CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Carbon cycle inverse modeling suggests large changes in fractional organic burial are consistent with the carbon isotope record and may have contributed to the rise of oxygen

Krissansen‐Totton, Joshua, Kipp, Michael A., Catling, David C.·2021·Geobiology
DOI 10.1111/gbi.12440PMC PMC8359855
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abundant geologic evidence shows that atmospheric oxygen levels were negligible until the Great Oxidation Event (GOE) at 2.4–2.1 Ga. The burial of organic matter is balanced by the release of oxygen, and if the release rate exceeds efficient oxygen sinks, atmospheric oxygen can accumulate until limited by oxidative weathering. The organic burial rate relative to the total carbon burial rate can be inferred from the carbon isotope record in sedimentary carbonates and organic matter, which provides a proxy for the oxygen source flux through time. Because there are no large secular trends in the carbon isotope record over time, it is commonly assumed that the oxygen source flux changed only modestly. Therefore, declines in oxygen sinks have been used to explain the GOE. However, the average isotopic value of carbon fluxes into the atmosphere–ocean system can evolve due to changing proportions of weathering and outgassing inputs. If so, large secular changes in organic burial would be possible despite unchanging carbon isotope values in sedimentary rocks. Here, we present an inverse analysis using a self‐consistent carbon cycle model to determine the maximum change in organic burial since ~4 Ga allowed by the carbon isotope record and other geological proxies. We find that fractional organic burial may have increased by 2–5 times since the Archean. This happens because O 2‐dependent continental weathering of 13 C‐depleted organics changes carbon isotope inputs to the atmosphere–ocean system. This increase in relative organic burial is consistent with an anoxic‐to‐oxic atmospheric transition around 2.4 Ga without declining oxygen sinks, although these likely contributed. Moreover, our inverse analysis suggests that the Archean absolute organic burial flux was comparable to modern, implying high organic burial efficiency and ruling out very low Archean primary productivity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/gbi.12440

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

FIGURE 1 Schematic diagram of our carbon cycle model. White arrows show fluxes of carbonate carbon, black arrows show fluxes of organic carbon, and the gray arrow shows mantle outgassing of carbon. Green text denotes fluxes, and black text denotes reservoirs. Fluxes are as follows: organic burial, F Burial_org; carbonate weathering, F Weath_carb; organic oxidative weathering, F Weath_org; carbon outgassing from metamorphic carbonates and organics, F meta_carb and F meta_org, respectively; mantle carbon outgassing, F out_mantle; and fractions, ξcarb and ξorg, of subducted carbonates and organics, F sub_carb and F sub_org, respectively. Carbon reservoirs are self‐explanatory. Associated alkalinity fluxes are not shown
FIGURE 1 Schematic diagram of our carbon cycle model. White arrows show fluxes of carbonate carbon, black arrows show fluxes of organic carbon, and the gray arrow shows mantle outgassing of carbon. Green text denotes fluxes, and black text denotes reservoirs. Fluxes are as follows: organic burial, F Burial_org; carbonate weathering, F Weath_carb; organic oxidative weathering, F Weath_org; carbon outgassing from metamorphic carbonates and organics, F meta_carb and F meta_org, respectively; mantle carbon outgassing, F out_mantle; and fractions, ξcarb and ξorg, of subducted carbonates and organics, F sub_carb and F sub_org, respectively. Carbon reservoirs are self‐explanatory. Associated alkalinity fluxes are not shownCC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 2 Inverse carbon cycle model outputs fit to data to constrain organic burial over Earth history. In all subplots, solid lines denote median model outputs and shaded regions denote 95% credible intervals, whereas dots with error bars are empirical constraints (Table 1). The binned carbon isotope record (every 200 Myr) for both carbonates (green dots) and organic carbon (black dots) is shown alongside the model fit (green and black shaded regions) in (a). The corresponding fractional organic burial record is shown by the red shaded region in (d) alongside the apparent fractional organic burial record (blue) that would be inferred by wrongly assuming inputs to the atmosphere–ocean system have always had mantle isotopic composition (−5.5‰). The average isotopic composition of inputs to the atmosphere–ocean system (outgassing plus weathering) is shown in (g) by the gray shaded region. The isotopic evolution of the crust (red) and mantle (magenta) is also plotted. Not the large decrease in the isotopic ratio of inputs, which is caused by the oxygen dependence of organic weathering, is coincident with the second rise of oxygen (b). Although Archean fractional organic burial was almost certainly smaller than modern (b), the absolute Archean organic burial flux (e) was comparable to, or perhaps even slightly larger than the modern flux. This is because total carbon throughput is larger in the Archean (j). The evolution of the crustal and mantle reservoirs of carbon is shown in (c) and (f), and (h) shows the atmospheric oxygenation parameter, Koxy (gray shaded region), alongside the constraint that the Archean atmosphere was anoxic (red upper limit)
