4.5 Article

Does the oxidation of methane leave an isotopic fingerprint in the geologic record? art. no. 1012

Journal

GEOCHEMISTRY GEOPHYSICS GEOSYSTEMS
Volume 3, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2001GC000196

Keywords

clathrate; carbon isotopes; methane; carbon oxidation; 4267 oceanography; general; paleoceanography; 4870 oceanography; biological and chemical; stable isotopes; 4806 oceanography; biological and chemical; carbon cycling; 4802 oceanography; biological and chemical; anoxic environments

Ask authors/readers for more resources

[1] Pore water SigmaCO(2) and delta(13)C data are presented for the dysoxic Santa Barbara and Santa Monica Basins in an attempt to constrain the influence of methane oxidation on the pore water gradients and benthic foraminiferal delta(13)C. Although these two basins are adjacent to one another Santa Barbara Basin has steeper pore water SigmaCO(2) and delta(13)C gradients. Methane oxidation could be contributing to the higher gradients in this basin. The isotope mass balance for pore water SigmaCO(2) indicates, however, that the pore water gradients in the upper 2 cm of both basins are controlled only by the rate of photosynthate carbon oxidation and the rate of diffusion. Methane derived CO2 has no discernable influence on pore water or carbonate delta(13)C values at these sediment depths in either basin. Benthic foraminiferal species inhabiting different depth horizons in the top centimeter incorporate these steep isotopic gradients in their calcite tests and can be used therefore to reconstruct the history of carbon oxidation within the basins. On the basis of these modern geochemical constraints, a more likely explanation for the apparent delta(13)C excursions recorded in the late Pleistocene sediments from Santa Barbara Basin involves enhanced carbon rain and carbon oxidation in the basin sediments rather than clathrate destabilization.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available