean thickness 8 cm), fine to medium textured grainstones. The beds are graded and cross-laminated. Allochems are well to very well sorted. The levels of reorientation, breakage, abrasion and within taxon sorting are high. Most of the beds in this group are texturally mature, cross-laminated crinoidal grainstones. These beds are interpreted as high energy, allochthonous deposits that represent tempestites and multiply reworked beds in shallower water environments. Approximately 7% of the beds analyzed are included in this cluster group 88 GRADIENT ANALYSIS As a complimentary technique to factor and cluster analysis, gradient analysis was performed on the data. The purpose of this analysis was to confirm the underlying factors associated with the distribution of variables within the beds, as well as to examine the distribution of beds along the factor gradients that may more accurately reflect the range of variation among beds within each cluster group. Gradient analysis was performed using a detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) (program DECORANA [Hill, 1979] ). The normalized data utilized in the factor and cluster analysis were ranked by percentile to eliminate the negative numbers produced in the Z transformation and eliminate the weighting bias produced by larger values in measured scales compared to the values assigned to ranked data (example: measured bed thickness ranging from 2.5 cm to 15 cm vs. sorting, numerically ranked 1- 7 ). Both Q-mode (variable by variable) and R-mode ( sample by sample) analyses were run . M The results of DCA R-mode analysis are shown in Figure 22. Variables are plotted on axes one and two. On axis one allochem size is negatively correlated with bed thickness, bioclast reorientation, sorting, abrasion and breakage and cross-lamination. On axis two allochem size, reorientation, grading, within-taxon sorting, abrasion and breakage correlate negatively with bed thickness, percent matrix, fabric, overall-sorting and cross-lamination. The distribution of variables along axis one and two indicate similar trends that generally parallel the results of the factor analysis. Axis one may be 89 .N 28 H 38 Que Ewing oocowcommoboo Baotou co mowing mo monastic aboard "NN 95w:— 5% own 000 omw OON omw Doe on O om- OO _‘- OO _‘- 0?: 9. tom 0 C C 538% 5x5 mvam C ofiu . . 855.5%.— E0£8=a O O . its: axo was 0 09 to... 0 $0535. . £3 E CON 00m 00v 0 =ea: Ea. Bob 00m EGO: m - mmdm ZO <~*WCV 92 group. The overlapping clusters also reflects the gradational nature of the data, and the transitional variations in beds between cluster groups. Distribution of Beds within Sections The cluster groups defined in this study are not uniformly distributed throughout the vertical extent of the Kope Formation. The distribution of cluster types within the five measured sections of the Kope Formation was examined to determine if the taphonomic variation as reflected in the clusters groups could be used to detect lateral facies migration, eustatic fluctuations and Shoaling trends described by other authors. Q-mode plots were generated for each of the five measured sections in the study and compared (Figures 24 through 28). The overlapping coverage of the lower Kope Formation is represented in the North Brent and Sandfordtown sections. The Sandfordtown section is located approximately 10 km southwest of the Brent section and would have occupied a slightly up ramp position (Meyer et. al., 1981; Rabbio, 1988; Jennette and Pryor, 1993). The Sandfordtown section consists of approximately 26 meters of interbedded shale, siltstone and limestone. Twenty-four limestone layers containing a total of 43 discernible beds are exposed in the section. Classification of the limestones into facies associations based on cluster-group membership indicates that twenty-one of the beds are associated with deeper-water conditions, 14 of these are Cluster 8 beds (deep-water/lower energy tempestites), 5 are Cluster 6 beds (lower-energy, partially-winnowed) and 3 are Cluster 1 beds (deeper-water/higher energy event beds). Although the lower Kope is generally thought to be associated with the deepest water-levels of the Cincinnatian sea, the deeper- water beds exposed at Sandfordtown reflect some significant level of bottom-energy (see Figure 23 and cluster descriptions above). Mid-depth conditions are represented by eight beds that include the sole representative of Cluster 9, one thick Cluster 5 bed and four 93 thinner beds associated with Cluster 3b. The remaining beds represent comparatively shallower-water conditions and include three Cluster 3a beds and four Cluster 4 beds. The vertical distribution of the beds define eleven upward Shoaling cycles of highly variable thickness ( 1 to 9 meters). Each cycle is capped with a shallow-water bed (Cluster 3a or 4). The middle portion of the exposure (approximately 8 meters) is characterized by mid-depth limestones (see Figure 24 and discussion below). The North Brent section consists of approximately 36 meters of exposure. This section contains 39 limestone layer that comprise 48 beds. While the proportion of beds representing deep, shallow and mid-depth environments is proportionately similar to the Sandfordtown exposure, the cluster distribution of the beds is quite different. There are conspicuously fewer Cluster 8 (deeper-water/lower-energy) tempestite beds (3 as opposed to 14 in the Sandfordtown section) and eight Cluster 1 beds (deeper-water/high- energy storm beds). The nature of the mid-depth beds also varies between the two sections. Mid-depth beds exposed at the North Brent cut are primarily lower-energy beds (six Cluster 2 beds, three Cluster 3b beds and two Cluster 5 beds). The Q-mode scatter plot for the North Brent section is shown in Figure 25. Comparison of the North Brent Q-mode scatter plot with the Sandfordtown scatter plot (Figure 24) indicates a slight shift in the location of the placement of the beds along both axes, this corresponds to the different characteristics noted in the deeper-water and mid-depth beds between the two sections. The mid-depth beds preserved in the Sandfordtown section (Cluster 9, 5 and 3b) reflect a greater degree of winnowing and amalgamation than the Cluster 2 beds that are more prevalent in the North Brent Section. This may reflect the slightly up-ramp location of the Sanfordtown section. Similar changes in bedding style are discernible in the overlapping exposures of the upper portion of the Kope Formation exposed at the South Brent, Mt. Airy and 94 SANFORDTOWN DCA ON BEDS-QMODE 100 80 o ‘ - . A 60 0 . - X . ‘0 ..O 0 . C. I 40 ,- H: o ‘ S “ .P 2 ‘ ' ° 20 A c .l ‘ O 0 . f 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 AXISl Figure 24: Q-mode distribution of beds (N=43) from the Sandfordtown section on DCA axes l and 2. Axis I may reflect a winnowing / transport gradient. Axis 2may represent a gradient that reflects bottom-energy and reworking history. Circles indicate the beds associated with deeper-water facies. Triangles indicate beds associated with mid-depth facies. Squares indicate the beds associated with shallower-water facies. 95 Miarnitown sections. The South Brent section is adjacent to the North Brent section, and provides exposure of the Upper Kope. Approximately 18 meters of section are exposed in this cut. The South Brent section contains twenty-five limestone beds. The deeper- water facies are represented by four Cluster 8 (deeper-water/lower energy) tempestite beds, four Cluster 7 (low energy) beds. Mid-depth facies are represented by one Cluster 2 bed (below wave-base), two Cluster-5 (amalgamated) beds and 3 Cluster-3b (thin, graded) beds. Beds associated with shallower-water facies include four Cluster 3a beds (higher-energy bottom conditions, probably above wave-base) and three Cluster 4 beds (shallower-water tempestites). There is a higher proportion of shallow and mid-depth deposits in the South Brent than in the underlying North Brent section. This is consistent with the Shoaling upward trends previously documented within the Kope Formation (Anstey and Fowler, 1969; Tobin,l982; Jennette & Pryer, 1990; Holland, 1993). Comparison of the Q-mode plots for the South Brent (Figure 26) and North Brent section (Figure 25) indicates changes in bottom-energy conditions between the two sections. Distribution of the beds on the Q-mode plot for the South Brent section indicate higher placement on the first axis (38-115 for South Brent vs. 15-95 for North Brent) for beds with deeper-water associations (Clusters 7, and 8). There is less dispersion for the beds associated with mid-depth facies along both axes in the South Brent section than underlying North Brent section (South Brent distribution ranges from 48 - 75 on axis 1 and 18 - 48 on axis 2 as compared to 35 - 108 on axis 1 and 18 - 70 on axis 2 for the North Brent plot). The distribution of beds associated with shallower-water facies on the Q-mode plots are similar for both the Brent sections. The shifts in the Q-mode distribution of beds may reflect Shoaling water conditions. This may be reflected in the shift toward higher-energy in the beds associated with deeper-water conditions. The compression along both axes of the mid- 96 BRENT - NORTH DCA ON BEDS - Q MODE 100 NUJHXLb 0888888388 Figure 25: Q-mode distribution of beds (N=48) from the North Brent section on DCA axes 1 and 2. Axis I may reflect a winnowing / transport gradient. Axis 2 may represent a gradient that reflects bottom-energy and reworking history. Circles indicate the beds associated with deeper-water facies. Triangles indicate beds associated with mid-depth facies. Squares indicate the beds associated with shallower-water facies. 97 depth beds may reflect less variation in bottom-energy conditions that corresponds to higher levels of reworking associated with Shoaling water conditions. Thirty-four meters of the Upper Kope Formation are exposed in the Mt. Airy section. This section is located approximately 15 km northeast of the Brent sections, in a down ramp direction (Meyer et. al., 1981; Rabbio, 1988; Jennette and Pryor, 1993). Limestone types associated with all three depth-related facies are represented, but the cluster membership of the beds is dissimilar to the other sections. Deeper-water deposits are represented by three Cluster 7 and three Cluster 3c beds. Both of these beds types are associated with quiet-water, low- energy conditions. One Cluster 6 bed is present. The nature of the event beds is different between the Mt. Airy and South Brent locations. There are four Cluster 1 beds (mid-to deeper-water, high-energy tempestites) and four Cluster 8 beds ( deeper-water, lower-energy tempestites). The lower-energy tempestites (Cluster 8) are confined to the lower 5 meters of the section. There is only one Cluster 4 (shallower-water, high-energy tempestite) bed preserved in this section (also within the lower 5 meters). The shallower-water facies at this locality are represented by eleven Cluster 3a beds (comparatively shallow-water, wave-washed) which are concentrated in the upper portion (6 meters)of the section. Mid-depth facies are represent by two Cluster 2 beds, one Cluster 5 bed and five Cluster 3b beds. More extensive Shoaling conditions are detected in the distribution of limestone beds in this section. The Q-mode scatter plot for the beds at this locality ( Figure27) show a generally upward shift on axis two relative to the beds at the South Brent locality. The comparative distribution of deeper-water beds is similar between the two section (18-119 on axis 1 and 0-65 on axis 2 for Mt. Airy beds; and 35- 117 on axis 1 and 8-75 on axis 2 for South Brent beds). A greater shifi can be seen in comparisons between the mid-depth and shallower-water beds in these two sections. The mid-depth beds in the 98 BRENT-SOUTH DCAON BEDS-QMODE 100 90 80 70 A 60 x so ‘ . - ‘ 1 4o .—__f S 30 . C l. .3 - . 2 20‘ . . o o A . . 10 . o 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 AXISl Figure 26: Q-mode distribution of beds (N=37) from the South Brent section on DCA axes 1 and 2. Axis 1 may reflect a winnowing / transport gradient. Axis 2 may represent a gradient that reflects bottom-energy and reworking history. Circles indicate the beds associated with deeper-water facies. Triangles indicate beds associated with mid-depth facies. Squares indicate the beds associated with shallower-water facies. 