4.1 Article

Testing possible relationships between Acropora digitifera genes, seawater chemistry and skeletal elements

Journal

GEOCHEMICAL JOURNAL
Volume 52, Issue 3, Pages 263-272

Publisher

GEOCHEMICAL SOC JAPAN
DOI: 10.2343/geochemj.2.0511

Keywords

seawater element; geochemical proxies; genomic information; scleractinian coral; Acropora digitifera

Funding

  1. CANON Foundation [R12-Z-0013]
  2. JSPS KAKENHI [26247085]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26247085] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Coral skeletons are robust tools for examining past environments. However, biogenic effects during skeletal formation cause uncertainties in paleoclimate reconstructions. Thus establishing a method to separate biogenic effects from abiogenic ones during skeletal formation is required. Here we utilized an open access and searchable gene database for the staghorn coral Acropora digitifera and examined the number of genes related to the elements in seawater to assess the origin of uncertainties in geochemical proxies. We found that A. digitifera has genes that can process at least 15 chemical elements as individual substances (Ca, Na, Zn, K, C, N, Cl, S, Fe, Mg, Mn, Cu, H, Mo, and Te) and transporters for seven of these elements (Ca, Na, Zn, K, Cl, Cu, and H). The number of Ca-related genes was the highest (at least 428 genes, including 53 transporters), whereas Sr, one of the most widely used geochemical proxies, was not found in the gene database. Furthermore, we analyzed skeletal samples of A. digitifera exhibiting different growth rates; their Sr/Ca ratios showed the lowest variation (1.9%), whereas other proxies (K/Ca, Na/Ca, and Mg/Ca) showed higher variation (2.3-11.9%). This might be linked to the number of genes related to the proxies (namely, the magnitude of biogenic and/or abiogenic effects). We suggest that considering elements with no relevant coral genes could provide effective criteria for reliable proxies (e.g., Sr/Ca, Li/Ca and U/Ca).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available