MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The potential significance of microbial Fe(III) reduction during deposition of Precambrian banded iron formations

2005· article· en· W2103820702 on OpenAlexaff
Kurt O. Konhauser, Dianne K. Newman, Andreas Kappler

Bibliographic record

VenueGeobiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeochemistry and Elemental Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBanded iron formationPrecambrianDiagenesisPhotic zoneGeologySedimentary depositional environmentArcheanEnvironmental chemistryPhytoplanktonFerrousDeposition (geology)Deep seaEarly EarthWater columnChemistryGeochemistryNutrientOceanographyPaleontologySediment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT During deposition of late Archean–early Palaeoproterozoic Precambrian banded iron formations (BIFs) the downward flux of ferric hydroxide (Fe(OH)3) and phytoplankton biomass should have facilitated microbial Fe(III) reduction. However, quantifying the significance of such a metabolic pathway in the Precambrian is extremely difficult, considering the post‐depositional alteration of the rocks and the lack of ideal modern analogues. Consequently, we have very few constraints on the Fe cycle at that time, namely (i) the concentration of dissolved Fe(II) in the ocean waters; (ii) by what mechanisms Fe(II) was oxidized (chemical, photochemical or biological, the latter using either O2 or light); (iii) where the ferric hydroxide was precipitated (over the shelf vs. open ocean); (iv) the amount of phytoplankton biomass, which relates to the nutrient status of the surface waters; (v) the relative importance of Fe(III) reduction vs. the other types of metabolic pathways utilized by sea floor microbial communities; and (vi) the proportion of primary vs. diagenetic Fe(II) in BIF. Furthermore, although estimates can be made regarding the quantity of reducing equivalents necessary to account for the diagenetic Fe(II) component in Fe‐rich BIF layers, those same estimates do not offer any insights into the magnitude of Fe(III) actually generated within the water column, and hence, the efficiency of Fe and C recycling prior to burial. Accordingly, in this study, we have attempted to model the ancient Fe cycle, based simply on conservative experimental rates of photosynthetic Fe(II) oxidation in the euphotic zone. We estimate here that under ideal growth conditions, as much as 70% of the biologically formed Fe(III) could have been recycled back into the water column via fermentation and organic carbon oxidation coupled to microbial Fe(III) reduction. By comparing the potential amount of biomass generated phototrophically with the reducing equivalents required for Fe(III) reduction and magnetite formation, we also hypothesize that another anaerobic metabolic pathway might have been utilized in the surface sediment to oxidize the fermentation by‐products. Based on the premise that the deep ocean waters were anoxic, this role could have been fulfilled by methanogens, and maybe even methanotrophs that employed Fe(III) reduction.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.172 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations247
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeobiologySame topicGeochemistry and Elemental AnalysisFrench-language works237,207