99 Mt. Airy section how a more scattered distribution along axis one (ranging from 068) than the South Brent beds (ranging from 47-76). This indicates a wider range of exposure and/or transport histories for the bioclasts incorporated in the Mt. Airy beds. The relative positions of the beds on axis 2 indicate higher bottom-energy levels in the Mt. Airy beds (31 -64 for Mt Airy vs. 18-45 for South Brent). This shift on axes 1 and 2 are interpreted as reflecting increased frequency and intensity of postdepositional reworking that may reflect Shoaling-water conditions. The Miamitown locality is located approximately 18 km northwest of Mt. Airy, and provides overlapping down ramp exposure of the Upper Kope Formation. A distinctive lateral change in the nature of the limestone beds can be discerned between the Mt. Airy and Miamitown localities. The preponderance of the beds in the Miamitown exposure are associated with deeper-water facies, but despite the fragile fauna associated with the locality, most of the beds are associated with the higher-energy groups in the deeper-water facies association. The Miamitown section contains four Cluster 7 beds (low-energy, quiet-bottom), nine Cluster 6 beds (moderately reworked), eight Cluster 1 (high-energy tempestites) and ten Cluster 8 beds (lower-energy tempestites). Mid-depth facies are represented by one Cluster 2 bed (moderately winnowed), and two Cluster 3b beds. Shallower-water facies are represented by three 3a beds (higher-energy, well-sorted, winnowed) and one Cluster 4 bed (shallower-water, hi gher-energy tempestite). The Q mode plot of the Miamitown beds (Figure 28) shows a broader distribution of beds across both axis than the plots of other Kope localities. Beds associated with deeper-water facies range from 15 to 120 on axis 1 and from 4 to 90 on axis 2. This is similar to the distribution of deeper-water beds from the Mt. Airy and South Brent. The mid-depth beds have a similar distribution along axis 1 (ranging from 34 -70) as the lOO MOUNT AIRY DCA ON BEDS - Q MODE 100 NMHX> «3888888388 0 20 4o 60 80 100 120 140 Figure 27: Q-mode distribution of beds (N=39) from the Mt. Airy section on DCA axes 1 and 2. Axis I may reflect a winnowing / transport gradient. Axis 2 may represent a gradient that reflects bottom-energy and reworking history. Circles indicate the beds associated with deeper-water facies. Triangles indicate beds associated with mid-depth facies. Squares indicate the beds associated with shallower-water facies. IOI MIAMITOWN ' DCA ON BEDS - Q MODE 100 . U 80 1 . r 1 \ A 60 o ‘ o v t c X o... ‘0’ . . I I 40 S ‘ ~ 0 “r... 2 20 t o ‘ . I o ‘ e 1. 0 o 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 AMSI Figure 28: Q-mode distribution of beds (N=56) from the Miamitown section on DCA axes 1 and 2. Axis I may reflect a winnowing / transport gradient. Axis 2 may represent a gradient that reflects bottom-energy and reworking history. Circles indicate the beds associated with deeper-water facies. Triangles indicate beds associated with mid-depth facies. Squares indicate the beds associated with shallower-water facies. 102 South Brent beds, but have a higher distribution on axis 2 ( ranging from 30 to 50), similar to the distribution of the Mt. Airy beds on axis 2. The distribution of the beds associated with shallower-water facies shows a shift toward the higher end of both axes relative to both of the other Upper Kope sections (ranging from 68 to 116 on axis 1 and 15 to 90 on axis 2). This may indicate that the shallower-water beds preserved in the Miamitown section contain bioclasts with a more prolonged exposure and/or transport history; and were deposited under higher-energy conditions than beds associated with shallower-water facies in the South Brent and Mt. Airy sections. 103 DISCUSSION mm In this study an attempt was made to delineate Shoaling cycles within the Kope Formation (sensu Tobin (1982) and Jennette and Pryor (1993) etc.) based on the taphonomic analysis of the limestone beds. The widely used proximal /distal terminology may be misleading when applied to the limestone facies of the Cincinnatian. The terminology is traditionally used to indicate position relative to sediment source, and in marine environments generally implies location along an onshore-offshore gradient. The cyclicity within the limestones of the Kope Formation reflect changes in water- depth, as well as variations in the nature and intensity of bottom-energy. The relationship between water depth and bottom-energy as related to normal wave-base is relatively straight-forward. However; in "off-shore" regions of a storm-dominated ramp, the nature and intensity of the wave and/or current activity on seafloor will also reflect the intensity of storm events, and relative distance from storm centers. The vertical distribution of beds associated with deeper-water, mid-depth and shallower-water facies was determined in each of the five stratigraphic sections analyzed in this study (see Figure 29). The base of each cycle was defined by a limestone bed associated with deeper-water facies ( i.e. Cluster 8, 6, 7, or 3c). The lowermost "deeper- water" bed was followed by other beds with deeper-water associations, or by one or more beds associated with mid-depth facies (i.e. Cluster 2, 5 or 3b) or shallower-water facies (i.e. Cluster 4, or 3a). In most of the cycles limestone beds were separated by mudstone, siltstone and shale layers of varying thickness. Not all cycles contained a complete sequence of Shoaling upward facies. Each time a limestone bed was superseded by a bed indicating a relative deepening event (sensu Van Wagoneer et al., 1990), the "deeper- water" bed marked the base of the next cycle. Therefore, in some cycles, a bed 104 associated with mid-depth facies was followed by a deeper-water bed. In this case, the mid-depth bed was considered the upper limestone bed in the cycle. In some cycles the basal limestone of a cycle was a bed associated with mid-depth facies that was superpositioned above a "shallower-water" bed. The combined North and South Brent sections represent the most complete vertical exposure of the Kope Formation at any given locality. The vertical distribution of the limestone beds indicate the presence of twenty-two Shoaling cycles within the Brent exposures. The limestone, siltstone and mudstones within these cycles are consistent with the characteristics of offshore, shale-dominated and transition-zone mixed packstone/shale lithologies of the highstand facies described by Holland (1993). Stratigraphic Correlation On storm-dominated ramps, the gently-sloping topography facilitates distribution of sediment across the ramp in thin, laterally continuous sheets during high-energy storm events ( Markello and Read, 1981; Aigner, 1985). While the lateral extent of individual limestone beds may be limited, the lateral continuity of depth related facies associations (i.e. Shoaling cycles) may be traceable across broad areas of the ramp (Osleger, 1991). The irregular bedding and lack of continuous exposure has made high resolution stratigraphic correlation between outcrops difficult in the Kope Formation. Jennette and Pryor (1993) found that while individual beds lacked significant lateral continuity to be identifiable from outcrop to outcrop, the continuity of the "distal /proximal" facies were persistent enough to correlate from section to section in exposures of the Upper Kope and F airview Formations. In their study, cycles were defined based on the vertical distribution of lithological, sedimentological and ichnological characteristics of the limestone, siltstone and mudstone beds. A persistent gutter-cast siltstone storm-bed 105 in the Upper Kope was used as an isochron, and correlation was made based on the stacking arrangement of the "distal/proximal" cycles. (This is presumably the same gutter-cast bed identified in Mt. Airy section in this study. It was not observed in the South Brent or Miamitown sections [Rabbio, 1988] ). In this study, prominent shallower-water/ high-energy tempestite beds (Cluster 4) were noted in cycles 10 and 16 of the composite Brent section (Figure 29). In both cases, the overlying cycles indicated less than typical deepening with relatively thick beds associated lated facies associations within the cycles. with mid-depth conditions ( Cluster 2 beds). The shallower-water facies horizons of cycles 10 and 16 were used as stratigraphic time-lines to correlate between the Brent sections and the other localities (see Figure 29). Similar geometries were detected in the vertical stacking of the cycles across the four localities, allowing for high-resolution correlation based on depth/energy intensity related facies associations within the cycles. Two rather extreme Shoaling intervals are indicated in cycles 10 and 16. The upper boundaries of these cycles are delineated by the presence of shallower-water/ high- energy tempestite (Cluster 4 -type) beds across the entire study area. The overlying cycles are relatively compressed and contain a higher proportion of limestone beds representing mid-depth facies rather than deeper-water facies. These Shoaling intervals could be detected across the study area. The condensed cycles may reflect a decrease in accommodation space attributable to eustatic sea-level fall (Brett et al., 1990; Jennette and Pryor, 1993). Four deepening intervals are indicated in cycles 6, 9, 13 and 16. The limestones within these cycles are representative of bed types associated with deeper-water facies (Clusters 8, 6, 7 and 1). These are relatively thick cycles, containing a higher percentage 106 Miamitown Mt. Airy Sandfordtown Legend m ShaIIOW-water facies xxx; Middepth facies :2: Deeper-water facies I 1 meter vertical scale ' Gutter Cast bed Figure 29: Stratigraphic correlation of depth/intensity facies cycles across the study area. 22 cycles were detected in the composite section (North and South Brent) of the Kope Formation. In the composite section the cycles are defined by a limestone bed associated with a deeper-water or mid-depth facies near the base and a limestone associated with a shallower-water facies at the top. 107 of mud and siltstone beds. Several explanations have been offered for the variations in cycle thickness on carbonate ramps. Cycle thickening may be attributed to sea-level rise and a corresponding increase in accommodation space (Goldhammer et al., 1990), or to a depth-dependent increase in sediment supply (Osleger and Read; 1991). An increase in the sedimentation rate would result in increased cycle thickness. The influx of terrigenous sediment may also inhibit carbonate production by altering the nature of the substrate and adversely affecting filter feeders (Jennette and Pryor, 1993). Temporal Scale and Causes of Cycliciu Several explanations for the cyclicity observed in the Kope and other mixed carbonate/ elastic ramp environments have been suggested. They include fluctuations in sediment-supply and corresponding suppression of carbonate production (Osleger and Read, 1991), eustatic fluctuations associated with tectonic uplift and subsidence (Tobin, 1982; Aigner, 1985), changes in accommodation space (Goldhammer et al., 1990), and climatic oscillations (glacio-eustacy) ( Jennette and Pryor, 1993). Determination of the underlying causal mechanisms of the cyclicity within the Kope formation requires some resolution of the temporal scale of the cycles. Tobin (1982) estimated the average periodicity of Cincinnatian "megacycles" (i.e. proximal/distal cycles) to be 57,000 years. This estimate was based on an assumed sedimentation rate of 2 cm/ 1,000 years, and an average cycle thickness of 1.4 meters. The Kope Formation spans the Edenian Stage. Based on bryozoan zonation (Anstey and Rabbio, 1990) and conodont zonation ( Sweet, 1984) of the Composite Standard Section, the estimated duration of the Edenian Stage is approximately 3.5 m.y. The composite Brent sections used in this study contain the vertical extent of the Kope Formation, and therefore, represent sediment accumulation over a time period 108 approximately equivalent to the Edenian Stage. In this study, 22 Shoaling cycles were delineated in the composite Kope section based on the taphonomic analysis of the limestone beds (Figure 29). Based on temporal duration of 3.5 million years for the Edenian Stage (Sweet, 1984; Anstey and Rabbio, 1989), the stratigraphic cyclicity within the Kope appears to occur on a scale of approximately 160,000 years. This estimate assumes that all cycles were detected, and that variation in cycle thickness is related to depth-related changes in sediment influx. Glacio-eustatic oscillations driven by changes in earth-sun geometry ( Milankovich Cycles) have been proposed by Jennette and Pryor (1993) as the mechanism driving the changes in hydrodynamic regimes (ie. storm wave-base) that produced the shallowing cycles within the Kope. A periodicity of 160,000 years is significantly longer than the 57,000 years estimated by Tobin (1982), yet this estimate may still be within the time range for glacio-eustatic fluctuations in sea-level attributed to orbital perturbations predicted by the Milankovich theory. 