| Literature DB >> 30143628 |
Morgan Reed Raven1, David A Fike2, Maya L Gomes2,3, Samuel M Webb4, Alexander S Bradley, Harry-Luke O McClelland5.
Abstract
Ocean Anoxic Event 2 (OAE2) was a period of dramatic disruption to the globEntities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30143628 PMCID: PMC6109118 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-05943-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 14.919
Fig. 1Stratigraphic profiles of organic sulfur and carbon geochemistry at Pont d’Issole. Total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations, δ13C values (in permil (‰) vs. the VPDB standard), S:C (mol/mol) ratios, and δ34S values (in ‰ vs. the VCDT standard) show clear and coherent variations with depth. Stratigraphy at left is from[25,29] and the red bar indicates the positive C-isotope excursion as in[25]. Shaded bands highlight intervals with TOC concentrations >1.0%. For organic carbon δ13C profiles, the red line shows data from[25], while blue symbols are new data for our samples. Error bars indicate the reproducibility of representative external replicates (n ≥ 3). Where OM is abundant, it is associated with relatively high molar S:C ratios and low δ34S values
Fig. 2Relative abundance of organic sulfur in various redox states with depth. The red bar at left indicates the duration of the OAE2 C-isotope excursion, and shaded bands indicate intervals with TOC concentrations >1 wt%. Error bars represent uncertainties from spectrum fitting via SIXPACK (1 s.d., Supplementary Table 2). Low-TOC rocks tend to be richer in aromatic S (open circles) while high-TOC rocks contain substantial amounts of alkyl sulfides (orange diamonds). Representative Sorg structures are shown on the right
Fig. 3Relationships between the molar S:C ratio of OM and other Sorg characteristics. a TOC concentration, b OM δ34S value, and the relative abundances of c monosulfides and d oxidized (sulfonate + sulfate ester) Sorg in OM. Relative uncertainties (1 s.d.) on S:C ratios are calculated from propagation of error from the reproducibility of external replicate (n ≥ 3) tests. Uncertainties for XAS data are from spectrum fitting (1 s.d., Supplementary Table 2)
Fig. 4Sedimentary organic carbon cycle model. a Organic carbon fluxes in the model (see text). b Model results for the parameters in Table 1 and Supplementary Table 3 for sulfurization in all three boxes (chemocline at the top of the water column aphotic zone; green), boxes B and C (chemocline at the top of the sediment-water interface; orange), and c only (chemocline in the sediments; purple). Gray shading shows the effects of splitting boxes A or B into oxic and anoxic parts, representing a continuously moving chemocline. Cariaco parameters for box C export (“final” OM) and their fitting tolerances are shown as the yellow star. Pont d’Issole data in TOC wt% (carbonate-free basis, Supplementary Table 1) are shown on the right-hand axis as open gray circles
Parameters used in organic carbon cycle model
| Constraints from Cariaco Basin | Literature-derived value | Allowed 1 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| f0 (export production) | –>A | 100% | |
| C flux (vs. f0) | A–>B | 51% | 15% |
| B–>C | 38% | 5% | |
| C–>final | 30% | 8% | |
| OM S:C (mol/mol) | A–>B | Poorly constrained | |
| B–>C | 2.0% | 0.5% | |
| C–>final | 3.7% | 0.5% | |
| Assigned parameter ranges | min | max | |
| Turnover time | A | 0.5 weeks | 3 weeks |
| B | 2 years | 500 years | |
| C | 2000 years | 20,000 years | |
| Effective S:C ratio | Biomass | 0% | 1% |
| Rapid sulf. (A + B) | 4% | 5% | |
| Gradual sulf. (C) | 1% | 3% | |