FIGURE 2 Inverse carbon cycle model outputs fit to data to constrain organic burial over Earth history. In all subplots, solid lines denote median model outputs and shaded regions denote 95% credible intervals, whereas dots with error bars are empirical constraints (Table 1). The binned carbon isotope record (every 200 Myr) for both carbonates (green dots) and organic carbon (black dots) is shown alongside the model fit (green and black shaded regions) in (a). The corresponding fractional organic burial record is shown by the red shaded region in (d) alongside the apparent fractional organic burial record (blue) that would be inferred by wrongly assuming inputs to the atmosphere–ocean system have always had mantle isotopic composition (−5.5‰). The average isotopic composition of inputs to the atmosphere–ocean system (outgassing plus weathering) is shown in (g) by the gray shaded region. The isotopic evolution of the crust (red) and mantle (magenta) is also plotted. Not the large decrease in the isotopic ratio of inputs, which is caused by the oxygen dependence of organic weathering, is coincident with the second rise of oxygen (b). Although Archean fractional organic burial was almost certainly smaller than modern (b), the absolute Archean organic burial flux (e) was comparable to, or perhaps even slightly larger than the modern flux. This is because total carbon throughput is larger in the Archean (j). The evolution of the crustal and mantle reservoirs of carbon is shown in (c) and (f), and (h) shows the atmospheric oxygenation parameter, Koxy (gray shaded region), alongside the constraint that the Archean atmosphere was anoxic (red upper limit)CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 3 Additional inverse carbon cycle model outputs fit to data to constrain organic burial over Earth history. In all subplots, solid lines denote median model outputs and shaded regions denote 95% credible intervals, whereas dots with error bars are empirical constraints (Table 1). Subplots denote (a) surface ocean pH, (b) atmospheric CO2 concentration (ppmv), (c) organic burial to organic weathering ratio, (d) mean surface temperature, (e) continental silicate weathering (red) and seafloor silicate weathering fluxes (black–gray), and (f) net surface redox imbalance. Subplot (g) shows the isotopic composition of outgassing inputs, (h) shows the evolution of organic and carbonate subduction efficiencies, and (i) shows carbonate and organic weathering fluxes. Note the increase in organic weathering coincident with the Neoproterozoic rise of oxygen which drives the shift toward lighter δ13C input values
FIGURE 3 Additional inverse carbon cycle model outputs fit to data to constrain organic burial over Earth history. In all subplots, solid lines denote median model outputs and shaded regions denote 95% credible intervals, whereas dots with error bars are empirical constraints (Table 1). Subplots denote (a) surface ocean pH, (b) atmospheric CO2 concentration (ppmv), (c) organic burial to organic weathering ratio, (d) mean surface temperature, (e) continental silicate weathering (red) and seafloor silicate weathering fluxes (black–gray), and (f) net surface redox imbalance. Subplot (g) shows the isotopic composition of outgassing inputs, (h) shows the evolution of organic and carbonate subduction efficiencies, and (i) shows carbonate and organic weathering fluxes. Note the increase in organic weathering coincident with the Neoproterozoic rise of oxygen which drives the shift toward lighter δ13C input valuesCC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 4 Change in fractional organic burial over Earth history from our inverse model. Comparison between organic burial changes inferred from the inverse carbon cycle analysis in this study and those from the statistical analysis in Krissansen‐Totton et al. (2015) (red), which assumed constant mantle value carbon inputs. (a) Posterior probability distribution for the relative change in fractional organic burial over Earth history according our nominal model (gray shaded). This is obtained from multiplying the Archean–Proterozoic change factor (j 2) and the Proterozoic–Phanerozoic change factor (j 3) from our nominal model. Also plotted is the change in fractional organic burial from 3.5 Ga to present when a linear fractional organic burial parameterization is imposed. Both parameterizations suggest that a 2–5 fold increase in fractional organic burial over Earth history can be reconciled with the carbon isotope record. The inverse analysis allows for a larger change in organic burial than in Krissansen‐Totton et al. (2015; red line) because it allows for variations in weathering input fluxes and preferential subduction of organics. (b) Shows the same comparison between this analysis (gray) and Krissansen‐Totton et al. (2015; red) except that only the Archean‐to‐Proterozoic relative change is plotted, whereas (c) shows the Proterozoic–Phanerozoic relative change in fractional organic burial