109 CONCLUSIONS Superficially similar deposits can be produced in any of the high-energy environments represented in storm-dominated systems. This similarity can lead to difficulty in interpreting facies associations or determining genetic relationships between different beds within the same facies association. For the purposes of many studies, classification of limestone beds into broad categories (eg. packstone/ wackestone) or assignment to general facies category (eg. proximal/distal) may be adequate, a more detailed genetic classification of beds may be developed if taphonomic data are considered. Taphonomic variation evidenced in the bioclastic component of the beds, in combination with sedimentological data provides useful information that aids in the determination of the mode of deposition, the intensity of the depositional event, and the extent and intensity of postdepositional reworking. In this study a comparative approach was used to determine the general effects of taphonomic processes on different taxonomic groups. This information facilitated comparisons between beds with similar taphonomic histories but different taxonomic compositions. Statistical analysis has proven useful in determining the range of taphonomic variation, as well as the causal factors that produced the variation within the Kope Limestones. A complimentary combination of cluster analysis, factor analysis and gradient analysis was used to analyze the data. This comprehensive approach to taphonomic analysis was sensitive to subtle variations within sedimentologically and paleontologically similar beds and was useful in determining facies associations, as well as the history of the bioclastic component of the bed. The taphonomic variation in Kope limestones reflects changes in water depth as well as the nature of the background and event related energy associated with the 110 depositional environment in which the beds were deposited. Cluster analysis of the taphonomic and bedding characteristics of the limestones within the Kope Formation allows the beds to be categorized into eleven taphonomically distinct groups. Factor analysis indicates that these groups reflect a complex range of depth and energy-intensity conditions that represent depositional facies associated with deeper-water, mid-depth and shallower-water environments. Classification of the limestones on taphonomic criteria facilitates the interpretation of beds that exhibit a range of characteristics, yet are still associated with similar facies. The classification of beds into genetically related groups with similar facies associations is a useful tool in lateral correlation (Jennette and Pryor, 1993; Holland 1993; 1995). Quantitative taphonomic analysis appears to be a useful tool in high resolution stratigraphic correlation in area where limited exposure and a lack of lateral continuity in beds makes correlation difficult. In this study, 22 depth/intensity cycles were detected within the Kope Formation. These cycles were detected across the study area and used as a basis for stratigraphic correlation between the four section localities. Future Work The comparative taphonomic analysis developed in this study may be useful in the interpretation and correlation of the limestone beds in the Cincinnatian formations overlying the Kope Formation. Many of these units are associated with shallower water conditions, and generally higher energy levels than the beds in the Kope formation. While this approach was developed in an attempt to explain the causes of the Variation within the limestones of the Cincinnatian, it should be applicable to limestones in any storm-dominated or high energy depositional system. These methods may also be lll useful in the determining the cause of subtle variation in limestone beds associated with lower energy depositional systems. The continued development of a comparative taphonomic approach requires that more work be done to determine the susceptibilities of different taxonomic groups to taphonomic alteration in a wide range of depositional environments. This will require the detailed analysis and comparison of the extent and nature of taphonomic alteration of each taxon within a polytaxic assemblage across a wide range of depositional environments. The quantitative taphonomic data collected in this and future studies can be used to determine "taphonomic pathways" for different taxa. ll2 LIST OF REFERENCES Aigner, T., 1982, Calcareous tempestites: Storm-dominated stratification in Upper- Meschelkalk limestones (Triassic, SW Germany) in Einsele, G., and Seilacher, A., eds., Cyclic and Event Stratification: Berlin, Springer and Verlag, p.180-198. Aigner, T., 1985, Storm Depositional Systems: Dynamic Stratigraphy in Modern and Ancient Shallow-Marine Sequences: Berlin, Springer and Verlag, 174 p. Allen, J.R.L., 1982, Sedimentary structures: their character and physical basis; Developments in Sedirnentology, 30a and 30b, Elsevier, V. 30a, 593p., v. 30b, 663p. Aller, RC, 1982, Carbonate dissolution in nearshore terrigenous muds: the role of physical and biological reworking, Jour. Geol., v. 90, p. 79-95. Antsey, R. L., and Fowler, M.L., 1969, Lithostratigraphy and depositional environments of the Eden Shale (Ordovician) in the tri-state areas of Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio: Jour. Geol., v.77, p. 129-149. Anstey, R.L. and Rabbio,S.F., 1990, Regional bryozoan biostratigraphy and taphonomy of the Edenian stratotype ( Kope Formation, Cincinnati Area): Graphic correlation and Gradient analysis: Palaios, v. 4, p. 574 - 584. Anstey, R.L., Rabbio, SF, and Tuckey, M.E., 1987, Bryozoan bathymetric gradients within a Late Ordovician epeiric sea; Paleoceanography, v.2, p.165-176. Bassarab, DR, and Huff, W.D., 1969, Clay mineralogy of Kope and Fairview Formations (Cincinnatian) in the Cincinnati area, Jour. Sed. Pet., v.39, no.3, p. 1014 - 1022. Beaumont, c., Quinlan,g., and Hamilton, J., 1988, Orogeny and stratigraphy: numerical models of the Paleozoic in the eastern interior of North America: Tectonics, v.7, p.389 -416. Brandt, D.S., 1980 Paleoecology of an Upper Ordovician "trilobite shale" (abs): G.S.A.Abstracts with programs, v. 12, no.5, p.220. Brandt, D.S., 1986, Preservation of event beds throughtime: Palaios, v.1, p. 92-96. 113 Brandt, D.S., 1989, Taphonomic grades as a classification for fossiliferous assemblages and implications for paleoecology: Palaios, v. 4, p. 303-309. Brett, C. E. and Baird, GO, 1986, Comparative Taphonomy: A key to paleoenvironmental interpretation based on fossil preservation, Palaios, v. 1, p. 207-226. Brown, G.D. and Lineback, J.A., 1966,Lithostratigraphy of the Cincinnatian Series (upper Ordovician) insoutheastern Indiana: A.A.P.G.Bull.,v.50, no.5, p.1018- 1023. Chave, KB 1964, Skeletal durability and preservation, in Imbrie, J., and Newell, N., eds. Approaches to Paleoecology, John Wiley and Sons, New York, p. 377-387. Cisne, J.L., and Rabe, B.D.,1978, Coenocorrelation: gradient analysis of fossil communities and its application in stratigraphy, Lethia, v. 11, p. 341-364. Cressman, ER, 1973, Lithostratigraphy asnd depositional environmentals of the Lexington Limestone (Ordovician) of Central Kentucky: U.S.G.S. Professional Pap. 768, 61 p. Currrings, ER, 1908, The stratigraphy and paleontology of the Cincinnatian Series of Indiana, Indiana Dept. of Geology and Nautral resources, 32nd Annual Report, p. 607 -1188. Davies, W.M., Powell, E. N., and Stanton, R.J., 1981, Taphonomic signature as a function of environmental process: shells and shell beds in a hurricane-influenced inlet on the Texas Coast, Paleogeog. Paleoclim. and Paleoecol., v. Digby, P. and Kempton, R., 1987, Multivariate AnJalvsvs of Ecological Communities, Chapman and Hall pub., N.Y., 206 p. Driscoll, E.G., 1970, Selective bivalve shell destruction in marine environments, a field study: Jour. Sed. Petrology, v.40, p. 898-905. Driscoll, E.G., and Weltin, TR, 1973, Sedimentary parameters as factors in abrasive shell reduction: Palaeogeog. Palaeoclirn. Palaeoecol., v. 13, p. 275-288. Duke, W.L., 1985, Hummocky cross-stratification, tropical hurricanes and intense winter storms: Sedirnentology, v. 32, p. 167-194. Dunham, R.J., 1962, Classification of carbonate rocks according to depositional texture: Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Mem., v. 1, p. 108-121. 114 Folk, R.L., 1959, Practical Petrographic Classification of Limestone: A.A.P.G.Bull., v. 43, p.1-38. Folk, R.L., 1962, Spectral division of limestone types: in Ham,W.E., eds., Classification of Carbonate Rocks, a smpgsium: A.A.P.G.Memoir, 1, p.62 - 84. Folk, R.L., 1972, Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks, Hemphill Pub., Austin TX., Ford, JP, 1968, Upper Ordovician stratigraphic relations between Covington and Clays Ferry, Kentucky: A.A.P.G. Bull, v.52, p.1779-1791. Fox, W.T., 1968, Quantitative paleoecological analysis of fossil communities in the Richmond Group, Jour. Geol., v. 76, p. 613 - 640. Fursich, RT, 1979, The influence of faunal condensation and mixing on the preservation of fossil benthic communities, Lethaia, v. 11, p. 243-250. Gagan, M., Johnson, D., and Carter, R., 1988, The cyclone Winifred storm bed, central Great Barrier Reef shelf, Australia: Jour. Sed. Pet., v. 58, p. 845-856. Gauch, H.B., 1982, Multivariate analysis in Community Ecology: London, Cambridge University Press, 289 p. Gill, J.L., 1987, Design and Analysis of Experiments in the Animal and Medical Sciences, The Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, 410p. Goldhammer, R., Dunn, P., and Hardie, L., 1990, Depositional cycles,composite sea- level changes,cycle stacking patterns, and hiearchy of stratigraphic forcing: examples from theAlpine Triassic platform Carbonates: G.S.A.Bull., v. 102, p.353-562. Hallam, A., 1967, The interpretation of size-frequency distributions in molluscan death assemblages, Paleontology, v. 10, p. 25 - 42. Harris, F .W. and Martin, W.D., 1979, Benthic community development in limestone beds of the Waynesville (Upper Dillsboro) Formation (Cinciinnatianj Series, Upper Ordovician)of Southeastern Indiana, Jour. Sed Pet, v. 49, p. 1295-1306. Hay, H.B., Pope, J.K.,and Frey, RC, 1981, Lithostratigraphy, cyclic sedimentation and paleoecology of the Cincinnatian Series in southwestern Ohio and southeastern Indiana, in RobertsT.G.,ed., G.S.A. Cincinnati Field Trip Guidebooks, Falls Church, Virginia, A.G.I., v. 1, p. 73 - 86. 115 Hill, M.O., 1979, DECORANA, a FORTRAN program for detrended correspondence analysis and recriprocal averaging, Ecology and Systematics Department, Cornell University, Ithica, NY. Holland, 8., 1988, Taphonomic effects of sea-floor exposure on an Ordovician brachiopod assemblage: Palaios, V. 3, p. 588-597. Holland, S.M., 1993, Sequence Stratigraphy of the Cincinatian Series (Upper Ordovician) in its type area: Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., v. 105, P. 306-322. Jennette, DC, and Pryor, WA, 1986, Storn generated cyclic shelf deposits in Upper Ordovician of the Cincinnati Arch region ( abs.),A.A.P.G. Bulletin, v. 70, no. 5, p. 605 Jennette, DC, and Pryor, WA, 1993, Cyclic Altemation of Proximal and Distal Storm Facies: Kope and F ariview Formations (Upper Ordovician), Ohio and Kentucky: Jour Sed. Pet., v. 63, p. 183-203. Johnson, R.G., 1960, Models and methods for analysis of the mode of formation of fossil assemblages, Geol Soc. Am. Bull., v. 71, p. 1075-1086. Kidwell, S.M., 1985, Palaeobiological and sedimentological implications of fossil concentration: Nature, v. 318, p. 457-460. Kidwell, S.M., 1986, Models for fossil concentrations: Paleobiologic implications: Paleobiology, v. 12, p. 6 - 24. Kidwell, S.M., 1986, Taphonomic feedback in Miocene assemblages: Testing the role of dead hard parts in benthic communities: Palaios, v. 1, p. 239-255. Kidwell, S.M. and Behrensmeyer, A.K., 1988, Overview: Ecological and evolutionary implications of taphonomic processes: Paleogeog. Paleoclim. and Paleoecol., v.63, p.1-13. Kidwell S.M., Fursich, F .T. and Aigner, T., 1986, Conceptual framework for the analysis and classification of fossil concentrations: Palaios, v. 1, p. 228-238. Kidwell, S. M. and Jablonski,D., 1983, Taphonomic feedback: ecological consequences of shell accumulation, in Tevesz, M. and McCall, P., eds. Biotic Interactions in Recent and Fossil Benthic Communuties: N.Y., Plenum Press, p. 195 - 248. Kreisa, R.D.,1981, Storm-generated sedimentary structures in subtidal marine facies with examples from the Middle and Upper Ordovician of sowthwestem Virginia: Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 51, p. 823-848. ll6 Kreisa, RD, and Bambach, R.K., 1982, The role of storm processes in generating shell beds in Paleozoic shelf environments, in Einsele, G., and Seilacher, A., eds., Cyclic and Event Stratification : New York, Heidelberg, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, p. 200-207 Lehman, D., and Pope, J.K., 1990. Upper Ordovician tempestites from Swatara Gap, Pennsylvania: Depositional processes affecting the sediments and paleoecology of the fossil faunas: Palaios, v. 4, p. 553-564. Lorenz, D., 1973, Edenian (Upper Ordovician) benthic community ecology in north- central Kentucky (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation): University of Chicago. Ludwing, J.A. and Reynolds, J.F., 1988, Statistical Ecology, John Wiley and Sons, pub., New York. MacDaniel, R., 1973, Upper Ordovician sedimentary and benthic community parrerns of the Cincinnati Arch area, (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation): University of Chicago. Maiklem, W.R., 1968, Some Hydraulic properties of bioclastic carbonate grains, Sedirnentology, v. 10, p. 101 - 109. Marsaglia, K., and Klein, G. , 1983, The paleogeography of Paleozoic and Mesozoic storm depositional systems: Jour. Geol., v. 91, p. 117-142. Martin, W.D., 1975, The petrology of a composite vertical section of Cincinnatian Series limestones ( Upper Ordovician) of Southwestern ohio, Southeastern Indiana, and Northern Kentucky: Jour. Sed. Pet., v. 45, p. 907 - 952. Meldahl, K.H. and F lessa, K.W., 1990, Taphonomic pathways and comparative biofacies and taphofacies in a Recent intertidal/shallow shelf environment: Lethaia, v. 23, p.43 - 60. Meyer, D.L., and Meyer, KB, 1986, Biostratinomy of Recent crinoids (Echinoderrnata) at Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia: Palaios, v. 1, p. 294-302. Meyer, D.L. , Tobin, R.C., Pryor, W. A., Harrison, W.B., and Osgood, R.G., et.al.,1981, Stratigraphy, sedimentology and paleontology of the Cincinnatian Series (Upper Ordovician) in the vicinity if Cincinnati, Ohio, in Roberts, T.G. ed., Geological Society of America Field Trip Guidebook, 1981 Annual Meeting, Cincinnati Ohio, p. 31-71. Miller, A.I. and Cummins, H., 1990, A numerical model for the formation of fossil assemblages: Estimating the amount of post-mortem transport along environmental gradients: Palaios, v. 5, p. 303 -316. 