4.8 Article

A case for an active eukaryotic marine biosphere during the Proterozoic era

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2122042119

关键词

eukaryote; evolution; Proterozoic; marine; ecosystem modeling

资金

  1. Villum Fonden [16518]
  2. Villum Kahn Rasmussen (VKR) Centre of Excellence Ocean Life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The microfossil record suggests the presence of eukaryotic organisms in the marine ecosystem around 1,700 million years ago, even though biomarkers indicating their existence only appear in the rock record about 780 million years ago. This challenges the idea that eukaryotes were minor ecosystem members before the rise of algae and suggests that they played a significant role in the ecosystem much earlier.
The microfossil record demonstrates the presence of eukaryotic organisms in the marine ecosystem by about 1,700 million years ago (Ma). Despite this, steranes, a biomarker indicator of eukaryotic organisms, do not appear in the rock record until about 780 Ma in what is known as the rise of algae. Before this, it is argued that eukaryotes were minor ecosystem members, with prokaryotes dominating both primary production and ecosystem dynamics. In this view, the rise of algae was possibly sparked by increased nutrient availability supplying the higher nutrient requirements of eukaryotic algae. Here, we challenge this view. We use a size-based ecosystem model to show that the size distribution of preserved eukaryotic microfossils from 1,700 Ma and onward required an active eukaryote ecosystem complete with phototrophy, osmotrophy, phagotrophy, and mixotrophy. Model results suggest that eukaryotes accounted for one-half or more of the living biomass, with eukaryotic algae contributing to about one-half of total marine primary production. These ecosystems lived with deep-water phosphate levels of at least 10% of modern levels. The general lack of steranes in the pre-780-Ma rock record could be a result of poor preservation.

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

4.8
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