Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 484

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 155 of the 155 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rethinking the Ancient Sulfur Cycle

Fike, David A., Bradley, Alexander S., Rose, Catherine V.·2015·Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences

Abstract

The sulfur biogeochemical cycle integrates the metabolic activity of multiple microbial pathways (e.g., sulfate reduction, disproportionation, and sulfide oxidation) along with abiotic reactions and geological processes that cycle sulfur through various reservoirs. The sulfur cycle impacts the global carbon cycle and climate primarily through the remineralization of organic carbon. Over geological timescales, cycling of sulfur is closely tied to the redox state of Earth's exosphere through the burial of oxidized (sulfate) and reduced (sulfide) sulfur species in marine sediments. Biological sulfur cycling is associated with isotopic fractionations that can be used to trace the fluxes through various metabolic pathways. The resulting isotopic data provide insights into sulfur cycling in both modern and ancient environments via isotopic signatures in sedimentary sulfate and sulfide phases. Here, we review the deep-time δ 34 S record of marine sulfates and sulfides in light of recent advances in understanding how isotopic signatures are generated by microbial activity, how these signatures are encoded in marine sediments, and how they may be altered following deposition. The resulting picture shows a sulfur cycle intimately coupled to ambient carbon cycling, where sulfur isotopic records preserved in sedimentary rocks are critically dependent on sedimentological and geochemical conditions (e.g., iron availability) during deposition.

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 · 10.1146/annurev-earth-060313-054802

Cites

155 of 155 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Show all 155 references

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. 10.1016/j.gca.2006.07.030 · doi:10.1016/j.gca.2006.07.030
  2. Brand U, 1980, J. Sediment. Petrol., 50, 1219
  3. Copper P, 1999, Acta Univ. Carol. Geol., 43, 207
  4. Finnegan S, 2012, Geosci. Can., 39, 122
  5. 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1985.tb00672.x · doi:10.1111/j.1574-6968.1985.tb00672.x
  6. Fry B, 1988, Chem. Geol., 73, 205
  7. Grotzinger JP, 2008, The Geology of Namibia, 13229
  8. 10.1128/JB.05400-11 · doi:10.1128/jb.05400-11
  9. Leavitt WD, 2013, Mineral. Mag., 77, 1560 (Abstr.)
  10. 10.1130/0091-7613(2002)030<0747:OOMBDS>2.0.CO;2 · doi:10.1130/0091-7613(2002)030<0747:oombds>2.0.co;2
  11. Raab M, 1991, Chem. Geol., 86, 323
  12. 10.1111/j.1365-3121.1997.tb00016.x · doi:10.1111/j.1365-3121.1997.tb00016.x
  13. 10.1130/0091-7613(2000)28<919:MOOSRC>2.0.CO;2 · doi:10.1130/0091-7613(2000)28<919:moosrc>2.0.co;2

Cited by

See all 484

Metadata

Authors
Fike, D. A., Bradley, A. S., & Rose, C. V.
Venue
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Published
2015-05-30
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
593-622
ISSN
  • 0084-6597 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-4495
OpenAlex
W2127685372
Cited by
484
References
155
FWCI
2.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rethinking the Ancient Sulfur Cycle. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev-earth-060313-054802
The paper
Fike, D. A., Bradley, A. S., & Rose, C. V. (2015). Rethinking the Ancient Sulfur Cycle. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-060313-054802

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.