4.6 Review

A review of active hot-spring analogues of Rhynie: environments, habitats and ecosystems

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2016.0490

关键词

silica sinter; geothermal wetland; Rhynie chert

类别

资金

  1. Leverhulme Trust [F/00 407/S]
  2. NERC [NE/F004788/1]
  3. Royal Society
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/F004788/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. NERC [NE/F004788/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Lower Devonian Rhynie chert formed as silica sinter entombed an early terrestrial ecosystem. Silica sinter precipitates only from water flowing from alkali - chloride hot springs and geysers, the surface expression of crustalscale geothermal systems that form low - sulfidation mineral deposits in the shallowsubsurface. Active alkali - chloride hot springs at Yellowstone National Park create a suite of geothermally influenced environments; vent pools, sinter aprons, run - off streams, supra - apron terrace pools and geothermal wetlands that are habitats for modern hot - spring ecosystems. The plant - rich chert, which makes Rhynie internationally famous, probably formed in lowtemperature environments at the margins of a sinter apron where frequent flooding by geothermal water and less frequent flooding by river waters created ephemeral to permanent wetland conditions. Here, the plants and associated microbes and animals would be immersed in waters with elevated temperature, brackish salinity, high pH and a cocktail of phytotoxic elements which created stresses that the fossil ecosystem must have tolerated. The environment excluded coeval mesophytic plants, creating a low - diversity hot - spring flora. Comparison with Yellowstone suggests the Rhynie plants were preadapted to their environment by life in more common and widespread environments with elevated salinity and pH such as coastal marshes, salt lakes, estuaries and saline seeps. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'The Rhynie cherts: our earliest terrestrial ecosystem revisited'.

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

4.6
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