117 Miller, K., Brett, C., and Parsons, K., 1988, The paleoecologic significance of storrn- generated disturbances within a Middle Devonian muddy epeiric sea: Palios, v. 3, P. 35 -52. Morton, 1988, Nearshore responses to great storms, in Clifton, H., ed., Sedimentological consequences of convulsive geologic events ; Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Paper 229. G.S.A., Boulder, p. 7-22. Nickels, J.M., 1902, The Geology of Cincinnati: Cincinnati Society of Natural History Journal, v. 20, p. 49-100. Orton, E., 1878, Report on the geology of Warren County, Butler County, Preble County, Madison County; Report of the Geological Survey of Ohio, v.3 pt.1, p. 381 - 428. Osborne, RH, 1967, R- mode factor analysis of Cincinnatian ( Ordovician ) limestones, Jour. Sed. Pet., v. 37, no. 2, p. 649 - 657. Osleger, D., and Read, J .F., 1991, Relation of eustacy to stacking patterns of meter scale carbonate cycles, Late Cambrian, U.S.A., Jour. Sed. Pet.,v. 61,p. 1225 - 1252. Peck, J .H., 1966, Upper Ordovician formations in the Maysville area, Kentucky:U.S.G.S. Bull., 1244B, 30p. Rabbio, SF, 1988, Ecological and taphonomic gradients in storm disturbed bryozoan communities of the Kope F orrnation (Cincinnati Series, Upper Ordovician) Cincinnati Arch region: Master of Science thesis, Michigan State University. Read, J.F., 1985, Carbonate Platform Facies Models, A.A.P.G. Bull., v. 69, p.1-21. Schafer, W., 1972, Ecology and Paleoecology of Marine Environments, Graig, G.Y., ed.: Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 568 p. Schindel, DE, 1980, Microstratigraphic sampling and the limits of paleontologic resolution: Paleobiology, v.6, p. 408-426. Seilacher, A., 1982, General remarks about event deposits, in Einsele, G., and Seilacher, A., eds., Cyclic and Event Stratification: N.Y., Springer-Verlag, p. 161 - 174. Sheehan, P. M., 1978, The hinging mechanisms of brachiopods - taphonomic considerations: Jour. Paleo., v. 52, p. 748. Shimoyama, S., 1985, Size-frequency distribution of living populations and dead shell assemblages in a marine intertidal land snail, Umbonium (Suchium) moniliferum 118 (Lamark), and their paleoecological significance, Paloegeogr.Paleoclim. Paleoecol., v. 49, p. 327 -353. Speyer, SE. and Brett, CE, 1986, Trilobite taphonomy and Middle Devonian taphofacies, Palaios, v. 1, p. 312-327 Speyer, SE. and Brett, CE, 1988, Taphofacies models for epeiric sea environments: Middle Paleozoic examples: Paleogeog. Paleoclim. and Paleoecol., V. 63, p. 225 - 262. Sweet, W., 1979, Conodonts and conodont biostratigraphy of post-Tyrone Ordovician rocks of the Cincinnati region: U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1066G, 26p. Tobin, RC, 1982, A model for cyclic deposition in the Cincinnatian Series of southwestern Ohio, northern Kentucky and southwestern Indiana (unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation,): University of Cincinnata, 483 p. Tobin, RC, and Pryor, W., 1985, Cincinnatian Series model for cyclic and episodic deposition of carbonates and shales on a storm dominated ramp: Geol. Soc. Am. Abst., V. 7, p. 311-312. Velbel, DB, 1985, Ichnologic, taphonomic, and sedimentologic clues to the deposition of Cincinnatian shales ( Upper Ordovician), Ohio, U.S.A., in Curran, H.A., ed., Biogenic Structures: Their Use in Interpreting Depositional Environments: Soc Econ Paleotologist mineralogists Spec. Pub]. 35, p. 299-307. Weir, G., Peterson, W., Swadley, W., and Pojeta, J.,1984, Lithostratigraphy of Upper Ordovician strata exposed in Kentucky, U.S.G.S. Professional Paper] 151-E, 121 p. Weiss, M.P., and Norman, C.E.,1960, The American Upper Ordovician Standard, IV, Classification of the limestones of the type Cincinnatian, Jour. Sed. Pet.,v. 30, no.2, p. 283 - 296. Wiess, M.P., and Sweet, W.C., 1964, Kope Formation ( Upper Ordovician); Ohio and Kentucky, Science. v. 145, p. 1296, 1301-1302. APPENDIX A Data Base TAPHONOMY OF KOPE LIMESTONES SAMPLE I I H )/\D N I N N N N M M N u u H H H I NMN WOQU‘U’IU‘IU‘IWNHHO) ) NH > > w H ) ) WNW ) H -29‘2 ) H l I ) N H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H I I UWHWUUNN H H I I I w w a w M H H H H o 1-35‘1 1-35‘2 1-36 1-37 1-38 1-39‘1 A H I In) \0 l0 H I u ) ) H I WW ) WM .1. u ) I H I I I I I H H H H H w w u w H o > > > u N H N N N N N u u N M N H H H H H H H H I I H H o o > u H I H U'I PERCENT MATRIX <50? 75?-90? >90? <50? 75%-90? <50? <50? 50%-75? <50? 75?-90? 50?-75? 50?-75? 50?-75? 50?-75? 50?-75? 50?—75? 50?-75? <50? <50? <50? 50?-75? 50?-75? SO?-75? 75?-90? <50? <50? <50? <50? <50? SO?-75? 50?-75? <50? <50? 50?-75? <50? 50?-75? 50?-75? <50? 50?-7S? <50? <50? <50? 50?-75? 75?-90? 50?-75? <50? <50? <50? 50?-75? 50?-75? 50?-75? <50? 50?-75? 50?-75? <50? 50?-75? PERCENT SILT 5?-10? 5?-10? <5? <5? 5?-10? 5?-10? >50? S?-10? S?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? S?-10? 5?-10? <5? 10?-20? 10?-20? 5?-10? 10?-20? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? <5? 5?-10? 5%-10? <5? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 10?-20? <5? 10?-20? 5?-10? 10?-20? 10?-20? <5? 20?-50? <5? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? <5? 5?-10? 5?-10? <5? 10?-20? 10?-20? <5? S?-10? 5?-10? <5? <5? lO?-20? 10?-20? 119 BIOTURBA TION MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE EXTREME MODERATE MODERATE MINIMAL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MINIMAL MODERATE MODERATE MINIMAL HIGH MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE EXTREME HIGH MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MINIMAL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE HIGH MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE HIGH MINIMAL MODERATE EXTREME EXTREME MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE HIGH POLYTAXI AMALGAMATED UNCERTAIN (?) N0 (N) UNCERTAIN (?) UNCERTAIN (?) UNCERTAIN (?) YES (Y) YES (Y) UNCERTAIN (?) YES (Y) UNCERTAIN (?) UNCERTAIN (?) UNCERTAIN (?) YES (Y) YES (Y) YES (Y) 2-16 2-17 2-13 2—19a 2-19b 2-19c 2-2 2-20 2-21 2-22a 2-22a‘2 2-22a‘3 2-23 2-3a 2-3b‘1 2-3b‘2 I I I I p h a a O‘U’m > ) N H I In ul- 0 II 0101 )) rho-INF ) I I m m >U‘U;U'U II ) wNH > I \ocomqmmm I ID 6'” I )) NH IIIIIIIII H H H H H H H H QGMWUHO > > N H I NMNI—‘H O H wwwwwuLIL-JUNwaUUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN I I ION (HM 3-24 3-25 3-26 3-27 3-28 3-29 3-3 3-30 3-31 3-32‘1 3-32‘2 3-32‘3 3-32‘4 3-33 3-34‘1 3-34‘2 3-34‘3 3-35‘1 50?-75? 50?-75? 50?-75? <50? 50?-7S? <50? 50?-75? 75?-90? 50?-75? <50? <50? <50? 50?-75? <50? 50?-75? <50? <50? SO?-75? 50?-75? >90? >90? <50? 50?-75? >90? 50?-75? >90? 50?-75? 50?-75? <50? <50? 50?-7S? >90? >90? 50?-75? SO?-75? 7S?-90? SO?-75? >90? <50? >90? 50?-75? >90? 75?-90? >90? <50? 50?-7S? <50? 50?-75? <50? <50? 50?-75? 50?-75? <50? <50? 50?-75? <50? <50? <50? <50? 10?-20? 5?-10? <5? S?-10? 10?-20? 5?-10? 5?-10? 10?-20? S?-10? 10?-20? 5?-10? 5?-10? 10?-20? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 10%-20? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 10?-20? 20?-50? S?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 10?-20? 10?-20? 5?-10? S?-10? S?-10? <5? 5?-10? 10?-20? 5?-10? 5?-10? 10?-20? S?-10? S?-10? 5?-10? S?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? S?-10? 10?-20? 10?-20? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 10?-20? 10?-20? 10?-20? 10?-20? 120 HIGH HIGH MODERATE HIGH EXTREME MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE HIGH MINIMAL MINIMAL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE HIGH EXTREME MODERATE MODERATE MINIMAL MINIMAL MINIMAL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE HIGH MODERATE MINIMAL MODERATE MODERATE HIGH HIGH MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE YES (Y) NO (N) YES (Y) UNCERTAIN UNCERTAIN UNCERTAIN UNCERTAIN UNCERTAIN NO (N) YES (Y) YES (Y) NO (N) UNCERTAIN NO (N) UNCERTAIN UNCERTAIN UNCERTAIN UNCERTAIN YES (Y) YES (Y) YES (Y) YES (Y) UNCERTAIN YES (Y) YES (Y) YES (Y) (?) (?) (?) (?) (?) (?) (?) (?) (?) (?) (?) 3-35‘2 3-36 3-4a‘1 3-4a‘2 3-4b‘1 A u I L U' N I II Hommqmm > N H -16b‘2 I I I I I I I H H H H H H H > I H ))) WOUNH U‘U‘U‘O‘U;N DIQIOIO I I H H BIQQQQNIQGGQQ I H I H I N N N O O ) N H hfikhbfififibbhéhbfibhéhhhhhhhbh-fibbfiébhh‘blbfibbbbhéhbééfihfibhfiwwwwww I I N H N \I O- ) I0 <50? 75?-90? 50?-75? <50? 50?-75? <50? <50? >90? <50? 75?-90? <50? SO?-75? 50?-75? 50?-75? >90? <50? <50? 75?-90? SO?-75? 50?-75? <50? 50?-75? 75?-90? <50? <50? <50? <50? >90? <50? <50? <50? 75?-90? >90? 50?-75? 50?-75? 50?-75? <50? <50? <50? 50?-75? 50?-75? 50?-75? 50?-75? <50? 50?-75? 75?-90? 75?-90? 50?-75? <50? <50? >90? <50? 50?-75? <50? <50? <50? <50? 50?-75? SO?-75? 50?-75? <50? 10%-20? 10?-20? 10?-20? >50? 10?-20? 20?-50? S?-10? <5? 10?-20? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 10?-20? 10?-20? 10?-20? 5?-10? 5?-10? 10?-20? 10?-20? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? <5? <5? 5?-10? 5?-10? S?-10? <5? <5? 5?-10? <5? <5? 5?-10? 5?-10? 10?-20? 10?-20? <5? <5? <5? <5? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? <5? S?-10? <5? S?-10? S?-10? <5? <5? 5?-10? 5?-10? S?-10? S?-10? 5?-10? 121 MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MINIMAL HIGH MODERATE HIGH MODERATE MODERATE MINIMAL MODERATE MINIMAL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MINIMAL HIGH MODERATE MINIMAL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE HIGH HIGH MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MINIMAL HIGH MINIMAL MODERATE MODERATE MINIMAL MODERATE MINIMAL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MINIMAL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MINIMAL YES (Y) NO (N) UNCERTAIN (?) UNCERTAIN YES (Y) UNCERTAIN YES (Y) UNCERTAIN YES (Y) NO (N) NO (N) YES (Y) NO (N) NO (N) NO (N) NO (N) (?) (?) (?) UNCERTAIN (?) NO (N) N0 (N) UNCERTAIN (?) NO (N) II ) HHIII O ) I H H H H H H > > u N H I I I I I I H H H H H m m w u m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m o I I H H q q > > N H N H 50?-75? 50?-75? <50? <50? <50? <50? >90? <50? <50? <50? <50? <50? <50? 75?-90? 50?-75? <50? <50? <50? 50?-75? 50?-75? 50?-75? <50? >90? >90? >90? >90? <50? <50? <50? >90? 75?-90? <50? <50? 50?-75? SO?-75? <50? <50? 5?-10? 10?-20? 10?-20? 5?-10? S?-10? 20?-50? 10?-20? 5?-10? 5?-10? S?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? >50? 10?-20? 5?-10? S?-10? 10?-20? 20?-50? 10?-20? <5? 10?-20? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? S?-10? 10?-20? 10?-20? 10?-20? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 5?-10? 10?-20? 5?-10? 10?-20? S?-10? 10?-20? 122 MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MINIMAL MINIMAL MODERATE MODERATE HIGH EXTREME MINIMAL MODERATE EXTREME EXTREME EXTREME EXTREME MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MINIMAL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MINIMAL MODERATE MODERATE UNCERTAIN UNCERTAIN YES (Y) YES (Y) UNCERTAIN N0 (N1 YES (Y) UNCERTAIN YES (Y) YES (Y) YES (Y) YES (Y) YES (Y) YES (Y) UNCERTAIN YES (Y) UNCERTAIN YES (Y) UNCERTAIN UNCERTAIN YES (Y) YES (Y) (?) (?) (?) (?) (?) (?) (?) (?) 123 HAHM xumku mm> .2. 02 Hwy PamUZD .2. oz sz 02 .z. 02 ZOHF20201mQAA AAA ’zzzzzz 22vzztzzz A v m: guy—Hm g gHZHm m: QHZHM m3 932?.— g gHZHm as 9.3an AD guy—Hm “z. mzoz .m. .m. Am. .m. .m. .m. .m. .m. m: qusz .m. m: oszHm .m. m: oszHm .m. a: mszum .u. .m. In. .m. .m. .m. .m. Hz. mzoz m: 93sz a: 9.3sz .5 9&sz n5 gHsz ab 93sz .5 93th .5 guznm AU. m: gmzmmg an: m: 93sz AUIN . EEHFAD: AZ. mzoz F: g QHZHM Am. m: EHZHN Am: .5 guy—Hm .2. mzoz A“: .5 @3me .m. m: 9.3th A DIN L agnhé 3.: n5 QAHZHN AU. n5 9.32858 :2 m: gHZHm F: m: 9.3sz P: m: 9.32“; .z. mzoz am: as EHZHN f: .5 gHZHm .0. n5 EHZNMNQB HUI”: QZNEHPADZ 3: n5 ".84..“th A2. 3 rm. “5 932mm 2.: N294 AZ. NZQA A2. 3 2.: g mm. mg .0. A... 932% (v PHZD NO Na (v .52... m0 N3 EH9 Emmy; (v kHz: m0 mm<fl mmU\QHqOm mxHH MUHFm AdUHmDZHu>U\DHqOm mxHq xUHHm uU\3quOI AU\ZquOI HU\3OAQOI MMHA xUHPm AU\3OQHOI AdQHOOmHQ AU\3OAAOI AU\3OAAOI MMHA MUHFm >mhU\3OAqOI AU\3OAAOI mmZOO\O>m9mhU\QHqOm DZHIUzmhmhU\3OAAOI udQHOmmIQMIHme AZOO\O>mhU\3quOI >mkmkMFU\3quOI >m9U\30qAOI >mhU\3OAAOI >mhmhU\30qAOI OZHIUzZOO\O>U\3quOI >mhZOO\O>mhZOU\O>mm> .m.H. mOOm .o.~. mkmm> .m.H. 200m .m.m. Aqm3\mhmm> .m.~. Aqm3\mhmm> .o.H. mOOm >mm> .o.m. mkmm mPHmOAHmF QOQOHIUmm QOmOummm (ONoymm GHOZHMU <0N0>mm mPHmOHHmP QHOZHmU QOmOHIUmm mHHmOAHmF QOmOHIUmm WPHQOAHMH QHOZHmU QOmOHIUmm ZOZOImU\30quOI mxHq XUHFM mxHq XUHFM mxHu XUHHm AdQHOmmxmmlemm xm>200\0>ZOO\OS200\0>(UZQU xm>200\0>Nh200\0>U\3OAADI ymhZDO\O>ZQU\O>U\ZOAAOI AZQU\O>U\3OJHOI >mk200\0>U\3quOI 4200\O>U\30JAOI udGHOOmHQ >mhNPU\3OJJOI >Nk200\0><0200 xm>ZQU\O>U\3OAQOI >mhZDO\O>mkZQU\O>U\ZOQAUI >mhZOU\O>U\ZOQHOI ANhZDO\O>U\3OQQOI Amm>\qqm3 .n.H. doom .m.n. Jam: >mm>\dqm3 .o.H. “00m *mm> .o.~. mh<¢maoz .«. dqm3\mhmN>\qam3 .o.«. mh\qqm3 .m.H. 200m .m.«. dqm3\mk¢Q MFHQOQHKF DHOZHmU QDmOHIUmfl mk2m204mh NFHmOAHmH OHOZHMU QOmOHIUmm OomOHIUmm QHOZHmU QCflOHID<¢fl ¢Q NPHQOJHKP GHOZHKU QOQOHIUmfl thmOuHmh DHOZHMU QOQOHIUmfl NHHQOHHQH QHOZHMU QOmOHIUmfl thmOAHMF OHOZHmU QOQOHIUU\§§ .o.N. Egg c.v o.« a QHgHmU onIH H§\0><0§ .o.N. mks—flan! o.NH ad U §OH6<~H0 oNIH Ejm 3.: S >~HM> 9.5 o.n fl GOSH—hug can A0\5..HOI 9.2.0253 .m.N. Hugg o.N 0H m gnu hNIH . iQHBMHQ .n.N. Egg o.N o.H < DHgHmU wnIH ymhjm 3.: E >~HN> 0.... o.v U GomoHag uniH . xm>§\0><0§ .o.N. NEE 0.0H o.m m 2:053 wnIH SHMDZHH>U\2OJHOI 2H6; .m.N. ASE 0H m. D Ema wnIH . anszHS\§§ .mN. dgg o.n o.N U (89% wan Ejm .o.H. “8m >mm> o.NH o.N D BHQOAHFH. N an H xm>§\O>~HN> o.oN o.v n QOAHOHHUE N n... H . Ejm 3.: “8m >~HN> o.v o.N m 885.0% N on H >mh~HM> 0.0H 9H 4 gum N mnaH . Efim 3.: mg >~Hm> o.ON o.n fl 0082.053 H mm H SHKQZHE\?D...HOI $25.03” .n.N. ”3:68. o.N o.H Q (08.53 H mNIH >E o.NH a... < (80.53 H mm H . EHBMHQ .o.N. EEOC: o.N c... Q QngHmU vn H xm>§\D>mhmh§ 2...: S >MN> o.oH o.N I EHNSHFH. an H . 515 .o.«. Fug o.v O... 2 QOQOHEEO nan gHmDZHH>U\IDq.HQ. 9.5.0255 .oH. ”Hem >~HN> o... o.H < 48953 nan . >NP<1E .n.H. ¢8m 9...: o.N U MPHmquE Nn H . flDHBMHQ .o.N. Egan! o.n o.H I anHmu Nn H xm>§\o>6§ .n.N. gaging. o...H o.N < GEM—204% NnIH SHMDZHH>0\§§ .o.N. NEE 0.... o.N m §\0><0§ .m.N. Hugmkgmog o.m o.n m OomoHrUfiHm N Hn H SHmQZHS\§§ .m.m. HAM—3 raga: o.m o.v 4 (055 N Hm H A4nHH8anH .n.n. HAN? xmgqmt. o... o.H < DHgHfiu H Han >m..H.