Cited by 32Paleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsOrigins and Evolution of LifeAstro and Planetary Science

Nitrogen in Ancient Mud: A Biosignature?

Stüeken, Eva E.·2016·Astrobiology

Abstract

Nitrogen is an essential nutrient for all life on Earth and possibly elsewhere. Burial of nitrogen bound to organic matter constitutes the major flux of nitrogen into sediments today, which has led to the inference that nitrogen enrichments in sedimentary rocks may be a biosignature. However, abiotic processes such as lightning or volcanism can fix atmospheric N 2 and contribute to sedimentary nitrogen burial in the absence of life. It is therefore uncertain whether observed nitrogen enrichments of up to 430 ppm in Paleoarchean metasedimentary biotite grains are indeed biogenic. This study seeks to address that problem with a numerical model. The NH 4 + concentration of an abiotic ocean is modeled as a function of source fluxes, pH-dependent NH 3 volatilization, and equilibrated adsorption of NH 4 + onto clay particles. The results suggest that the observed nitrogen concentrations in Paleoarchean biotite can only be reconciled with purely abiotic processes if the ocean was more acidic (pH <6) and/or if the source fluxes from lightning and volcanism were at least an order of magnitude higher (≥10 12 mol/yr) than previously thought. The bulk of the nitrogen is thus most likely of biological origin. While this does not necessitate a particular metabolism such as biological N 2 fixation, the data provide evidence of nitrogen utilization back to 3.8 Gyr. Nitrogen abundances could thus provide useful information in extraterrestrial missions. Key Words: Early Earth—Biosignatures—Nitrogen fixation. Astrobiology 16, 730–735.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/ast.2016.1478

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The ammonium in 3.8 Ga marine phyllosilicates probably came from porewater NH4+ derived from degraded organics.

    “Marine phyllosilicates at 3.8 Ga ago are ammonium enriched (146, 147), which probably came from porewater ammonium (NH4+) derived from degraded organics (Table 1) (148, 149), and these data have been used to argue that Archean N2 was sequestered into solid phases after an early advent of biological nitrogen fixation (56, 150).”

    From The Archean atmosphere (2020) · cites this paper as [148]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stüeken, E. E.
Affiliations
University of California, Riverside (US)
Corresponding author
Stüeken, Eva E.
Venue
Astrobiology
Published
2016-09
Volume
16
Issue
9
Pages
730-735
ISSN
  • 1531-1074 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-8070
OpenAlex
W2509508878
Cited by
32
References
48
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 2
FWCI
2.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Astrobiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Origins and Evolution of Life
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astro and Planetary Science
Keywords
seawater pH, ammonia volatilization, early Earth ocean chemistry
MeSH terms
Origin of Life, Adsorption, Models, Theoretical, Nitrogen, Time Factors, Geologic Sediments, Ammonium Compounds

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review