FIGURE 4 Change in fractional organic burial over Earth history from our inverse model. Comparison between organic burial changes inferred from the inverse carbon cycle analysis in this study and those from the statistical analysis in Krissansen‐Totton et al. (2015) (red), which assumed constant mantle value carbon inputs. (a) Posterior probability distribution for the relative change in fractional organic burial over Earth history according our nominal model (gray shaded). This is obtained from multiplying the Archean–Proterozoic change factor (j 2) and the Proterozoic–Phanerozoic change factor (j 3) from our nominal model. Also plotted is the change in fractional organic burial from 3.5 Ga to present when a linear fractional organic burial parameterization is imposed. Both parameterizations suggest that a 2–5 fold increase in fractional organic burial over Earth history can be reconciled with the carbon isotope record. The inverse analysis allows for a larger change in organic burial than in Krissansen‐Totton et al. (2015; red line) because it allows for variations in weathering input fluxes and preferential subduction of organics. (b) Shows the same comparison between this analysis (gray) and Krissansen‐Totton et al. (2015; red) except that only the Archean‐to‐Proterozoic relative change is plotted, whereas (c) shows the Proterozoic–Phanerozoic relative change in fractional organic burialCC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 5 Sensitivity tests showing why our results differ from conventional interpretations of the carbon isotope record. Subplots on the left‐hand side denote the change in fractional organic burial over Earth history for various sensitivity tests, and the yellow shaded region shows the likely 2–5 fold change (1σ) from our nominal model (a). Subplots on the right‐hand side show the corresponding time evolution of the δ13C of the mantle (magenta), crustal (red), and inputs (black–gray) to the atmosphere–ocean system (outgassing + carbonate weathering + organic weathering) for each sensitivity test. Lines denote median model outputs and shaded regions denote 95% credible intervals. Subplots (a) and (b) represent the nominal model, (c) and (d) assume organic whether is independent of atmospheric oxygen, (e) and (f) assume constant subduction efficiencies over Earth history, and (g) and (h) assume both oxygen‐independent organic weathering and constant subduction efficiencies. The results from the (h) sensitivity test are the most similar to conventional interpretations of the carbon isotope record because they ensure constant carbon isotopic inputs over Earth history. Subplots (i) and (j) show the opposite effect: strongly oxygen‐dependent organic weathering results in large inferred changes in fractional organic burial over Earth history due to large changes in carbon isotopic inputs. Finally, subplots (k) and (l) show results from assuming a more reduced Archean mantle (see Section 3.4). Note that for (e), (f), (g), and (h), mantle and crustal reservoirs through time remain approximately constant because carbon outputs via carbonate and organic burial are balanced by proportional return of carbonate and organics via arc volcanism and metamorphism. However, introducing preferential subduction of organic carbon unbalances outputs and inputs and allows crustal reservoirs to become isotopically heavier at the expense of the mantle
FIGURE 5 Sensitivity tests showing why our results differ from conventional interpretations of the carbon isotope record. Subplots on the left‐hand side denote the change in fractional organic burial over Earth history for various sensitivity tests, and the yellow shaded region shows the likely 2–5 fold change (1σ) from our nominal model (a). Subplots on the right‐hand side show the corresponding time evolution of the δ13C of the mantle (magenta), crustal (red), and inputs (black–gray) to the atmosphere–ocean system (outgassing + carbonate weathering + organic weathering) for each sensitivity test. Lines denote median model outputs and shaded regions denote 95% credible intervals. Subplots (a) and (b) represent the nominal model, (c) and (d) assume organic whether is independent of atmospheric oxygen, (e) and (f) assume constant subduction efficiencies over Earth history, and (g) and (h) assume both oxygen‐independent organic weathering and constant subduction efficiencies. The results from the (h) sensitivity test are the most similar to conventional interpretations of the carbon isotope record because they ensure constant carbon isotopic inputs over Earth history. Subplots (i) and (j) show the opposite effect: strongly oxygen‐dependent organic weathering results in large inferred changes in fractional organic burial over Earth history due to large changes in carbon isotopic inputs. Finally, subplots (k) and (l) show results from assuming a more reduced Archean mantle (see Section 3.4). Note that for (e), (f), (g), and (h), mantle and crustal reservoirs through time remain approximately constant because carbon outputs via carbonate and organic burial are balanced by proportional return of carbonate and organics via arc volcanism and metamorphism. However, introducing preferential subduction of organic carbon unbalances outputs and inputs and allows crustal reservoirs to become isotopically heavier at the expense of the mantleCC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 6 Inverse carbon cycle model outputs fit to data to constrain organic burial over Earth history with a reduced Archean mantle. In all subplots, solid lines denote median model outputs and shaded regions denote 95% credible intervals, whereas dots with error bars are empirical constraints (Table 1). Subplots are the same as in Figure 2. A reduced mantle helps ensure an anoxic Archean atmosphere (h) where Koxy < 1. Additionally, total Precambrian outgassing fluxes of carbon (i) are lower than in the nominal model because less total outgassing is required to produce an anoxic Archean. Lower total carbon throughput means the absolute organic burial flux (e) is lower than the nominal model, despite the possibility of higher Precambrian fractional organic burial (d). This reduced Archean mantle scenario is consistent with the carbon isotope record (a) and with modern constraints on carbon reservoirs (c, f)