<.Hm .o.N. Egg 0... o.N D MPHQOHHE on H . fiGHBMHQ .m N. HASP—Rang °.N o.H < QHgHmU on H xm>28\0><0§ >E§\0>mw> o.N m. U QHgHmU N.N H . xm>§\O>~a «N H xm>§\0>U\IOJqOI xm>200\0>40200 . uU\30JqUI AduHmozHH>U\3OHHOI . xm>200\0>ZQO\OSZDO\O>U\QHHOm . XM>ZDO\O5200\0><0200 xM>ZQO\O>ZDU\O>U\3OHHOI . xm>ZDU\O>ZDO\OSZQO\O>200\0>40200 AU\QHHOm HU\QHHOm xm>ZOO\OSZDO\OSU\3OQAOI .n.N. qu3\mhmm>\dqm3 .n.N. qqm3\uh\qdm3 .m.n. qum3 >mm>\de3 .m.N. HAN3\NHK¢NDO! .o.H. “00m >mw> .n.N. HHN3\MP<¢MQOZ .n.N. Hum3\flhkmmabt .n.n. HHN3 >mm>\dum3 .o.H. 200m >mm> .n.N. Hum3\mhlmmnbx .n.n. JAN: >mm>\dqm3 .n.N. HAN3\MHmeDO! .o.H. 200m >mm> .m.N. HHN3\mPmm> .o.H. zoom >mm> .o.H. MUOG >KN> .n.N. HHN3\MP<¢EQGS .o.H. “00m >mw> .n.N. HAN3\MHK¢MQO! .m.H. 200m .m.N. qu3\mbkmmnot .n.N. HHN3\HH<¢MDDI .o.N. uhfifl NFHQOHHGB OHOZHmU QOQOHIUq<>Hm OOQOKPM<0 MPHQUHHMP 4ONO¥mfl N>q<>Hm nOmOHIUxm thmOHHmh OHOZHMU QOmUHIUU\3quOI xm>ZOO\OSZDO\OSU\ZOQQOI >mk200\0>D\IOJJOI >NhZQU\OSNhU\3OQAOI xm>200\0>200\0>U\3OQAU$ xm>200\OS(UZDU >NHZQU\O5(UZDO HU\3OAQOI >mh20030><0200 rmkU\§OJAUI >m9NkU\§DJJUI >MBNPU\ZOHHOI >mhZDO\OSU\30AQOI >NHmkU\§OJQGI >mhmm>\uam3 .m. N. HHM3\NHKGMOOS .m. n. HAN: wmm>\qqm3 .n. n. uqm3 >2N>\qqm3 .o.N. MHKMNOOZ .°.N. NHZNNQOZ .n.N. qu3\mbMN> .m.n. Adm: rmm>\dum3 .o.N. whimmobx .n.n. AHM3 >mm>\qqm3 .m.H. 200m 2 2 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0 0000000000000000 no I" .N. HHN3\NHK¢MDOS .o.N. NHmm>\dqm3 .n. N. uqm3\mh¢Q thQOHHmP DOQOHIUmn (ONOWMQ MPHQOHHmH DHOZHKU OOEOHIUmm MBHQOHHmB OHOZHMU DO&OH:UU\30..HO: , gnaw:— >N.H.<.Hm 440 H «Q2 H E\§§ §\Q>§\O>2HHu\O>E§\O>m.H.<.Hm S H ~52 H .H>U\ 201.39.. 9. H .H v0 Hum 39% E4: .55 H8m HQ H40 H ~52 H S\§.HQ.. mu. H .H v5 Huh Ejm Egg—.8 H40 H “92H $6.39.. Ejm Sgag rmhfim H4O Ham HQ Ejm 3 H 62H S338. Ejm .H2; .mN. gang .o.N. Bang 2...: Pagan! .o.N. fig .oN. E5992 .n.N. Egg :2: Egg .o.N. Egg. .m.n. Hum: >mm>\.H.Hm3 .o.N. gamma. .o.N. Bang. 3.: 5H,; .w.n..H.HN3>~Hm>\1H.Hm3 .o.N. BE .o.H. mam >mm> .o.N. ”59509.. .m.n. .H.Hm3 >~H§Hu3 FUN NH OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOK’OOOOOOOOOOOKIOOO H nnonnoo0Hnoonovnnnnntnnnvuaownnnnno VH'MUH'M'MO M'M OOOOOOOOU‘OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIDOOOOOOOOIDOOOOOIDOOIOOOIOOIDO “NCO-1'04!!!“ NO‘HNNHHHHHHHP‘N OHMHNHNN "H "N NH NH '1 N <00mk§\O>E§E XEZBASGKU Ex...“ SHmozHE§54§ . >E28\D>§\o>§\0>(U§ rfljm SHMQZHE§~DA§ gHBmHQ Hzoo\0>E§\O>~Hw> . XN>§\O><028 E§\O>§\O>~Hm> gHmnHzHH>0\30.H.HOI HEZRV\O> . xm>§\O>~Hm> . Hakim .o.H. m8m >mN> H0\IDH.Hn¥. .m.N. HHSEE XN>§\O>0\§.HOI 3.: mg EH1; 8.: 28m >~HN> xm>§\0>mm> .HU\§.HOI .oH. 28m >~Hm> xw>§\O>U\BH§ .o H. g Mam; . rmhjm .mH. “BAH gHBmHQ HU\§.HOI .oN. mks—mag E405 .o H. «Sm >HHN> 3H§H§§§ .c H. g >~nw> Ejm .o.N. Fag . géfifi .mN. ASE UZHrUzgm .Hmm> . §>§\O>~HN> xm>§§4u§ .n.n. HE >§ 3H§H8\§.HQ. .nN. dig §§~HN> SHBMHQ .o.N. pkg xm>§\D>U\§§ .nN. g2 Ejm .o.H. g >fiu> . 3H§H8\§§ 3.: “8m >fi> >Pr§\O>~HM> . Ejm 3.: “8m >~HN> . SHMQZHS\§‘HQ.. 3.: g raga .o.H. m8m HIE >NHmm> .HduHszHHrU\§.HQ.. .n. n. Hum: >¢NSHN3 H ”H M NH ‘- H C H W HOG-1H" NfiOHnHHVNHv-‘Onn HVNWUN H N H HmH H OOOOOOOOOOOOWOOOIDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD H nvmnumnouonm «on novaonnwnsnoocHnonownovnnonnHoN ooooooooooonmcoonnoncoooomoooooooooooooomoooooonn 78\O>§\O>§\0><0§ ...U\>5.H.HOI Ejm xm>§\O>§\O>§\0>28\o>zooxo>zooxo>548 00052099628 8.: zoom >mm> 0.... 0.0 n . 05052st.530: 8.: 080m .205 0.0 0. < . 200.030 8.: 320.00.; 0.0 n. a 062923526..qu 0.60820. 8.0. EE 0.0 0.0 u . xm>zooxo>628 8.: 034g 0.. 0.0 < . 062925063630: 8.0. 0.005 rg 0.0 0.. a xm>zooxo>mm> 0.0 0.0 < 0.02.5.0 8.: 080mg 0.. 0.0 u . xm>28xo>mm> 0.0 0.0 < . >E§m 8.: moon 0.0 0.. 0 E30 8.0. Fig 0.. 0.0 < S~m§~8x§§ 8.0. PEER! 0.0 0.0 a $95.0 8.: zoom 0.. 0.0 2 043088 8 2 0.003 End: 0.0 0.0 2 E50 8.: gig 0.0 0.0 2 060320ng 8.0. BE 0.0 0.0 < E30. 8.: 800 >§> 0.0 0. 0 000526636036 8.: Fag 0.0 0.0 n 30§08\§§ 8.: Bag 0.. 0.. < E50 8.: Song 0.0 0. 0 E3... 8 0. 03% 0.0 0.0 4 30§08\§.§_ 8 0. 435.30! 0.0 0.0 n 08388628 8.: 52.35 0.2 0.0 N 043963 8.0. Big 0.0 0.0 n 0603205339. 8.: §m>§> 0.0 0.0 0 0005088608 8.: 03452! 0.00 0.0 m Efim 8.: «80.055 0.0 0.0 n 062920620un. 8.: «800$ 0.0 0.0 4 E10 8.: E; 0.0 0.0 u xm>28xo>528 8.: 03% 0.0 0.0 a 3.2.5 8.0. $5.30! 0.0 0.0 4 £50 8.: 3955239. 0.0 0.. u xm>szo>628 8.: EE 0.0 0.0 a 30523062300: 8.0. 034% 0.0 0.0 < 0.0.0.30 8.: 03% 0.00 0.0 0 06222300238: 8.: as 0.0 0.0 < HHHNNN t l I III I I I u c c .088an I I nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn 140 Sam—9H 96\>.O‘:OI SHGQZHA>U\§§ XN>§\D>§\O>§\O>§\O>28\O>28\O>U\§§ QAHIUEQ SHMQZHE\?DA§ >WHE§\Q>§\O>§\O>§\O>§\0><0§ 3 Hmflz H ‘HMIU\§.HOI xm>§\O>§\O>§\O>28\0>U\IOA.HOI A§\0>0\QH.HOM SHNHQZHEAHHHOM AU\30.H§ §\O>§\0>mhU\IO.H‘HOI SHMQZHH>U\§.HOI xm>§\O>28\0>4028 .H78\O>§\O>4U§ xm>28\0>4078 xm>§\0>§\0>N.H.<.Hm H40 H «Q2 H 8\20.H§ xm>§\0><0§ xm>§\0>(U§ a H ~52 H HB\§§ xm>§\O>§\O>(U—,8 H40 H «0.2 H S\§.HQ.. >N.H.PH<.H.H H4O H8m HQ rajm 46 H «92 H .H>U\§..Hn¥. xm>§\O>28\O>§\O>78\0>§\0>U\§.HQ._ H40 H8m HQ XN>ZnHu\O>§\O>(U§ xm>§\0>U\§.HQ.. H4O H8m HQ 3 HmnHz H 8\§§ n.n 3.2 Hag; 3.: gang Ant: “Bk 3.3 5:558; 3.: mg >~Hm> Hoé. ”Pang Hoév B309 3.: PHKNHNQQH 3.3 sigma? 3.: m8m >~HN> 3...: Hum: >m§um3 3.: “BA 3.: Hugggmag 35. a; 3.: Bang 3.: ”H8“ Hot: “8m 55> 3.: «Bu 3.: ”9558‘ 3.: «Sm 3.: 3:38... :1: gang .mHV mg 36. J.Hmk rag H9: “8m >~HN> 3.". Egan! 3.1m8m :4; .HHN3>~HN>\.H.HM3 3.: .55an 3.: mg 3.: gang 3.: «BA 3.: Hams; rmgg 3.: gang n HFOF‘ '4 H H H H OOOOOOOOOOOOOOK’OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOK‘OOOOOOOO H ”MONMOFMOBMm‘O' nvvvnovvsosowonflonooo NOMOIDONIO .N ‘0 NHNHH OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOK’OOOOOOOOOOOOOOU’OI‘OOOOOO NNHNo-OHNFCNNHH'H w.r-1N HNN H'HMNP’IHN‘OMN'H 905 759-908 508-754 <50| AHALGAHA AKALGAHATZD value Label YES NO UNC TAION TAION Value babel DRYOZOA IIACHIOPOO CIIIOID TRILOOITB O‘TAOCOO GASTAOPCO IIVALVI PIAOHZNTS GRAPTOLITS ABUUDANC ABUNDANCE value Label 3 N n O O U P Value MOUNH Total Value .U'JP Total value UPJF Total value .UNP Total value UNH Total p C @OJOUIIOUNP O H O 9 p value QOMOUNP Total frequency 249 123 229 66 139 Frequency 538 186 49 23 19 frequency 165 541 70 39 .-—..0. frequency 68 277 frequency 121 53 123 518 frequency 248 212 139 163 31 frequency 235 223 183 80 34 3 149 Percent 30.6 15.1 28.1 8.1 1 1 Percent Quo——-- PCKCCHC 30.4 26.0 Percent 28. 27. 22. 9. MUDNQMDO eev-o--- Valid Percent 30. 9 15.3 28.4 2 2 Valid Percent 67.6 23" valid Percent 21.3 69.7 valid Percent valid Percent 40.7 17.8 valid Percent 30.4 26. 17. 20. 3. GPNJOOHO valid Percent 29. 27. 22. Cum Percent 30 46. 74. 82. 100. 0004400 Cum Percent 67.6 91.0 97.1 100.0 Cun Percent 21.3 91.0 100.0 Cun Percent 9.3 17.5 55.5 100.0 Cun Percent 40.7 58.6 100.0 Cun Percent 30. 56. 73. 93. 97. 98. 98. 99. 100. O'DUOUUU'A. Cu- Percent 29. S6. 79. 88. 93. 93. 100. OMH‘OOMO PROCESS If (TAION CO 1). SORTING SORTING Value Label VP POOR "00 Ill U/VH VI BRIAKAGZ BREAKAGE value Label ”"3308!" "IIIHAL DIIAATIC KIN INTRN ASEASION ABRASION value Label <1UI 104-204 204-404 404-504 SHAPtl PRZDOH SHAPE value Label SEARCHING PLATZY COICAVO/CONVEX SIHI°SPHIROIDAL SOLID/CYLNDACLB BOLLOI/CYLNDACL PROCESS I? SOITING SORTING value Label VP POOR "00 Ml. I/VI (TAXON £0 2). Value flea-DUMP 000000 Total value .UUNNHP OMOMOUD Total value ‘UNNHP‘ 00150450 Total value VIQUONP Total Value ODUNP 00000 Total frequency 36 37 72 65 35 frequency frequency 154 11 45 3 18 frequency 35 45 —------ frequency 28 28 50 79 150 Percent 14. 14. Percent N p 04.30.04.300 Percent 14.1 18.1 2.4 .4 2.4 3 Valid Percent 14. 14 29. 26. 14. NPNOOU Valid Percent ----—-- valid Percent Valid Percent 1 . 1 . 4 8 2 o-c-aa--- valid Cun Percent u) .5 OOQMAU' Cu- Percent 35. 56. 8‘. O-JG'OOIJd 100. Cu- Percent 040008“ OUIOJ I" OO‘P‘UW Cu- Percent 14. 32. 34. 35. 37. 100. 009‘de Cu- Percent Percent Percent 13.2 13.2 23.6 37.3 12.3 13.3 13.3 23.7 37.4 12.3 13.3 26.5 50.2 87.7 100.0 BREAKAGE DRMMGB Value Label UNBEGflEN HENIHAL DISARTIC MIN INTRN EXTENSIVE ABRASION ABRASION Value Label <10\ 104-204 204-404 404-504 SHAPtl PRZDON SHAPE value Label PLATPY DISCOIPAL CONCAVO/CONVEX PROCESS I? (TAXON IO 3). SOITING OOITIEG Vhlue Label V? POOR HOD H/l u/vu IRIAIAGB BRZAEAGB Vblua Label UIDROKZN DISAISIC MIN INTRN ADRASION ABRASION value Label <10! 104-204 204-404 404-504 Value GOUUNNPP OOUDUOUOU‘ Total 5 p C O OUOUOUIO O dUUfJPJO-‘P Total Total value GOUNP‘ 00000 Total Vhlue .— I a u wlutuv- O u OIJ¢3L4C)U Total Total frequency 1 2 4 43 32 53 21 frequency 57 4 49 4 59 2 frequency frequency 10 13 34 61 21 frequency U04". hiker-a u a m.» H frequency 06 2 23 ——----_ 15] Valid Cum Percent Percent Percent U‘OOQOPU'O'OM 20. 15. 25. 25. Percent 33.5 oen-o--- valid Percent vulid Percent -——---- Vhlid 23. 36. 64. 73. 99. 100. OP'KOO'OQUJIU Cu— Percent 27.3 29.2 52.6 54.5 82.8 83.7 100.0 Cu- Percent 33.5 34.0 100.0 Cu: Percent Percent Percent valid . p 00'3th Cun Percent Percent Percent N-ara manicu— 4 wuH Nun d a Ville H \0 . ououmomu Cu- Percent Percent Percent 64.7 1.5 17.3 .8 13.5 0 U OdPluNd :29.le P8806" 8"“?! value Label BRANCHING PLATE? DISCOIDAL CCNCAVO/CCNVZI SOLID/CYLNDRCLE HOLLOU/CYLNDRCL PROC£38 I? (TAION BO 4). SORTZIG 3087185 Value Label V7 POOR HOD fl/I u/vu BRIAKAGI BRZAKAGZ Value Label DISARTIC KIN INTI” ADKASION ABRASION Value Label <10! 104-204 404-504 8HA231 P8300” SHAPE value Label PLATE? DISCOIDAL COICAVO/CONVIX SOLID/CYINDRCLB STICK LIES 93°C!!! I? (TAXOI BO 5). SOBTIIG SORTIHG value Label n00 H/u Value ‘4) 0'0 Total frequency frequency 43 39 27 36 18 frequency 1 10 18 61 23 49 frequency 156 frequency 128 1 28 frequency l52 POICCBC Percent 26.4 23.9 16.6 22.1 Percent Percent Valid Percent a1acoyta 4 Valid Percent 26.4 23.9 16.6 22.1 11.0 valid Percent valid Percent 96.9 valid Percent 79.0 .6 valid Percent Percent Cu- Percent .7 2.2 81.3 64.2 85.6 100.0 Cu- Percent 26.4 50.3 66.9 89.0 100.0 Cu- Percent p d O O 0.0 O 0 Cu- Percent 96.9 97.5 99.4 100.0 Cu- Percent Cue Percent BREAKAGZ BRIAfiAGE value Label UNBROEEN MINIMAL DISARTIC ABRASIOI ABRAPION Value Label <10! 104-204 SHAPll PRZDOH SHAPE value Label CONCAVO/CONVZ! BEHI‘BPHIROIDAL value ~0- or: Total Value Total frequency frequency frequency Percent Percent Percent 153 valid Percent valid Percent valid Percent Cum Percent OVO'D CJmtJosu camtnan Cum Percent 96.8 100.0 Cu- Percent 93.5 100.0 Row 246 30.6 137 17. 16° 31 : Total I! n 4 ae '6 e N Page 1 of 1 (3.5} 100.0 I O 4 .8 "IN INTR EITBNSIV 39 N (2.5) o—-------o--------0~~------0--------0—-------o--------o--------o—------—o-----~~-. 4/26/92 DIGAHTIC (2.0) 1511 (1.5) MINIMAL (1.0) UNBROEZN o--------0--------o--------o--------0—------—o--------o-------—o---—----o--------; o-------~0--------o---o----o—-----—-o--------o--------o--------o—-------o-------- o--------o-—---—-—o-——-----o--------o--------0----—---o--------0-—------o------—-; o--------o--------0--------o--------o--------o--------o-----—--c--------o-------- o--------o--------o--------o--------o--------o--------o--------o-—------o-------- BREAKAGB 4 4 4 8 I ---—----0--------o--------o---—----o--------o--------o--------o--------o--------o-------- TAPHONOHY OP KOPE LIflESTONES TAXON TAXON by BREARAGB BREAKAGZ Col Pct Page 3 TAXON DEYO: BRACHIOPOD CRINOID TRILOBITE OSTROCOD GASTROPOD as DIVALV! 0--------o--------o--------o—-------0------~-o--------o-------~o--------0-------- o--------o--------o--------o------—-0--------o-—------o--------o--------o-------- PRAGHZNTS 5.0 GRAPTOLITS 805 100.0 16. Row Total 30. 209 16. 161 ~ M N 55 Page 1 of 1 404-504 (2.5) 66. 4/26/9 194 24. 100.0 138 17. 204-404 (2.0) 59.6 28. 104-204 (1.5) 11 10 0? K09! LIHZSTONBS 5'°°-'---¢ "-""-4 ""'--’4 '-"----( -‘-"'--('-"""4'-“-‘-’4 """"(--"""- (1.0) o----—--—o---—--—-o-------—o---—--—-o--——----0--------o-------- o--------o--—----—o----——--o--------o—-------o--------n-------- é--------g--------a--------o--------é--------6------—-o--------7 ABRASION 3(104 Total . Number of Missing Observation-z Colu-n --------D------~-D--------D'-------O--------D°-------0--------D-------- TAPHONOH? Col Pct 'OA TAXOI TAXON by ADRASION AIRAGION BRACHIOPOD CRINOID TRILOOITB BRYO Page TAXON Pace 5 TAPHONOHY O? KOPE LXHESTONES TAXO“ TAXON by SHAPll PRZDOH SHAPE SHAPll Roe Pct ' 1BRANCHIN PLATEY DISCOIDA CONCAVO/ 16 L CONVEX ZROIDAL LNDRCLZ 1 1 1 2 1 3 ' 4 1 5 : 6 : TAXON -------- O -------- D -------- O -------- O ------- -O ------ O -------- O 1 1 l4 1 1 18 l 1 1 2 4 .4 1 2 4 ' BRYOZOA I 1 1 I 0 -------- O -------- U -------- O -------- 0 -------- 0 -------- 0 2 . 1 33.5 1 .5 1 be 0 . 1 2 BRACHIOPOD 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 O ------- 0 -------- 0 -------- 0 -------- O -------- D -------- O 3 1 7 1 1 4 1 79 l 1 2 9 1 l 4 1 CRINOID 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 O ------- O -------- 0 -------- Ob ------- D -------- O -------- O 4 1 1 79.0 1 .6 1 17.3 1 l 9 1 TRILOBITZ 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 -------- O -------- O -------- O -------- O -------- O -------- D 5 1 1 . 1 93.5 1 6 5 2 1 OQTROCOO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 -------- O -------- O ------- -O -------- O- ------- O -------- D 6 1 1 1 16.7 1 1 83.3 . 1 GASTROPOO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D -------- O ------ '0 -------- O -------- 0 -------- 0 -------- 0 7 1 1 100.0 1 1 1 1 1 IIVALV! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O -------- 0 -------- 0 -------- O -------- O ------- 0 -------- O 8 1 1 100.0 1 1 1 1 1 PIAGHBNTS 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1 1 0 ------- '0 -------- O -------- D- ------- 0 -------- D -------- O 9 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 GRAPTOLITS 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 """"" 4 """"" 4 """"" 4 """"" 4 """" 4 """"" ( Cole-n 36 252 113 .07 8 11 Total 4.4 31.1 14.0 ‘5 6 1.0 l 4 "umber oi Hieeing Obeervationax 6 2nd of Include tile. 0 Page 1 of 1 SEMI-89H SOLID/CY HOLLOH/C STICK L1 YLNDRCL KC 7 1 8 . ........ 