4.7 Article

Vanadium isotope evidence for expansive ocean euxinia during the appearance of early Ediacara biota

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 567, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2021.117007

关键词

vanadium isotope; euxinic conditions; early Ediacara biota

资金

  1. NSFC [41890840, U1812402, 4207030265, 9206220039]
  2. Strategic Priority Research Program (B) of CAS [XDB18030302]
  3. CAS IIT [JCTD-2019-17]
  4. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Postdoctoral Scholarship
  5. NASA Exobiology grant [80NSSC20K0615]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research on vanadium isotopes indicates that during the late-Ediacaran period, global seawater was hydrogen sulfide-rich mainly on continental shelves, which may have been one of the reasons for the relegation of large, complex life to deep-marine settings during that time.
For reasons that remain unclear, the initial appearance of large, morphologically complex life on Earth seems to have taken place in deep-marine environments. We provide new perspective on this topic by applying for the first time the vanadium (V) isotope paleoredox-proxy. We use shales in two different sections that preserve Doushantuo Member IV (South China) to reconstruct a global seawater V isotope composition (delta V-51=similar to-0.23 +/- 0.06 parts per thousand) during the late-Ediacaran (similar to 567 to >= 560 million years ago) that is much lighter than today. A mass-balance model informed by this composition is only reconciled by a global ocean in which hydrogen sulfide-rich ('euxinic') conditions were commonly present on continental shelves. Higher surface temperatures are a known driver of widespread euxinia in Earth's past, and if this was also the case during the late-Ediacaran, then relegation of large complex life to deep-marine settings at this time was probably driven to some extent by the persistently cooler and sulfide-poor conditions offered by this refuge. (C) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据