FIGURE 6 Inverse carbon cycle model outputs fit to data to constrain organic burial over Earth history with a reduced Archean mantle. In all subplots, solid lines denote median model outputs and shaded regions denote 95% credible intervals, whereas dots with error bars are empirical constraints (Table 1). Subplots are the same as in Figure 2. A reduced mantle helps ensure an anoxic Archean atmosphere (h) where Koxy < 1. Additionally, total Precambrian outgassing fluxes of carbon (i) are lower than in the nominal model because less total outgassing is required to produce an anoxic Archean. Lower total carbon throughput means the absolute organic burial flux (e) is lower than the nominal model, despite the possibility of higher Precambrian fractional organic burial (d). This reduced Archean mantle scenario is consistent with the carbon isotope record (a) and with modern constraints on carbon reservoirs (c, f)CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 7 Sensitivity tests showing how our results depend on continental growth and functional forms for carbonate and organic weathering. Distribution for the change in fractional organic burial over Earth history is plotted for (a) nominal model, (b) no Archean land, (c) Archean land fraction 10%–50% of modern, (d) Archean land fraction constant over Earth history, (e) a Michaelis–Menten law for the atmospheric CO2 dependence of continental weathering, and (f) a stronger oxygen dependence for organic weathering. The key result here is that lower Archean land results in lower inferred changes in fractional organic burial over Earth history, whereas weathering parameterizations have a relatively minor effect on organic burial changes
FIGURE 7 Sensitivity tests showing how our results depend on continental growth and functional forms for carbonate and organic weathering. Distribution for the change in fractional organic burial over Earth history is plotted for (a) nominal model, (b) no Archean land, (c) Archean land fraction 10%–50% of modern, (d) Archean land fraction constant over Earth history, (e) a Michaelis–Menten law for the atmospheric CO2 dependence of continental weathering, and (f) a stronger oxygen dependence for organic weathering. The key result here is that lower Archean land results in lower inferred changes in fractional organic burial over Earth history, whereas weathering parameterizations have a relatively minor effect on organic burial changesCC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 8 Implications for organic burial efficiency. (a) shows absolute organic carbon burial flux from our nominal model, (b) shows various net primary productivity (NPP) constraints from the literature (see main text). Three plausible scenarios for high (red), medium (green), and low (blue) NPP are plotted alongside proposed constraints for reference. These scenarios and the 95% envelope in (a) are combined to calculate the required organic burial efficiency for each scenario in subplot (c). High–Medium Archean primary productivity requires burial efficiencies between a few percent to a few tens of percent
FIGURE 8 Implications for organic burial efficiency. (a) shows absolute organic carbon burial flux from our nominal model, (b) shows various net primary productivity (NPP) constraints from the literature (see main text). Three plausible scenarios for high (red), medium (green), and low (blue) NPP are plotted alongside proposed constraints for reference. These scenarios and the 95% envelope in (a) are combined to calculate the required organic burial efficiency for each scenario in subplot (c). High–Medium Archean primary productivity requires burial efficiencies between a few percent to a few tens of percentCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 85

  1. 10.1029/94GB00297 · DOI
  2. 10.1130/G38070.1 · DOI
  3. 10.1038/ncomms15455 · DOI
  4. 10.2475/ajs.289.4.333 · DOI
  5. 10.1007/s10498-010-9113-0 · DOI
  6. 10.1038/417159a · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1029/2004GC000713 · DOI
  8. 10.1029/JC075i018p03553 · DOI
  9. 10.1098/rstb.2006.1906 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1016/S0016-7037(99)00252-5 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1029/2003GL018873 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/S0301-9268(00)00097-8 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.epsl.2010.06.039 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/0016-7037(73)90158-0 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.epsl.2010.05.035 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/B978-0-08-095975-7.01014-7 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1016/0012-821X(84)90073-6 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.gca.2013.09.026 · DOI
  19. 10.1038/ngeo2939 · DOI
  20. 10.5194/essd-11-1-2019 · DOI
  21. 10.1007/978-0-387-68656-1_12 · DOI
  22. 10.1126/science.281.5374.237 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1086/670067 · DOI
  24. 10.21105/joss.00024 · DOI
  25. 10.1038/nature10460 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2018.05.009 · DOI
  27. 10.1126/science.1161408 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/S0016-7037(98)00121-5 · DOI