0--------~ 62.5 1 1 ........ 0--------_ ........ o.-------~ 14.4 1 1 ........ o--------~ 1 1.2 1 ........ o--------~ ........ 0--------~ ........ o--------~ ........ 0--------~ ........ 0--------~ 1 100.0 1 ........ .--------- 175 7 21.6 .9 26/92 26/92 Total 248 30.7 139 17.2 162 20.0 O U 809 100.0 APPENDIX C Factor Analysis ML 156 SPSS/PC+ The Statistical Package for IBM PC 5/2/92 TAPHONOMY OF KOPE LIMESTONES The SPSS/PC+ system file contains 233 cases, each consisting of 16 variables (including system variables). 16 variables will be used in this session. FACTOR VAR=MSORTING MREORIEN MFABRIC MBREAKAG MABRASIO MSORT MALLOSIZ MPERCENT MGRADING MXLAM/ /EXTRACTION=PC /PRINT=CORRELATION KMO AIC ROTATION INITIAL EXTRATION /PLOT=EIGEN /FORMAT=SORT BLANK(.3) /ROTATION=VARIMAX /SAVE=REG (3 FS) /WIDTH=132. This FACTOR analysis requires 13.9K) BYTES of memory. R A N A L Y S I S — - - - - - - - — — _ - - - _ _ - Analysis Number 1 Listwise deletion of cases with missing values Correlation Matrix: MSORTING MREORIEN MFABRIC MBREAKAG MABRASIO MSORT MALLOSIZ MPERCENT MGRADING MXLAM MSORTING 1.00000 MREORIEN .23727 1.00000 MFABRIC .01576 .07182 1.00000 MBREAKAG .35659 .18262 .07256 1.00000 MABRASIO .25253 .17329 .00599 .60591 1.00000 MSORT .37262 .19126 .24639 .27517 .23146 1.00000 MALLOSIZ -.39853 MPERCENT .29430 MGRADING -.23296 MXLAM .02058 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Bartlett Test of Sphericity = 330.71424, .00000 -.26238 1.00000 .22065 -.26011 -.12479 .14477 .14539 .13975 -.20190 .08557 1.00000 -.l47ll -.20632 -.10531 .06472 157 -.07767 .08031 -.14050 1.00000 .01677 -.11459 -.49874 .35910 .16198 .20820 .03891 .00748 -.05816 .02709 1.00000 .71369 Significance = There are 0.09 34 Anti-Image Covariance Matrix: MABRASIO MSORTING MREORIEN MFABRIC MBREAKAG MABRASIO .61189 MSORT -.02884 MALLOSIZ .02322 MPERCENT -.08306 MGRADING -.00582 MXLAM -.01065 MSORTING MSORT .72983 -.13501 .08414 -.13241 .00449 -.17748 .68300 .00269 .15714 -.06736 -.10637 .02526 .09350 -.15005 -.00092 MXLAM MREORIEN MALLOSIZ .88446 -.03496 -.01116 -.04921 -.03089 .03981 .63474 .02062 .09248 .10374 -.08314 .12161 -.12236 MFABRIC MPERCENT .91549 -.05592 .05372 -.17880 -.02777 .01385 .84768 .08144 .11238 -.01681 -.O4660 (37.8%) off—diagonal elements of AIC Matrix > MBREAKAG MGRADING .50143 -.27924 .00010 .19222 .02884 -.09582 .86707 .01335 .10549 158 159 Anti-Image Correlation Matrix: MSORTING MREORIEN MFABRIC MBREAKAG MABRASIO MSORT MALLOSIZ MPERCENT MGRADING MXLAM MSORTING .73766 MREORIEN -.16805 .77115 MFABRIC .10294 -.03885 .54871 MBREAKAG -.21887 —.01675 -.08253 .66446 MABRASIO .00671 —.06689 .07178 -.50412 .71008 MSORT -.25137 -.03974 -.22611 .00017 -.04462 .76089 MALLOSIZ .00396 .05313 -.03643 .34072 .03726 .23866 .76544 MPERCENT -.08564 .02381 -.01572 .04424 -.11533 -.13979 .12607 .80860 MGRADING .03175 .11846 .09141 -.14531 -.00799 .12150 .11207 .13108 .64739 MXLAM -.18414 .13558 -.01842 .01977 -.Ol427 -.00117 -.16102 -.05307 .11878 .43476 Measures of sampling adequacy (MSA) are printed on the diagonal. Extraction 1 Analysis (PC) for Analysis 1, Principal-Components Initial Statistics: Variable Communality * Factor Eigenvalue Pct of Var Cum Pct MSORTING 1.00000 * 1 2.80949 28.1 28.1 MREORIEN 1.00000 * 2 1.38913 13.9 42.0 MFABRIC 1.00000 * 3 1.10682 11.1 53.1 MBREAKAG 1.00000 * 4 .95150 9.5 62.6 MABRASIO 1.00000 * 5 .89087 8.9 71.5 160 MSORT 1.00000 * 6 .74510 7.5 78.9 MALLOSIZ 1.00000 * 7 .70694 7.1 86.0 MPERCENT 1.00000 * 8 .55825 5.6 91.6 MGRADING 1.00000 * 9 .51354 5.1 96.7 MXLAM 1.00000 * 10 .32836 ' 3.3 100 0 2.809 * I I | E I I I G I E I N I V I A 1.389 * L I U 1.107 * E .891 * * S .745 * .707 * .514 * * .328 * I I 000 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- PC Extracted 3 factors. 161 Factor Matrix: FACTOR l FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 MBREAKAG .72541 -.43347 MALLOSIZ .71366 MSORT .66458 .31133 MABRASIO .65267 -.40462 MSORTING .60812 .34357 MPERCENT .48526 .30722 MREORIEN .42053 -.34201 MGRADING -.65237 MXLAM .46582 .73682 MFABRIC .40508 -.44597 Final Statistics: Variable Communality * Factor Eigenvalue Pct of Var Cum Pct MSORTING 50109 1 2.80949 28.1 28.1 MREORIEN 29417 * 2 1.38913 13.9 42.0 MFABRIC 41016 * 3 1.10682 11.1 53.1 MBREAKAG 73040 * MABRASIO 62749 * MSORT 55267 * MALLOSIZ 56234 * MPERCENT 34565 * MGRADING 52121 * MXLAM 76027 * Varimax Rotation 1, Extraction 1, Analysis 1 — Kaiser Normalization. Varimax converged in 6 iterations. Rotated Factor Matrix: MBREAKAG MABRASIO MALLOSIZ MSORTING MGRADING MFABRIC MSORT MPERCENT MREORIEN MXLAM FACTOR 1 .85223 .78783 -.66709 .54431 .42180 .31116 162 FACTOR 2 -.68206 .61360 .60392 .40121 .37430 FACTOR 3 .39835 Factor Transformation Matrix: FACTOR FACTOR FACTOR 3 PC FACTOR 1 .87622 2 -.44593 3 .18271 1 FACTOR .47644 .74463 -.46748 2 FACTOR 3 .07241 .49666 .86492 EXACT FACTOR SCORES WILL BE SAVED WITH ROOTNAME: FS FOLLOWING FACTOR SCORES WILL BE ADDED TO THE ACTIVE FILE: NAME F81 F82 F83 LABEL REGR FACTOR SCORE REGR FACTOR SCORE REGR FACTOR SCORE 1 FOR ANALYSIS 1 2 FOR ANALYSIS 1 3 FOR ANALYSIS 1 FINISH. APPENDIX D Cluster Analysis «RNIBSI Page 30 SPSS/PCv 4/27/92 Dandrogra- ueins Average Linkage (Within Group) Resceled Distance Cluster Coabine C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25 Label Seq 1 1 1 1 1 1 3-32”) 102 3-32‘4 S 3-32‘3 104 1 25‘1 3 3S“1 9 3-30 100 5-6 198 5-11‘2 171 3-31 101 3-18 88 2-13‘2 51 5-17‘2 176 1-21‘1 13 1-21“3 14 2-8‘1 76 2-12 5-4‘2 195 2 22a 6 3-32‘2 103 3-26 96 1-39‘2 26 4- 6c 1 x27 3 7572 10 3- 7 97 5- 6‘2 189 4- 6d~2 131 4- 8 155 3- x 92 3- 99 1- 5‘1 32 4- 7‘2 154 — o 59 3— 7 a7 2— a 7B 2- b 79 s- 2 184 3- a 2- 072 7 4- 64“1 130 x— 3 16 3- 119 - 4 2—4b‘1 6 s-'*1 196 5-1.2 197 5— 791 17s 1- *1 1— ‘3 4- o~2 146 — 9 as 3-20 91 3-23 93 1-13 1-31‘3 27 1-31‘4 28 2991 21 - 172 4-17b“4 137 - 201 4-19‘1 142 3-4e‘2 113 -4c 70 2-19b 56 4—176~5 138 3b‘1 64 2 144 5-16 174 4-3la 159 2-19c 57 -3 157 : 5-371 191 ; 4 7 164 ; 4-6‘1 162 I 1-171 11 ; 4-19‘3 143 g ; 4—17b‘2 135 ; ; 3‘2 140 g ; 2—8‘2 77 l---l 2-13‘1 so : 164 ' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII | IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ' _ - . . . . - I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII . _ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII | . . . . _ . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . — — ‘ IIIIIIIIIIIIII ' tttttttttttttttt | _ _ . A . _ . ' OOOOOOOO | IIIIIIII ' . . _ . . . . . _ I IIIIIIIIII ' OOOOOOOOOO I u . o ' OOOOOO ' IIIIII - I llllllll ' . _ . . . . _ . . - - . - IIIIIIIIIIIIII ' IIIIIIIIIIIIII | . . _ . - . . — _ . . . . ' ...... ' IIIIII ' _ "' — — - ' IIIIII ' IIIIII ' - _ . - . . _ — _ _ . — . Il' - - ""--'IUOC' . — "CCI' ...... I 'I'II'IIOI' _ — u _ . . _ - _. . . . . . _ _ . . - . nu- :::::::::: ' . "' . _. . "'. . . _ "'. . ' 000000 | IIIIIIII | "' _ _ . _ - -— . _ .. . . _ . _. _ _ . . . . 'I' _ . |'-_. -‘0I' "'.. 'II'II' _ 'ul'uuoc' . ." 'IIO‘ . _ _ . I44 . . _ _ . . —._ . _ _ ... . _ _ . _ _ ._. . . _ _ _ _ _ '00'11911. . "'. . ..'l "' . . ... |"'OC'IUIQI . _ _ . _.. A ."l ' IIIIII l'uuou' . ""' . ._ . . .. . .... . . . . .._ . _. . _ . . _ _._ . .. _ . . . . ... . 44444444 "1104!4‘_. " III"_~ l"— . ._ _ _ .'|II. .. . _. "'_ -1001'CIII' _ . _.-"| .. . A . _"'. .. . . .__ _. . .._. _ —...- a . .. _..- m .. . ._ . - _ . .... . _. . . . .. .... . '4014‘0Icc- ..‘|_. _ .__. -111". . . . .-"l'.. ...."'.. . ._ "' III". . .... . _. . "' 'Iil' .. ..__ ' . . ...._. . .... . ......_. __... ...._ —.. . .. _ _ . .._ . ._.. . _. _ . A _ . ._ _.._ _ _ lll-.. . . _ .11.-.. ..nl". ... _._‘.I.. .._.I'. .. .I-l. .. lll-al.. In“. . .._ . _._. lll.“."‘."-lclll~.lecl. . __ _ . . .._..... —._._. .—.._-.-——_......_...u__— — ... p ._ . .._ _ .... ......- ... —. .._._... . I." '40--. . _ _ _ . .. .._..'l. . . . _ . _ - . . _ . . . . . . _ _ . . g . .""'. . ."‘_. I". . .I". _ .‘Iu. . . _ . .". .. _". . _ . _ . .‘1. _._ . _._._.._.. .._....—..__.-——............~...- _.... ___ . __... _...._.._...—_... ._..._._..._. .._'-'. . . . . _ . _ _". . _ _ . . . _ . . . _ . — - . A . . . _ . _ . . . . . u . . . ."_ . . .. _._"'. . . ."_ . . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . ."_ _ _ . . _ . _ . . . ._ .__._...__—.__.....__.__...__-_.-._...._....--—-...—_.. ____ .....__....—_..._..—.-—.—_..__.__.____ ...._..._..___..._.__.................._..............._"__.'|......__._....._.._...._....___.._.._ _._._.._.._.._....__..—_.._.._.-....-....__..-..—_.-._...._._............___.._.._._...-._.. .~.. . 9rJ22092243215400355137nU43‘375803392631293858517669182448126l4.105801263005272800506Q.01580716367‘7358258 6116810.2367262612827289958819833‘3 1718Q.S.b 666(03‘. 14.449588832895225 7027261568358 2111-47752354 64‘583 I... 1.. 11 11 I. 1 111.111 1. 1. 1 111 1 I. 1. 1 I. 111 1 I. 1 21 ll. 1 11 1111111111111 .l 7.. 11 2 l 1 221A 3 2A 3 1.21 I. 2 2 2 12 A A 1. 1.1 A 2 AAAG ABA 5021.0 2 21.. O C AlAAA A A C A O A AA b 6C 2 d C C A AA b6 . bbd? SA 0,7A A 0 A \A S6 ‘66A 733 5635 71 561 6 58.0 a B‘OSbGI-Ooo’bqso 9:026ch 0 0 O l 745978031856792476 14539 ‘4‘21232166182412115122‘211622335115131711‘AI3S‘93212‘323221311211321681710222232212122112112211381123 .........g_...___._.._...___..._.._....__.._.__.-.__-________......._.._.A ._.__..._....._.._._......_ st33?3l$1“2‘4l‘113‘24555‘33335111‘13533525112‘2‘1‘11113115531433241‘.12542‘4122514511‘4‘554‘4"112‘2251 I65 Page 31 SPSS/PC4 4/27/92 Variables (Cluster Hembershxp) Saved into Act1ve F110 CLUSHEHQ for Average Llnkage (W1th1n Group) Page 32 SPSS/PC. 4/27/92 Th1e procedure was completed at 20:23:04 MEANS TABLES - “SIZESH TO POLYTAXI BY CLUSHEHQ. 0.0.0 Given HORKSPACE allows for 7132 Cells exth 1 D1nensxons for MEANS. Page 33 SPSS/PC+ 4/27/92 Su-ariee of NSIZESM By levels of CLUSHEH9 Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Populat1on .0118 .5831 201 CLUSMEM9 1 .0593 .1206 2 CLUSHEH9 2 -.1682 .2214 8 CLUSHEH9 3 .2584 .7030 62 CLUSHEM9 4 -.2070 .3398 17 CLUSHEM9 5 -.1865 .2167 6 CLUSHEM9 6 .0821 .4282 21 CLUSHEH9 7 .0954 .8565 19 CLUSHEM9 8 -.3287 .3196 39 CLUSMEM9 9 -.0391 .0000 1 Total Cases - 233 H1ssing Cases - 32 OR 13.7 PCT. Page 34 SPSS/PC+ 4/27/92 Summaries of MSIZELG 8y levels of CLUSHEH9 Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Populat1on .0113 .7076 201 CLUSMEM9 1 .2338 .6313 28 CLUSHEM9 2 .2762 .5529 8 CLUSMEM9 3 .1952 .9045 62 CLUSHEH9 4 -.1908 .4518 17 CLUSHEM9 5 .3876 .6072 6 CLUSHEM9 6 .1726 .4667 21 CLUSHEH9 7 .0124 .4350 19 CLUSHEHS 8 -.5516 .3968 39 CLUSMEH9 9 -.0079 .0000 1 Total Cases - 233 M1ss1ng Cases - 32 OR 13.7 PCT. Page 35 SPSS/PC4 4/27/92 Summaries of MSORTING 8y levels of CLUSMEM9 Var1able Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population -.0466 .6561 201 CLUSHEH9 1 -.2993 .5718 28 CLUSMEH9 2 -.7990 .4948 8 CLUSHEM9 3 .0962 .7168 62 CLUSHEH9 4 .2909 .4639 17 CLUSH£H9 5 -.2272 .2445 6 CLUSHEH9 6 -.2116 .5438 21 CLUSHEH9 7 -.4373 .6735 19 CLUSMEH9 8 .2174 .5243 39 CLUSMEM9 9 .1346 .0000 1 Total Cases - 233 I66 MisSing Cases - 32 OR 13.7 PCT. Page 36 SPSS/PC. 4/27/92 Summaries of MREORIEN By levels of CLUSMEMQ Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population -.0376 .7202 201 CLUSMEM9 1 .0718 .6423 28 CLUSMEM9 2 .0499 .3541 8 CLUSMEM9 3 .0094 .7811 62 CLUSMEM9 4 .1889 .4892 17 CLUSMEM9 5 .0981 .4961 6 CLUSMEM9 6 -.4239 .8870 21 CLUSMEM9 7 -.5549 .9514 19 CLUSMEM9 8 .1231 .4155 39 CLUSMEM9 9 .3036 .0000 1 Total Cases - 233 MiSSing Cases - 32 OR 13.7 PCT. Page 37 SPSS/PCs 4/27/92 Summaries of MFABRIC 8y levels of CLUSMEM9 Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population -.0313 .7067 201 CLUSMEM9 l .2625 .7155 28 CLUSMEM9 2 .1784 .8342 8 CLUSMEM9 3 -.0166 .6941 62 CLUSM£M9 4 .0123 .3066 17 CLUSMEM9 5 .1254 .9171 6 CLUSMEM9 6 -.2051 .8831 21 CLUSMEM9 7 -.3933 .8370 19 CLUSMEM9 8 -.0812 .5553 39 CLUSMEM9 9 -.0555 .0000 1 Total Cases - 233 Missing Cases - 32 OR 13.7 PCT. Page 38 SPSS/PC+ 4/27/92 Summaries of MBREAKAG By levels of CLUSMEM9 Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population -.0464 .6575 201 CLUSMEM9 1 -.1586 .6075 28 CLUSMEM9 2 -.4072 .4775 8 CLUSMEMQ 3 -.1990 .4778 62 CLUSMEM9 4 .2581 .5206 17 CLUSMEM9 5 -.0952 .3025 6 CLUSMEM9 6 -.4813 .5252 21 CLUSHEM9 7 -.5290 .4813 19 CLUSMEM9 8 .7084 .5420 39 CLUSMEM9 9 -.5789 .0000 1 Total Cases - 233 MiSSing Cases - 32 OR 13.7 PCT. Page 39 SPSS/PCO 4/27/92 Summaries of MABRASIO By levels of CLUSMEM9 Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population -.0544 .6669 201 CLUSMEM9 1 -.1245 .5983 28 CLUSMEM9 2 -.0469 .5403 8 CLUSMEM9 3 -.1693 .4201 62 CLUSMEM9 4 -.0054 .5155 17 CLUSMEM9 5 -.0273 .6744 6 CLUSMEM9 6 -.3652 .4604 21 CLUSMEM9 7 -.3940 .2918 19 CLUSMEM9 8 .5007 .9806 39 CLUSMEM9 9 -.6819 .0000 1 Total Cases - 233 MisSing Cases - 32 OR 13.7 PCT. Page 40 SPSS/PC¢ 4/27/92 167 Variables (Cluster Membership) Saved into Active File CLUSMEM9 for Average Linkage (Within Group) MEANS TABLES = MSIZESM TO POLYTAXI BY CLUSMEM9. ***" Given WORKSPACE allows for 7132 Cells with 1 Dimensions for MEANS. Summaries of MSIZESM By levels of CLUSMEM9 Variable Value Label Mean For Entire Population .01 18 CLUSMEM9 1 .0593 CLUSMEM9 2 -.l682 CLUSMEM9 3 .2584 CLUSMEM9 4 -.2070 CLUSMEM9 5 -.l865 CLUSMEM9 6 .0821 CLUSMEM9 7 .0954 CLUSMEM9 8 -.3287 CLUSMEM9 9 -.0391 Total Cases = 233 Missing Cases = 32 OR 13.7 PCT. Std Dev Cases .5831 .4206 .2214 .7030 .3398 .2167 .4282 .8565 .3196 .0000 201 28 8 62 17 6 21 19 39 1 Summaries of MSIZELG By levels of CLUSMEM9 Variable Value Label Mean For Entire Population .01 13 CLUSMEM9 l .2338 CLUSMEM9 2 .2762 CLUSMEM9 3 .1952 CLUSMEM9 4 -.l908 CLUSMEM9 5 .3876 CLUSMEM9 6 .1 726 CLUSMEM9 7 .0124 CLUSMEM9 8 -.5516 CLUSMEM9 9 -.0079 Total Cases = 233 Missing Cases = 32 OR 13.7 PCT. Std Dev Cases .7076 .6313 .5529 .9045 .4518 .6072 .4667 .4350 .3968 .0000 201 28 8 62 17 6 21 19 39 l 168 Summaries of MSORTING By levels of CLUSMEM9 Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population -.0466 .6561 201 CLUSMEM9 l -.2993 .5718 28 CLUSMEM9 2 -.7990 .4948 8 CLUSMEM9 3 .0962 .7168 62 CLUSMEM9 4 .2909 .4639 17 CLUSMEM9 5 -.2272 .2445 6 CLUSMEM9 6 -.21 16 .5438 21 CLUSMEM9 7 -.4373 .6735 19 CLUSMEM9 8 .2174 .5243 39 CLUSMEM9 9 .1346 .0000 l Total Cases = 233 Missing Cases = 32 OR 13.7 PCT. Summaries of MREORIEN By levels of CLUSMEM9 Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population -.0376 .7202 201 CLUSMEM9 1 .0718 .6423 28 CLUSMEM9 2 .0499 .3541 8 CLUSMEM9 3 .0094 .781 1 62 CLUSMEM9 4 .1889 .4892 17 CLUSMEM9 5 .0981 .4961 6 CLUSMEM9 6 -.4239 .8870 21 CLUSMEM9 7 -.5549 .9514 19 CLUSMEM9 8 .1231 .4155 39 CLUSMEM9 9 .3036 .0000 1 Total Cases = 233 Missing Cases = 32 OR 13.7 PCT. 169 Summaries of MFABRIC By levels of CLUSMEM9 Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population -.0313 .7067 201 CLUSMEM9 l .2625 .7155 28 CLUSMEM9 2 .1784 .8342 8 CLUSMEM9 3 -.0166 .6941 62 CLUSMEM9 4 .0123 .3066 17 CLUSMEM9 5 .1254 .9171 6 CLUSMEM9 6 -.2051 .8831 21 CLUSMEM9 7 -.3933 .8370 19 CLUSMEM9 8 -.O812 .5553 39 CLUSMEM9 9 -.0555 .0000 1 Total Cases = 233 Missing Cases = 32 OR 13.7 PCT. Summaries of MBREAKAG By levels of CLUSMEM9 Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population -.0464 .6575 201 CLUSMEM9 l -. 