4.7 Article

Large shifts in the isotopic composition of seawater sulphate across the Permo-Triassic boundary in northern Italy

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 218, 期 3-4, 页码 331-345

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0012-821X(03)00676-9

关键词

Permian-Triassic; mass extinction; anoxia; structurally substituted sulphur; trace sulphates; sulphur isotopes; sulphate-oxygen isotopes; iron cycle; methane release

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbonate-associated sulphate (CAS) extracted from a Permo-Triassic succession at Siusi in northern Italy is shown to preserve a true seawater-sulphate isotope record. Two periods of increasing delta(34)S and delta(18)O in CAS provide evidence for increased oceanic anoxia in the Late Permian and the Early Triassic. These two anoxic episodes are separated by an event characterised by the addition of isotopically light sulphur and oxygen to the oceanic sulphate pool. Simple mass balance calculations suggest that this sulphate originates from the reoxidation of bacterially derived H2S during oceanic mixing, rather than a volcanogenic source. A dramatic fall in CAS-delta(18)O directly above the P-T boundary, not accompanied by a large change in CAS-delta(34)S S, records an oceanic deoxygenation event probably caused by the release of methane from gas hydrates, subsequently recorded in the carbonate-carbon isotope record. The decline of Early Triassic oceanic anoxia is not recorded by a fall in CAS-delta(34)S, but is preserved by declining CAS-delta(18)O. This is because of an increase in the flux of reactive iron to the oceans during the Early Triassic anoxic episode, triggered by the demise of land plants. This permanently removes a greater proportion of light sulphur from the oceanic sulphate reservoir as pyrite, and means that the heavy residual sulphate-sulphur isotope signature of Griesbachian anoxic seawater is preserved as a geochemical 'fossil' until the beginning of the Middle Triassic. (C) 2003 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