  29. Garrels R. &Perry E.(1974).The Sea Vol.5.
  30. 10.1007/s00531-010-0635-x · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2009.07.007 · DOI
  32. 10.1098/rstb.2006.1840 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/0304-4203(95)00008-F · DOI
  34. 10.1130/G31352.1 · DOI
  35. 10.1073/pnas.1900325116 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1515/9780691220239 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Höning D.et al (2019).Carbon cycling and interior evolution of water‐covered plate tectonics and stagnant lid planets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.12392. · DOI
  38. 10.1038/300171a0 · DOI
  39. 10.1038/s41467-020-16493-1 · DOI
  40. 10.1086/648219 · DOI
  41. 10.1029/2020GB006707 · DOI
  42. 10.1126/sciadv.aao4795 · DOI
  43. 10.1098/rsta.2017.0408 · DOI
  44. 10.1073/pnas.1721296115 · DOI · Paper page
  45. 10.1038/ncomms15423 · DOI
  46. 10.5670/oceanog.2009.100 · DOI
  47. 10.1111/gbi.12141 · DOI
  48. 10.1002/2017GB005832 · DOI
  49. 10.1029/GM032p0397 · DOI
  50. 10.1130/G24124A.1 · DOI
  51. 10.1126/science.aan5049 · DOI
  52. 10.1089/ast.2017.1727 · DOI
  53. 10.1029/93GB02524 · DOI
  54. 10.1086/629606 · DOI
  55. 10.1029/2018JG004416 · DOI
  56. 10.1016/j.precamres.2008.04.008 · DOI
  57. 10.1016/j.gca.2004.05.023 · DOI
  58. 10.1016/j.gca.2019.01.037 · DOI
  59. 10.1144/SP389.5 · DOI
  60. 10.1089/153110702753621321 · DOI · Paper page
  61. 10.1038/320248a0 · DOI
  62. Petsch S.(2014).Weathering of organic carbon. · DOI
  63. 10.1017/CBO9781139047203 · DOI
  64. 10.1038/s41586-019-1643-z · DOI
  65. 10.1130/G21316.1 · DOI · Paper page
  66. 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2018.08.010 · DOI
  67. 10.1016/j.epsl.2018.04.051 · DOI
  68. 10.1090/S0273-0979-2014-01471-5 · DOI
  69. 10.1073/pnas.0832439100 · DOI · Paper page
  70. 10.5194/essd-12-1561-2020 · DOI · Paper page
  71. 10.1038/s41467-020-16374-7 · DOI
  72. 10.1038/333313a0 · DOI
  73. 10.1016/S0301-9268(00)00128-5 · DOI
  74. 10.1073/pnas.1614506114 · DOI · Paper page
  75. 10.1130/GSATG102A.1 · DOI
  76. 10.2138/rmg.2013.75.12 · DOI
  77. 10.1073/pnas.1312778110 · DOI · Paper page
  78. 10.1038/ngeo2070 · DOI
  79. 10.1016/j.gca.2013.07.011 · DOI
  80. 10.1002/9781118280874.ch3 · DOI
  81. 10.1029/2018JG004679 · DOI
  82. 10.1016/0016-7037(95)00038-2 · DOI
  83. 10.1016/0016-7037(56)90065-5 · DOI
  84. 10.1126/sciadv.aav7337 · DOI
  85. 10.1073/pnas.1523449113 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 38

Metadata

Authors
Krissansen‐Totton, J., Kipp, M. A., & Catling, D. C.
Affiliations
Department of Earth and Space Sciences/Astrobiology Program University of Washington Seattle WA USA
ORCID
Venue
Geobiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-03-25
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
342-363
ISSN
  • 1472-4677
  • 1472-4669
DOI
10.1111/gbi.12440
PMC
PMC8359855
Cited by
38
References
38
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NSSC18K0829, NNX15AL23G)
  • Simons Foundation (511570, 511570FY20)
  • Division of Earth Sciences (1338810)

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