3.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Experimental taphonomy: silicification of plants in Yellowstone hot-spring environments

Journal

Publisher

ROYAL SOC EDINBURGH
DOI: 10.1017/S0263593300000845

Keywords

chert; colloidal; Eleocharis; Medusa Geyser; microsphere; Norris Geyser Basin; opal-A; permineralisation; Rhynie; silica; sol; subfossil

Ask authors/readers for more resources

During experiments conducted within the vent pool of Medusa Geyser, Norris Geyser Basin, Yellowstone National Park, USA, amorphous opaline silica (opal-A) was deposited on/within plant tissues within 30 days of immersion. Initially, deposition created inter/intra-cellular films which lined cell walls plus intercellular colloid suspensions (sols) of opal-A nano/microspheres. By 330 days, opal-A deposition created a robust external and internal matrix that stabilised tissues against collapse and replicated plant structure. Opal-A films increased to micron-order thicknesses and intracellular sols were created. Systematic variation of opal-A fabric between tissues comprising living/dead cells at the time of deposition indicate that cell function, architecture and shape influence fabric development. Heterogeneity of opal-A fabric within adjacent cells of similar structure/function indicates spatially/temporally fluctuating physicochemical conditions and the presence of intraorganic microenvironments. Early deposition of opal-A films suggests a period of low silica supersaturation and slow opal-A deposition. In contrast, intracellular sols suggest high levels of supersaturation. and rapid opal-A deposition. Shell-like microsphere growth suggests cyclic variation of silica supersaturation, and alternations between rapid and slower opal-A deposition. Microsphere growth to the upper limit of colloidal stability and colloidal crystal structures indicate prolonged sol stability, whilst floc-like microsphere networks indicate localised sol instability.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available