4.8 Article

Contributions to late Archaean sulphur cycling by life on land

Journal

NATURE GEOSCIENCE
Volume 5, Issue 10, Pages 722-725

Publisher

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1585

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NSF [EAR-0921580]
  2. NASA [NNX10AQ90G]
  3. NAI Virtual Planetary Laboratory
  4. NASA [NNX10AQ90G, 125485] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER
  5. Division Of Earth Sciences
  6. Directorate For Geosciences [921580] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Evidence in palaeosols suggests that life on land dates back to at least 2.76 Gyr ago(1,2). However, the biogeochemical effects of Archaean terrestrial life are thought to have been limited, owing to the lack of a protective ozone shield from ultraviolet radiation for terrestrial organisms before the rise of atmospheric oxygen levels several hundred million years later(3). Records of chromium delivery from the continents suggest that microbial mineral oxidation began at least 2.48 Gyr ago(4) but do not indicate when the terrestrial biosphere began to dominate important biogeochemical cycles. Here we combine marine sulphur abundance data with a mass balance model of the sulphur cycle to estimate the effects of the Archaean and early Proterozoic terrestrial biosphere on sulphur cycling. We find that terrestrial oxidation of pyrite by microbes using oxygen has contributed a substantial fraction of the total sulphur weathering flux since at least 2.5 Gyr ago, with probable evidence of such activity 2.7-2.8 Gyr ago. The late Archaean onset of terrestrial sulphur cycling is supported by marine molybdenum abundance data and coincides with a shift to more sulphidic ocean conditions(5). We infer that significant microbial land colonization began by 2.7-2.8 Gyr ago. Our identification of pyrite oxidation at this time provides further support for the appearance(6) of molecular oxygen several hundred million years before the Great Oxidation Event.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available