1586 .6075 28 CLUSMEM9 2 -.4072 .4775 8 CLUSMEM9 3 -. 1990 .4778 62 CLUSMEM9 4 .2581 .5206 17 CLUSMEM9 5 -.0952 .3025 6 CLUSMEM9 6 -.4813 .5252 21 CLUSMEM9 7 -.5290 .4813 19 CLUSMEM9 8 .7084 .5420 39 CLUSMEM9 9 -.5789 .0000 1 Total Cases = 233 Missing Cases = 32 OR 13.7 PCT. Summaries of MABRASIO By levels of CLUSMEM9 Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population -.0544 .6669 201 CLUSMEM9 l -. 1245 .5983 28 CLUSMEM9 2 -.0469 .5403 8 CLUSMEM9 3 -. 1693 CLUSMEM9 4 -.0054 CLUSMEM9 5 -.0273 CLUSMEM9 6 -.3652 CLUSMEM9 7 -.3940 CLUSMEM9 8 .5007 CLUSMEM9 9 -.6819 Total Cases = 233 Missing Cases = 32 OR 13.7 PCT. 170 .4201 .5155 .6744 .4604 .2918 .9806 .0000 62 17 21 19 39 Summaries of THICKNES THICKNESS By levels of CLUSMEM9 171 Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population 4.4900 2.6463 201 CLUSMEM9 1 5.6857 .9732 28 CLUSMEM9 2 8.0625 .8210 8 CLUSMEM9 3 2.7500 1.1015 62 CLUSMEM9 4 8.3706 1.6984 17 CLUSMEM9 5 1 1.0000 .8944 6 CLUSMEM9 6 5.6524 .7554 21 CLUSMEM9 7 3.4053 1.2263 19 CLUSMEM9 8 2.6051 1.3351 39 CLUSMEM9 9 15.0000 .0000 1 Total Cases = 233 Missing Cases = 32 OR 13.7 PCT. Summaries of ALLOSIZE ALLOCHEM SIZE By levels of CLUSMEM9 Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population 2.7562 1.4301 201 CLUSMEM9 1 1.8929 .8751 28 CLUSMEM9 2 4.7500 .4629 8 CLUSMEM9 3 3.0645 .9896 62 CLUSMEM9 4 1.8235 1.1311 17 CLUSMEM9 5 3.0000 .8944 6 CLUSMEM9 6 4.2857 .9024 21 CLUSMEM9 7 4.3158 .8201 19 CLUSMEM9 8 1 .205 1 .4091 39 CLUSMEM9 9 5.0000 .0000 1 Total Cases = 233 Missing Cases = 32 OR 13.7 PCT. Summaries of SORT BED SORTING By levels of CLUSMEM9 Variable Value Label Mean For Entire Population 3.8507 CLUSMEM9 1 3.9643 CLUSMEM9 2 2.6250 1.3482 .8812 1.0607 Std Dev Cases 201 28 8 CLUSMEM9 CLUSMEM9 CLUSMEM9 CLUSMEM9 CLUSMEM9 CLUSMEM9 CLUSMEM9 Total Cases = Missing Cases = \OOOQQLIIAU) 233 4.1 129 4.7059 3.0000 3.6667 1.4737 4.5897 5.0000 32 OR 13.7 PCT. 172 L0574 .5879 L4142 L3540 .7723 L0187 .0000 62 17 21 19 39 1 173 Summaries of GRADING GRADING By levels of CLUSMEM9 Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population 1.4179 .6741 201 CLUSMEM9 1 1.2500 .5182 28 CLUSMEM9 2 1.3750 .5175 8 CLUSMEM9 3 l .2903 .5548 62 CLUSMEM9 4 1.3529 .6063 17 CLUSMEM9 5 l .0000 .0000 6 CLUSMEM9 6 1.7619 .9952 21 CLUSMEM9 7 1.8947 .5671 19 CLUSMEM9 8 1.4359 .7538 39 CLUSMEM9 9 1 .0000 .0000 1 Total Cases = 233 Missing Cases = 32 OR 13.7 PCT. Summaries of XLAM CROSS LAMINATION By levels of CLUSMEM9 Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population 1.9104 .4919 201 CLUSMEM9 1 1.8214 .61 18 28 CLUSMEM9 2 1.8750 .3536 8 CLUSMEM9 3 2.0645 .4387 62 CLUSMEM9 4 1.7647 .7524 17 CLUSMEM9 5 1.8333 .7528 6 CLUSMEM9 6 1.8571 .3586 21 CLUSMEM9 7 2.0000 .0000 19 CLUSMEM9 8 1.8205 .4514 39 CLUSMEM9 9 l .0000 .0000 1 Total Cases = 233 Missing Cases = 32 OR 13.7 PCT. Summaries of MATRIX] MATRIX By levels of CLUSMEM9 Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population 3.3284 .9958 201 CLUSMEM9 l 3 .7857 1.0666 28 CLUSMEM9 2 3.3750 1.0607 8 CLUSMEM9 3 3 .3548 .9767 62 174 CLUSMEM9 4 3.7059 .9852 17 CLUSMEM9 5 3.1667 .4082 6 CLUSMEM9 6 3.1429 1.0623 21 CLUSMEM9 7 2.2632 .733 5 l9 CLUSMEM9 8 3.3846 .71 14 39 C LUSMEM9 9 5.0000 .0000 1 Total Cases = 233 Missing Cases = 32 OR 13.7 PCT. Sun By Var 175 Summaries of PERCENTM PERCENT MATRIX By levels of CLUSMEM9 Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population 3.1741 .9563 201 CLUSMEM9 1 3.5000 .8819 28 CLUSMEM9 2 2.7500 .8864 8 CLUSMEM9 3 3.2097 .9257 62 CLUSMEM9 4 3 .4706 .6243 1 7 CLUSMEM9 5 2.8333 .4082 6 CLUSMEM9 6 3.3810 .4976 21 CLUSMEM9 7 2.0000 1.1547 19 CLUSMEM9 8 3.3590 .9315 39 CLUSMEM9 9 3.0000 .0000 1 Total Cases = 233 Missing Cases = 32 OR 13.7 PCT. MAI Summaries of POLYTAXI POLYTAXIC By levels of CLUSMEM9 Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population 1.0746 .2634 201 CLUSMEM9 1 1.0714 .2623 28 CLUSMEM9 2 l .0000 .0000 8 CLUSMEM9 3 l .0645 .2477 62 CLUSMEM9 4 1.0588 .2425 17 CLUSMEM9 5 l . 1667 .4082 6 CLUSMEM9 6 l .0000 .0000 2 1 CLUSMEM9 7 1.1053 .3153 19 CLUSMEM9 8 1.1282 .3387 39 CLUSMEM9 9 l .0000 .0000 1 Total Cases = 233 Missing Cases = 32 OR 13.7 PCT. APPENDIX E Detrended Correspondence Analysis 176 DECORANA DIMENSIONED FOR 950 SAMPLES AND 120 SPECIES. DECORANA OPTIONS -- DOWNWEIGHTING O; RESCALING 0; ANALYSIS 0; SEGMENTS 0; IWEIGH = 0; SCALING = 0: 0=41TERATIONS; -1 = RECIPROCAL AVERAGING, N = 20 ITERATIONS IRA = 0: 0 = DECORANA, 1 = RANUMBER OF SEGMENTS = 0: 0 = 26 SEGMENTS USED; IF OTHER THAN 0, THEN BETWEEN 14 AND 50 SEGMENTS USED. THERE ARE 13 SPECIES AND 233 SAMPLES. ALLO srzs SORT GRA DING XLAM PERC ENTM NTHI CKNE NMSI ZESM NMSI ZELG NMSO RTIN NMRE ORIE NMFA BRIC NMBR EAKA NMAB RASI 1-10 1-11 1-12 1-13 1-14 1-15 1-16 1-17 1-18 1-19 1-1\2 1-1‘1 1-1‘2 1-20 1-21‘1 1-21‘3 1-22 1-23 i-25‘1 1-25‘2 1-25‘3 1-26 1-27 1-28 1-29‘1 1-29‘2 1-2‘1 1-2‘2 1-30 1-31‘1 1-31‘2 1-31‘3 1-31‘4 1-32 1-33 1—34 1-35‘1 1-35‘2 1-36 1-37 1-38 1-39‘1 1-39‘2 1-3‘1 1-3‘2 1-3‘3 1-46 1-5 1—6 1-7 1-8 1-9 2-1 2-10‘1 2-10‘2 2-11 2-12 2-13‘1 2-13‘2 2-14 2-15 2-16 2-17 2-18 2-19a 2-19b 2-i9c 2-2 2-20 2-21 2-22a 2-22a‘2 2-22a‘3 2-23 2-3a 2-3b‘1 2-36‘2 2-4 2-4a 2-46‘1 2-46‘2 2-4c 2-5 2-56‘1 2-56‘2 2-56‘3 2-56‘4 2-6‘1 2-6‘2 2-6‘3 2-7 2-8‘1 2-8‘2 2-9a 2-9b 3-1 3-10 3-11 3-13‘1 3-13“2 3-15 3-16 3-17 3—18 3-19 3-2 3-20 3-21 3-22 3-23 3-24 3-25 3-26 3-27 3-28 3-29 3-3 3-30 3-31 3-32‘1 3-32‘2 3-32‘3 3-32‘4 3-33 3-34‘1 3-34‘2 3-34‘3 3-35‘1 3-35‘2 3-36 3-4a‘1 3-4a‘2 3-46‘1 3-46‘2 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9‘1 3-9‘2 4-1 4-10a‘1 4-106 4-10c 4-14‘a 4-14b 4-14c 4-15b 4-16a 4-166‘1 4-166‘2 4-16c‘1 4-16c‘2 4-16c‘3 4-16d‘1 4-16d‘2 4-16d‘3 4-17a 4—176‘1 4-176‘2 4-176‘3 4-176‘4 4-176‘5 4-17c 4-17d‘2 4-18 4-19‘1 4-19‘2 4-19‘3 4-2 4-20‘1 4-20‘2 4-22 4-23 4-24a 4-24b 4-24c 4-25 4-26 4-27‘1 4-27‘2 4-28 4-29 4-3 4-30 4-31a 4-31b 4-4 4-5 4-6‘1 4-6‘2 4-7 4-8 4-9 4‘a 5-1 5-10 5-11‘1 5-11‘2 5-11‘3 5-12 5-13 5-15 5-16 s-17‘1 s-17‘2 5-18‘1 s-1a‘2 5-19 5-2 s—2o‘1 s-2o‘2 5-21 5-22 5-23 5-24 5-25 5-26 5-26‘1 5-26‘2 O SAMPLES WILL BE OMITTED: NO DOWNWEIGHTING: RESIDUAL RESIDUAL RESIDUAL EIGENVALUE LENGTH LENGTH LENGTH LENGTH LENGTH LENGTH OF OF OF OF OF OF RESIDUAL RESIDUAL RESIDUAL RESIDUAL EIGENVALUE LENGTH LENGTH LENGTH OF OF OF LENGTH LENGTH OF OF LENGTH OF RESIDUAL RESIDUAL RESIDUAL RESIDUAL RESIDUAL EIGENVALUE LENGTH LENGTH LENGTH LENGTH LENGTH LENGTH OF OF OF OF OF OF RESIDUAL RESIDUAL RESIDUAL RESIDUAL EIGENVALUE LENGTH OF GRADIENT LENGTH OF .009346 .001566 .000006 GRADIENT SEGMENTS GRADIENT GRADIENT SEGMENTS GRADIENT .005320 .002560 .000151 .000011 .03674 GRADIENT SEGMENTS GRADIENT GRADIENT SEGMENTS GRADIENT .004320 .002014 .001199 .000928 .000041 .02724 GRADIENT SEGMENTS GRADIENT GRADIENT SEGMENTS GRADIENT .003811 .002373 .000367 .000028 SEGMENTS .07144 .02197 .13 .13 .09 .10 .10 .10 .08 AT ITERATION AT ITERATION AT ITERATION .297 .13 .13 .294 .288 .13 .13 286 AT ITERATION AT ITERATION AT ITERATION AT ITERATION .637 .09 .08 .799 .910 .10 .10 .909 AT ITERATION AT ITERATION AT ITERATION AT ITERATION AT ITERATION .845 .09 .09 .874 .912 .10 .09 .921 AT ITERATION AT ITERATION AT ITERATION AT ITERATION .762 .08 .08 O 1 2 .13 .13 WNHO .08 .09 bWNI-‘O .09 .09 wa—‘O .08 .13 .13 .07 .09 .09 .09 .08 AXES ARE RESCALED .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 .06 .05 .04 .04 .04 .09 .09 .09 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .08 .08 .07 .07 .06 LENGTH OF GRADIENT LENGTH OF GRADIENT LENGTH OF SEGMENTS LENGTH OF GRADIENT 178 .772 .767 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .765 .08 .08 .07 fiPENCIEKSEHSCIRJES RANKED 1 EIG= .071 4 XLAM 333 12 NMBREAKA 211 13 NMABRASI 184 9 NMSORTIN 150 3 GRADING 118 2 SORT 115 11 NMFABRIC 81 10 NMREORIE so 5 PERCENTM 62 6 NTHICKNE 1 7 NMSIZESM —45 8 NMSIZELG -75 1 ALLOSIZE -85 UINQQHGIH 13 10 12 RANKED 2 .037 EIG= XLAM NTHICKNE NMFABRIC NMSIZELG NMSIZESM SORT PERCENTM NMABRASI NMREORIE NMBREAKA GRADING ALLOSIZE NMSORTIN 420 143 138 121 111 109 46 -23 -40 -47 -60 -66 -91 179 H 015 H HU'leNQAIKD 12 H mu RANKED 3 EIG= .027 XLAM 393 NMREORIE 170 NMSORTIN 151 NMSIZESM 148 NMSIZELG 78 SORT 71 GRADING 40 NMFABRIC -5 PERCENTM -8 ALLOSIZE -24 NMBREAKA -39 NMABRASI -64 NTHICKNE -102 RANKED 4 EIG= .022 XLAM 403 NTHICKNE 145 NMREORIE 108 NMSIZELG 91 GRADING 87 NMABRASI 85 ALLOSIZE 57 PERCENTM 57 NMBREAKA 25 SORT 0 NMSORTIN -20 NMSIZESM -40 NMFABRIC -181 SAMPLE SCORES - WHICH ARE WEIGHTED MEAN SPECIES SCORES 88 163 191 131 200 26 66 82 141 154 159 151 170 81 85 113 120 123 134 168 204 121 122 145 184 19 167 209 224 25 86 186 43 12 67 58 190 72 96 RANKED 1 .071 EIG= I II I HmI-‘m “)4) ”(TH ) U" I I I I w u N A N D‘ > > > N N > NNIHH Ill H H A hNNmmU’NNm > > I I I I I N w H w w ) > ) H H W W N I l H H >m w m > II Mb! I m U’m > >w N H m m A H A A w w m A u w w u N N A A A A A N N H m u H A A u I m U > w H 4-31a 1-39‘2 1-1‘1 2-19c 2-13‘1 4-6‘1 2-22a‘2 3-1 128 120 120 119 119 116 113 111 111 111 111 111 110 110 109 109 108 108 108 108 108 108 107 107 107 106 105 105 105 104 103 103 103 102 101 101 100 100 99 99 194 145 91 89 142 175 182 41 232 62 188 174 61 177 71 105 130 183 79 147 171 38 116 135 179 17 185 197 110 153 11 107 215 RANKED 2 .037 EIG= I I I I H H m u w o > m N > H 111 II mwNN oomA I 1" m I N .5 O A w w H N H A N H A H A N m H A A H A N u A A I I N 45 N m 90 89 87 83 79 78 78 77 75 74 71 71 70 7O 68 68 68 67 66 64 64 64 64 63 63 63 62 62 62 62 61 60 60 59 59 58 58 58 58 58 220 181 30 89 22 S4 71 107 194 221 63 129 13 55 59 79 85 215 19 61 116 218 65 105 214 92 21 93 16 37 73 117 128 20 57 115 127 42 120 123 RANKED 3 EIG= .027 5-26‘2 92 4-27‘2 83 1-31‘1 7o 2-6‘2 70 1-26 69 2—10‘1 68 2-22a 68 3-20 68 4-9 66 5-26‘3 66 2-17 65 3-35‘2 65 1-1‘2 64 2-10‘2 64 2-13‘2 64 2-4a 64 2-56‘2 64 5-23 64 1-25‘1 63 2-15 63 3-29 63 5-26 63 2-19a 62 3-19 62 5-22 62 2-8‘1 61 1-25‘3 60 2-8‘2 60 1-21‘3 59 1—35‘1 59 2-22a‘3 59 3-3 59 3-35‘1 59 1-25‘2 58 2-12 58 3-28 58 3-34‘3 58 1-39‘1 57 3-32‘1 57 3—32‘4 57 194 61 19 196 53 68 193 34 215 231 149 130 195 209 10 14 4O 62 108 207 140 101 143 197 48 192 64 65 218 97 114 133 146 210 56 71 RANKED 4 EIG= .022 4-9 76 1-16 67 2-15 64 1-25‘1 61 5-1 61 2-1 60 2-2 60 4-8 60 1-32 59 5-23 59 5-7 59 4-16a 58 1-11 57 3-36 57 4‘a 57 5-19 57 1-19 56 1-20 56 1-37 56 2-16 55 3-21 55 5-18‘1 54 3-9‘2 53 3-15 52 4-10b 52 5-10 52 1-5 51 4-7 51 1-12 so 1-13 so 2-18 49 2-19a 49 5-26 49 3-10 48 3-27 48 3-46‘1 48 4-14b 48 5-2 48 2-11 47 2-22a 47 180 160 4-17b‘2 99 78 2-4 57 62 2-16 56 77 2-3b‘2 47 222 5-3‘1 99 109 3-22 57 113 3-26 56 132 3-4a‘2 47 53 2-1 98 178 4-25 57 121 3-32‘2 56 148 4-15b 47 92 2-8‘1 98 64 2-18 56 122 3-32‘3 56 20 1-25‘2 46 133 3-4b‘1 98 6s 2-19a 55 124 3-33 56 39 1-36 46 201 5-12 97 85 2-5b‘2 55 15 1-21‘1 55 113 3-26 46 223 5-3‘2 97 93 2-8‘2 55 81 2-4b‘2 55 205 s-17‘1 46 87 2-5b‘4 96 193 4-8 55 126 3-34‘2 55 5 1-14 45 21 1-25‘3 95 16 1-21‘3 54 161 4-17b‘3 55 37 1-35‘1 45 84 2-5b‘1 95 49 1-6 54 182 4-28 55 213 5-21 45 176 4-24b 95 54 2-10‘1 54 125 3-34‘1 54 228 5-5‘1 45 213 5-21 95 187 4-31b 54 166 4-18 54 100 3-13‘2 44 233 5-9 95 195 4*a 54 178 4—25 54 131 3-4a‘1 44 8 1-17 94 23 1-27 53 216 5-24 54 135 3-5 44 61 2-15 94 34 1-32 53 95 2-9b 53 139 3-9‘1 44 74 2-23 94 82 2-4c 53 152 4-16c‘1 53 233 5-9 44 161 4-17b‘3 94 101 3-15 53 217 5-25 53 74 2-23 43 197 5-10 94 158 4-17a 53 82 2-4c 52 98 3-11 43 51 1-8 93 108 3-21 52 146 4-14b 52 99 3-13‘1 43 156 4-16d‘2 93 141 4-1 52 154 4-16c‘3 52 138 3-8 43 215 5-23 93 164 4-17c 52 206 5-17‘2 52 144 4-10c 43 192 4-7 92 15 1-21‘1 51 7 1-16 51 170 4-2 43 36 1-34 91 18 1-23 51 77 2-3b‘2 51 202 5-13 43 162 4—17b‘4 91 35 1-33 51 180 4-27‘1 51 26 1-29‘2 42 206 5-17‘2 91 68 2-2 51 227 5-4‘2 51 51 1-8 42 157 4-16d‘3 89 75 2-3a 51 230 5-6 51 79 2-4a 42 29 1-30 88 173 4-22 51 56 2-11 50 80 2-4b‘1 42 60 2-14 88 27 1-2‘1 50 68 2-2 50 82 2-4c 42 76 2-3b‘1 88 144 4-10c 50 108 3-21 50 106 3-2 42 44 1-3‘1 87 39 1-36 49 109 3-22 50 178 4-25 42 112 3-25 87 47 1-4b 49 145 4-14‘a 50 184 4-3 42 165 4-17d‘2 87 77 2-3b‘2 49 202 5-13 50 216 5-24 42 169 4-19‘3 86 181 4-27‘2 49 47 1-4b 49 23 1-27 41 102 3-16 85 32 1-31‘3 48 90 2-6‘3 49 43 1-39‘2 41 132 3-4a‘2 85 33 1-31‘4 48 94 2-9a 49 76 2-3b‘1 41 137 3-7 85 189 4-5 48 219 5-26‘1 49 36 1-34 40 189 4-5 84 84 2-5b‘1 47 31 1-31‘2 48 105 3-19 40 211 5-20‘1 83 86 2-5b‘3 47 58 2-13‘1 48 112 3-25 40 65 2-19a 82 166 4-18 47 60 2-14 48 181 4-27‘2 40 