4.0 Article

Subaqueous silicification of the contents of small ponds in an Early Devonian hot-spring complex, Rhynie, Scotland

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EARTH SCIENCES
卷 40, 期 11, 页码 1697-1712

出版社

NATL RESEARCH COUNCIL CANADA
DOI: 10.1139/E03-065

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Early Devonian Rhynie and Windyfield cherts of northeast Scotland originated as siliceous sinters deposited by hot springs. Silicification affected both subaerial and subaqueous environments, preserving a diverse terrestrial and freshwater biota. Cherts originally deposited in small shallow pools can be recognised on the basis of both texture and fossil content. Textures comprise clotted and microcoprolitic textures, bacterial coatings on plant axes that can be stromatolitic, and a variety of bacterial and fungal meshworks. The crustacean Lepidocaris, the euthycarcinoid Heterocrania, the charophyte alga Palaeonitella, and chytrid fungi are typical elements of the aquatic biota. Observations of modern hot springs in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, U.S.A., demonstrate that shallow ponds and streams on low-angle outwash areas and dormant vent orifices provide suitable environmental analogues. Textures comparable to those described from Rhynie are recorded from Yellowstone sinters, but examples of the rapid and complete silicification of delicate organic structures as seen in a few of the Rhynie chert beds have not been noted. Petrographic textures comparable to those seen in the cherts of freshwater origin from Rhynie occur in modern stream sinters at Yellowstone, where they form from waters at 20-28degreesC and with a pH of 8.7. This similarity occurs despite differences in environment at Yellowstone, such as the oxidizing surface environment, water table fluctuations, complex modern vegetation, fixing of silica by diatoms, and climatic extremes. Thus there are close similarities between textures seen in the Rhynie cherts and Yellowstone sinters deposited in freshwater pools and streams by hot springs.

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

4.0
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