4.7 Article

Biomineralization in perforate foraminifera

期刊

EARTH-SCIENCE REVIEWS
卷 135, 期 -, 页码 48-58

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.03.013

关键词

Foraminifera; Biomineralization; Calcification; Transmembrane transport; Calcite nucleation; Crust calcite

资金

  1. European Commission (EU) [211384, 265103]
  2. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BIOACID
  3. BMBF) [FKZ 03F0608]
  4. Darwin Center for Biogeosciences
  5. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  6. U.S. National Science Foundation [OCE-0550703]
  7. Israel Science Foundation [551/10]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we review the current understanding of biomineralization in perforate foraminifera. Ideas on the mechanisms responsible for the flux of Ca2+ and inorganic carbon from seawater into the test were originally based on light and electron microscopic observations of calcifying foraminifera. From the 1980s onward, tracer experiments, fluorescent microscopy and high-resolution test geochemical analysis have added to existing calcification models. Despite recent insights, no general consensus on the physiological basis of foraminiferal biomineralization exists. Current models include seawater vacuolization, transmembrane ion transport, involvement of organic matrices and/or pH regulation, although the magnitude of these controls remain to be quantified. Disagreement between currently available models may be caused by the use of different foraminiferal species as subject for biomineralization experiments and/or lack of a more systematic approach to study (dis)similarities between taxa. In order to understand foraminiferal controls on element incorporation and isotope fractionation, and thereby improve the value of foraminifera as paleoceanographic proxies, it is necessary to identify key processes in foraminiferal biomineralization and formulate hypotheses regarding the involved physiological pathways to provide directions for future research. (C) 2014 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