212 5-20‘2 82 172 4-20‘2 47 75 2-3a 48 8 1-17 39 42 1-39‘1 81 225 5-4 47 80 2-4b‘1 48 22 1-26 39 124 3-33 81 229 5-5‘2 47 84 2-5b‘1 48 89 2-6‘2 39 80 2-4b‘1 80 43 1-39‘2 46 26 1-29‘2 47 203 5-15 39 97 3-10 80 56 2-11 46 39 1-36 47 222 5-3‘1 39 148 4-15b 80 83 2-5 46 88 2-6‘1 47 70 2-21 38 14 1-20 78 120 3-32‘1 46 197 5-10 47 163 4-17b‘5 38 93 2-8‘2 77 121 3-32‘2 46 17 1-22 46 189 4-5 38 24 1-28 76 122 3-32‘3 46 72 2-22a‘2 46 17 1-22 37 56 2-11 76 123 3-32‘4 46 151 4-16b‘2 46 50 1-7 37 71 2-22a 76 150 4-16b‘1 46 18 1-23 45 94 2-9a 37 196 5-1 76 192 4-7 46 23 1-27 45 180 4—27‘1 37 30 1-31‘1 75 196 5-1 46 34 1-32 45 182 4-28 37 75 2-3a 75 202 5-13 46 64 2-18 45 229 5-5‘2 37 139 3-9‘1 75 2 1-11 45 155 4-16d‘1 45 9 1-18 36 106 3-2 74 25 1-29‘1 45 76 2-3b‘1 44 18 1-23 36 57 2-12 73 46 1—3‘3 45 83 2-5 44 75 2-3a 36 73 2-22a‘3 73 87 2-5b‘4 45 140 3-9‘2 44 102 3-16 36 126 3-34‘2 73 140 3-9‘2 45 188 4-4 44 121 3-32‘2 36 39 1-36 72 207 5-18‘1 45 226 5-4‘1 44 122 3-32‘3 36 45 1-3‘2 72 52 1-9 44 67 2-19c 43 186 4-31a 36 111 3-24 72 216 5-24 44 87 2-5b‘4 43 214 5-22 36 32 1-31‘3 71 90 2-6‘3 43 99 3-13‘1 43 119 3-31 35 33 1-31‘4 71 98 3-11 43 104 3-18 43 120 3-32*1 35 52 1-9 71 76 2-3b‘1 42 139 3-9‘1 43 123 3—32‘4 35 62 2-16 71 103 3-17 42 208 5-18‘2 43 137 3-7 35 70 2-21 71 118 3-30 42 190 4-6‘1 42 225 5-4 35 77 2-3b‘2 71 59 2-13‘2 41 199 5411“2 42 85 2-5b‘2 34 127 15 125 152 155 185 194 210 146 225 16 46 182 89 119 230 103 117 128 136 208 17 69 114 198 203 31 55 95 50 118 180 40 90 158 226 228 34 41 49 104 214 94 115 227 173 199 221 48 59 98 100 135 187 63 150 54 220 22 28 47 172 175 229 I“ ) (a) II MIDI-I I H 4b U I mmeWNh >00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H H N N N H m w w H m H q o N m m q H >p > > > N w ) H M H w > ) MN I I I I I I I I H m w M u 4 w H w > >~I >4 4 0 6'0 H H H m w .3 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII HHHIDNHNIANwNHmwwI-IUIID wHu mI—IN)mnINm 00mm > > )) N M N IAN I I» In HU'IIthHHI—‘I—‘UINIHNIhwwwNI-JUIUIIHUIUNUIUHI-‘I-‘I-‘U'IU'IIbNI-‘IbWPNNI-‘UIUIUNHUIWNNNUIWNIHHHUIOUIIHIbIthNI-‘U IIIIII I U'INNIHNN )IHOU')O'\ NI”) N N I H m 71 70 70 70 7O 70 7O 70 69 69 67 67 67 66 66 66 65 65 65 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 63 63 63 62 62 62 61 61 61 61 61 60 60 59 59 59 59 58 58 58 57 57 57 56 56 56 55 55 55 54 54 53 53 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 51 73 113 48 55 102 111 117 199 211 212 219 227 70 136 205 69 119 200 231 29 45 53 165 20 37 50 67 104 129 157 198 217 28 94 143 156 176 203 209 10 19 184 63 137 148 162 220 30 146 230 14 36 115 155 160 214 24 31 201 228 57 95 106 186 13 99 2-22a‘3 3-26 1-17 1-5 2-10‘2 3-16 3-24 3-3 5-11‘2 5-20‘1 5-20‘2 5-26‘1 5-4‘2 2-21 3-6 5-17‘1 2-20 3-31 s-11‘3 5-7 1-30 *2 I H w III HWNN 09’ >01 N I I I I I w M H H H N m m m m A I I H w M >H m w H A w M N m m H H m A A w H H m A H m A A u N A H H m m A A A N H m m A u w M H H H A N H I H q >M I H w H 41 41 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 4O 4O 40 40 39 39 39 38 38 38 38 37 37 37 37 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 34 34 34 33 33 33 33 33 32 32 32 31 31 31 31 31 31 30 30 30 30 29 29 29 29 28 28 181 232 118 160 165 229 74 41 70 110 162 175 189 228 86 150 176 40 52 103 111 168 45 91 138 184 12 14 32 33 44 69 191 196 224 78 119 210 50 96 144 158 25 51 205 233 134 S3 174 192 11 97 133 222 114 130 132 171 177 200 29 106 167 4-17d‘ 5-5‘2 1-13 2-23 1-38 2-21 3-23 2 4-17b‘4 4-24a -5 .5A IIII I-‘NI-‘U'I '49-me U'U )IAI I I I H w w u H I I-‘HQNWIh O O I H 7a ) H I I I > > N H I I-‘ lb \0 H a: N M D' s) to III dNI—I w I H / N A w H m A A w w w m w w H A A N H w m m H H A A w H m w M H m m A N H H H H H A w M H A u w H H H A A N m A I I b m > H 42 41 41 41 41 41 40 40 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 37 37 37 36 36 36 36 36 36 35 35 35 35 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 33 33 33 33 32 32 32 32 31 31 31 31 30 29 29 29 29 28 28 28 28 27 27 27 27 27 27 26 26 26 107 198 201 223 25 230 95 199 217 15 104 124 147 220 29 35 164 224 38 110 136 153 159 175 183 208 211 12 16 28 42 141 41 44 67 127 134 152 212 32 33 92 115 116 117 118 145 150 88 174 151 166 226 232 11 83 93 126 154 204 57 60 78 87 161 219 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I w w M H w H N N H m m N w H H N w o m A w m H m H U m I>N H o )0 > ) >N > N H N H H -17C IIII out» In) )0» N ) I HMNI—‘HU‘N mmAqm I.» U ) H -4b‘2 -16c‘1 -16b‘2 II (Dub H I H / N I I I I I H H H H w m m N o m m A > o )N >N In) A h m A N N N N H m A w n N H m m A A A N A A w w w w M H H m A w w M H H A H H H H m m A A A A w w H m A H H m A w w H m m N m H m m m w I I m 0‘ 34 34 34 34 33 33 32 32 32 31 31 31 31 31 30 30 30 30 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 28 28 28 28 28 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 25 25 24 24 24 24 23 23 23 23 23 23 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 182 20 1-25‘2 51 138 3-8 28 207 5-18‘1 26 47 1-4b 21 138 3-8 51 92 2-8‘1 27 213 5—21 26 69 2-20 21 205 5-17‘1 51 149 4-16a 27 223 5-3‘2 26 125 3-34‘1 21 68 2-2 50 40 1-37 26 8 1-17 25 167 4-19‘1 21 183 4-29 50 96 3-1 26 46 1-3‘3 24 200 5-11‘3 21 79 2-4a 49 125 3—34‘1 26 49 1-6 24 13 1-1‘2 20 179 4-26 49 132 3-4a‘2 26 100 3-13‘2 24 96 3-1 20 35 1-33 47 167 4-19‘1 26 131 3-4a‘1 24 103 3-17 20 231 5-7 47 221 5-26‘3 26 153 4-16c‘2 24 128 3-35‘1 20 2 1-11 45 114 3-27 25 231 5-7 24 185 4-30 20 7 1-16 45 128 3-35‘1 24 101 3-15 23 187 4-31b 20 216 5-24 45 169 4-19‘3 24 135 3-5 23 227 5-4‘2 20 64 2-18 44 226 5-4‘1 24 137 3-7 23 21 1-25‘3 19 202 5-13 44 44 1-3‘1 23 142 4-10a‘1 23 81 2—4b‘2 19 10 1-19 43 51 1-8 23 159 4-17b‘1 23 111 3-24 19 37 1-35‘1 43 72 2-22a‘2 23 225 5-4 23 49 1-6 18 153 4-16c‘2 42 80 2-4b‘1 23 2 1-11 22 191 4-6‘2 18 27 1-2‘1 41 126 3—34‘2 23 24 1-28 22 24 1-28 17 99 3-13‘1 41 127 3-34‘3 23 98 3-11 22 45 1-3‘2 17 207 5-18‘1 41 208 5-18‘2 23 172 4-20‘2 22 109 3-22 17 232 5-8 41 170 4-2 22 43 1-39‘2 21 165 4-17d‘2 17 78 2-4 40 190 4-6‘1 22 148 4-15b 21 176 4-24b 17 129 3-35‘2 40 204 5-16 22 179 4-26 21 84 2-5b‘1 16 219 5-26‘1 40 233 5-9 22 198 5-11‘1 21 91 2-7 16 142 4-10a‘1 39 66 2-19b 21 209 5-19 21 190 4-6‘1 16 109 3-22 38 180 4-27‘1 21 212 5-20‘2 21 206 5-17‘2 16 217 5-25 38 74 2-23 20 28 1-2‘2 20 58 2-13‘1 15 143 4-10b 37 218 5—26 20 112 3-25 20 66 2-19b 15 1 1-10 36 26 1-29‘2 19 169 4-19‘3 20 72 2-22a‘2 15 83 2—5 36 22 1-26 18 203 5-15 20 86 2-5b‘3 15 149 4-16a 36 58 2-13‘1 18 36 1-34 19 179 4-26 15 181 4-27‘2 36 124 3-33 18 66 2-19b 19 142 4-10a‘1 14 38 1-35‘2 35 97 3-10 17 141 4-1 19 172 4-20‘2 14 218 5-26 35 210 5-2 17 147 4-14c 19 177 4-24c 14 171 4-20‘1 34 223 5-3‘2 17 164 4-17c 19 6 1-15 13 91 2-7 33 21 1-25‘3 16 193 4-8 19 169 4-19‘3 13 164 4-17c 33 139 3-9‘1 16 173 4-22 18 55 2-10‘2 12 140 3-9‘2 29 168 4-19‘2 16 187 4-31b 18 63 2-17 12 166 4-18 29 42 1-39‘1 15 201 5-12 18 129 3-35‘2 12 110 3-23 27 206 5-17‘2 15 38 1-35‘2 17 173 4-22 12 178 4-25 26 222 s-3‘1 15 211 5-20‘1 17 31 1-31‘2 11 195 4‘a 26 88 2-6‘1 14 157 4-16d‘3 16 171 4-20‘1 11 193 4-8 25 152 4-16c*1 14 186 4-31a 16 188 4-4 11 144 4-10c 24 161 4-17b‘3 14 27 1-2‘1 15 155 4-16d‘1 10 23 1-27 23 134 3-4b‘2 13 143 4-10b 15 90 2-6‘3 9 101 3-15 23 151 4-16b‘2 11 149 4-16a 15 156 4-16d‘2 9 116 3-29 23 213 5-21 10 163 4-17b‘5 15 162 4-17b‘4 9 177 4-24c 23 133 3-4b‘1 8 183 4-29 15 221 5-26‘3 9 13 1-1‘2 22 163 4-17b‘5 8 10 1-19 12 27 1-2‘1 8 108 3-21 22 191 4-6‘2 8 102 3-16 12 3o 1-31‘1 8 174 4-23 22 224 5-3‘3 8 136 3-6 12 59 2-13‘2 8 107 3-20 20 159 4-17b‘1 7 35 1—33 11 46 1-3‘3 7 105 3-19 19 60 2-14 6 156 4-16d‘2 11 73 2-22a‘3 6 11 1-1\2 15 100 3-13‘2 5 204 5-16 10 52 1-9 5 18 1-23 15 154 4-16c‘3 4 170 4-2 9 158 4-17a 5 188 4-4 15 81 2-4b‘2 2 185 4-30 9 157 4-16d‘3 4 147 4-14c 14 112 3-25 2 195 4‘a 8 168 4-19‘2 4 4 1—13 0 12 1-1‘1 0 6 1-15 6 54 2-10‘1 o 130 3—36 0 131 3-4a‘1 0 48 1-5 0 160 4-17b‘2 0 SPECIES SCORES N NAME EIGENVALUE: 1 ALLO SIZE 2 SORT 3 GRA DING 4 XLAM 5 PERC ENTM 6 NTHI CKNE 7 NMSI ZESM 8 NMSI ZELG 9 NMSO RTIN 10 NMRE ORIE 11 NMFA BRIC AXI .071 -85 115 118 333 62 1 -45 -75 150 80 81 12 NMBREAKA 211 13 NMAB RASI SAMPLE SCORES - WI-HCH ARE WEIGHTED MEAN SPECIES SCORES N NAME EIGENVALUE: HI—II—tH-tI—tI—bI—hI—tI—t l—ir—ii-dI—lILII—II—III-III—fi OO\10\UI-thb-‘O 1-19 1-1\2 1-1"1 1-1"2 1-20 1-21"l 1-21"3 1-22 1-23 1-25"1 1-25A2 l-25"3 883;:5‘3335280mqomAwNH 184 AXl .071 36 45 1 19 O 52 6O 45 94 51 43 15 101 22 78 7O 67 64 15 105 51 95 AX2 .037 -66 109 -60 420 46 143 1 l 1 121 -91 -40 13 8 -47 -23 AX2 .037 68 45 78 58 67 58 64 40 70 34 58 0 28 31 51 54 61 51 34 36 16 183 AX3 .027 -24 71 40 393 -8 -102 148 78 151 170 -5 -39 -64 AX3 .027 41 22 29 4O 36 6 51 25 33 12 28 34 64 34 55 59 46 45 63 58 60 AX4 .022 57 O 87 403 57 145 -40 91 -20 108 -181 25 85 AX4 .022 22 57 50 50 45 13 67 39 36 56 23 28 20 56 31 28 37 36 61 46 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 63 64 65 66 52 23 76 103 113 41 52 88 75 63 71 71 6O 47 91 43 35 72 61 59 81 102 87 72 67 52 56 59 62 93 71 98 53 63 76 73 100 56 88 94 71 54 44 82 111 18 53 30 45 19 50 35 37 32 3o 48 48 53 51 31 36 62 49 26 75 15 46 23 37 45 49 4o 54 36 23 44 37 54 40 46 29 18 41 68 71 33 56 55 21 184 69 45 22 31 47 15 20 26 70 48 34 34 45 1 1 19 59 17 47 36 38 57 21 34 35 24 49 24 32 31 36 29 68 64 50 58 48 64 48 63 56 65 45 62 19 39 41 17 33 42 28 30 1 1 26 26 59 3O 4O 45 29 46 56 27 28 41 27 17 21 51 18 37 42 6O 12 47 22 15 22 64 55 12 49 49 15 67 68 69 7O 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 1 10 1 11 2-1 90 2-2 2-20 2-21 2-22a 2-228"2 2-22a"3 2-23 2-3a 2-3b"1 2-3b"2 2-4 2-4a 2-4b"1 2-4b"2 2-4c 2-5bA1 2-5bA2 2-5bA3 2-5bA4 2-6A1 2-6A2 2-6A3 2-7 2-8A1 2-8“2 2-9a 2-9b 3-1 3-10 3-11 3-13“1 3-13A2 3-15 3-16 3-17 3-18 3-19 3-2 3-20 3-21 3-22 3-23 3-24 101 50 64 71 76 99 73 94 75 88 71 4O 49 80 109 1 1 1 36 95 109 103 96 128 66 61 33 98 77 58 63 99 80 56 41 55 23 85 65 59 19 74 20 22 38 27 72 36 51 38 39 66 23 41 20 51 42 49 57 63 23 53 46 47 55 47 45 14 83 43 87 27 55 35 29 26 17 43 28 53 4O 42 36 64 29 58 52 57 59 40 185 43 50 34 38 68 46 59 40 48 44 51 33 64 48 55 52 44 48 64 37 43 47 7o 49 35 61 60 49 53 32 28 22 43 24 23 12 36 43 62 26 68 50 50 38 36 27 6O 21 38 47 15 43 36 41 47 22 42 42 19 42 23 16 34 15 22 25 39 16 26 23 37 32 20 48 43 43 52 36 20 31 4O 42 34 55 17 29 19 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 3-25 3-26 3-27 3-28 3-29 3-3 3-30 3-31 3-32"1 3-32"2 3-32"3 3-32"4 3-33 3-34"1 3-34"2 3-34A3 3-35"1 3-35A2 3-36 3-4a"1 3-4a"2 3-4b"1 3-4b"2 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9"1 3-9"2 4-1 4-10a"1 4-10b 4-IOc 4-14"a 4-14b 4-140 4-15b 4-16a 4-l6b"1 4-16b"2 4-16c"1 4-16c"2 4-16c"3 4-16d"1 4-16d"2 87 108 64 58 23 65 62 66 108 107 107 108 81 70 73 71 65 40 119 85 98 108 55 65 85 51 75 29 111 39 37 24 107 69 14 8O 36 54 110 70 42 111 70 93 2 41 25 3 1 62 40 42 3 8 46 46 46 46 18 26 23 23 24 36 64 26 13 62 39 33 28 16 45 52 79 35 50 89 32 63 33 27 46 11 14 59 31 35 186 20 56 27 58 63 59 41 33 57 56 56 57 56 54 55 58 59 65 27 24 27 28 3O 23 12 23 35 43 44 19 23 15 32 50 52 19 21 15 37 46 53 24 52 45 11 40 46 48 26 26 26 26 35 35 36 36 35 31 21 23 27 20 12 57 44 47 48 27 44 29 35 43 44 53 28 14 52 43 26 48 31 47 58 26 24 27 29 23 10 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 4-1 6d"3 4-1 78 4-1 7b"1 4-1 7b"2 4-1 7b"3 4-1 7b"4 4-1 7b"5 4-1 7c 4-1 7d"2 4-1 8 449"] 4-19A2 4-19"3 4-2 4-20"1 4-20"2 4-22 4-23 4-24a 4-24b 4-24c 4—25 4-26 4-27"1 4-27"2 4-28 4-29 4-3 4-30 4-3 1 a 4-3 1b 4-4 4-5 4-6"1 4-6"2 4-7 4-8 4-9 4A3 5-1 5-1 0 5-11A1 5-1 1A2 5-11A3 5-12 89 61 111 99 94 91 120 33 87 29 105 108 86 110 34 52 57 22 52 95 23 26 49 62 36 67 50 106 70 103 55 15 84 100 120 92 25 7O 26 76 94 64 57 1 16 97 36 53 31 14 33 52 37 47 26 16 24 22 63 47 51 7O 78 35 68 57 62 21 49 77 64 34 60 29 54 71 48 22 46 55 90 54 46 60 36 4O 38 30 187 16 32 23 41 55 38 15 19 41 54 26 36 20 27 22 18 29 38 37 27 54 21 51 83 55 15 35 16 18 44 38 42 34 29 19 66 34 47 21 42 27 18 29 22 38 30 17 24 21 13 43 11 14 12 25 29 17 14 42 15 37 40 37 29 42 20 36 20 ll 38 16 18 51 6O 76 57 61 52 34 32 21 34 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 5-13 5-15 5-16 5-17AI 5-17A2 5-18A1 5-18A2 5-19 5-2 5-20Al 5-2OA2 5-21 5-22 5-23 5-24 5-25 5-26 5-26A1 5-26A2 5-26A3 5-3A1 5-3A2 5-3A3 5-4 5-4A1 5-4A2 5-5A1 5-5A2 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-9 44 108 51 91 41 65 105 70 83 82 95 59 93 45 38 35 40 53 57 99 97 104 69 61 58 61 52 66 47 41 95 46 35 22 39 15 45 23 35 17 40 4O 10 31 58 44 36 20 4O 33 26 15 17 47 24 4O 3O 47 32 38 74 22 188 50 20 10 31 52 26 43 21 33 17 21 26 62 64 54 53 63 49 92 66 28 26 34 23 51 38 41 51 24 42 31 43 39 23 46 16 54 29 57 48 29 27 45 36 59 42 32 49 22 31 39 34 3o 35 24 20 45 37 43 59 24 44 APPENDIX F Measured Section Localities 189 Locations of Measures Sections North Brent Section - Road cut on KY 445 south of Brent, Campbell County, Kentucky, near intersection with KY 8. Approximate location 39° 03'14" N, 84° 26' 04" E, Newport, KY Quad. South Brent Section - Road cut on I-275 west, approximately 200m south of the North Brent Section. Approximate location 39° 03'14" N, 84° 26' 04" E, Newport, KY Quad. Sandfordtown Section - Road cut on the ramp for exit 80 on westbound 1-275, north of Sandfordtown, Kenton County, Kentucky. Approximate location 39° 01' 38" N, 84° 32' 10" E, Covington, KY Quad. Mt. Airy Section - Road cut on eastbound entrance ramp to I-74 at the intersection of Baltimore and Montana Avenues, approximately 1.5 mi southeast of Mt. Airy Center, in Section 33, R2, "[3, Hamilton County, Ohio, Cincinnatti West Quad. Miamitown Section - Road cut on the Miamitown exit (#128) off i-74, about 5 mi south of Miamitown. Approximate location SE corner of section], T. 1N, R.1E, KY Hamilton County, Ohio, Addyston Ohio Quad. IV HICHIGRN STATE UN . L lllWI1111111111111 1111 31293014 IBRRRIES 102432