4.7 Review

Field and laboratory tests for recognition of Ediacaran paleosols

期刊

GONDWANA RESEARCH
卷 36, 期 -, 页码 107-123

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gr.2016.05.001

关键词

Paleodimate; Petrography; Geochemistry; Stable isotopes; Vendobiont; Ediacaran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Not a single paleosol had been described from rocks of Ediacaran age until 2011, but 354 Ediacaran paleosols have been described by 20 different authors since then. Some of these newly recognized paleosols have proven controversial, so this paper reviews 20 distinct tests to determine whether a particular Ediacaran bed could be a paleosol, or not. One problem has been that Ediacaran paleosols are not precisely like modern soils because they lack root traces, a diagnostic feature of Silurian and geologically younger paleosols. The principal problem for recognition of some Ediacaran paleosols is the occurrence in them of megafossils assumed to have been marine, although most of these fossils remain problematic for both biological and ecological affinities. Not all the tests discussed here are diagnostic of paleosols, some are ranked permissive or persuasive. Permissive conditions for paleosols include ripple marks, hummocky bedding, pyritic limestones, acritarchs or thalloid fossils, low strontium isotopic ratios, high delta Mg-26 ratios, and red color. Persuasive tests include loessites, tsunamites, desert playa minerals, low boron content, high delta B-10 isotopic ratios, high carbon/sulfur ratios, and very low total/reactive iron ratios. Diagnostic tests include matrix-supported lapilli or crystal tuff parent materials, ice wedges and other cryoturbation, sepic birefringence fabrics, evaporitic sand crystals, and negative geochemical strain and mass transfer, and highly correlated delta C-13 and delta O-18. Like other geological periods, the Ediacaran is known from a variety of marine and non-marine paleoenvironments (C) 2016 International Association for Gondwana Research. Published by 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