1887
PDF

Abstract

Summary

Late Jurassic organic-rich deposits of the Argiles de Châtillon formation (Boulonnais area, northern France) are characterized by the presence of authigenic carbonate beds predominantly induced by bacterially-mediated organoclastic sulfate-reduction. Among them, cone-in-cone (CIC)-bearing nodules are sedimentary structures that may have originated during early diagenesis as a result of sulfate-dependent anaerobic oxidation of methane (AOM). However, the mode of formation of CIC structures and the possible contribution of AOM remain a matter of debate. By performing GC-MS lipid biomarker analysis of a representative set of carbonates beds, we identified that CIC-bearing nodules show a molecular signature that differs from the other carbonate beds with a significantly higher abundance of isoprenoids attributed to archaeal biphytanyl compounds. Archaea-derived lipids and light isotopic signature point to methanotrophic activity associated with sulfate-dependent AOM during the precipitation of the CIC-bearing nodules. The marked difference in the abundance of isoprenoids allows us to confirm that the formation of CIC-bearing nodules occurred under different biogeochemical conditions, i.e. in the AOM zone, compared to the other authigenic carbonates that resulted mostly from organoclastic sulfate reduction.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202533207
2025-09-07
2026-02-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/2214-4609/2025/imog-2025/207.html?itemId=/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202533207&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Birgel, D. et al., Org. Geochem., vol. 37, no. 10, 2006, pp. 1289–1302.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brocks, J. J., and P.Schaeffer. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, vol. 72, 2008, pp. 1396–1414.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Didyk, B. M., et al.Nature, vol. 272, no. 5650, 1978, pp. 216–222.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Elvert, M., E.Suess, and M. J.Whiticar. Naturwissenschaften, vol. 86, 1999, pp. 295–300.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Guido, A. et al., Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol., vol. 388, 2013, pp. 166–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Hatem, E. et al., Mar. Pet. Geol., vol. 55, 2014, pp. 176–185.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Hatem, E. et al., Mar. Pet. Geol., vol. 72C, 2016, pp. 12–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Summons, R. E., and T. G.Powell. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, vol. 51, 1987, pp. 557–566.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Thiel, V. et al., Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, vol. 63, 1999, pp. 3959–3966.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Tribovillard, N. et al., Chem. Geol., vol. 300–301, 2012, pp. 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Tribovillard, N. et al., Mar. Pet. Geol., vol. 93, 2018, pp. 437–450.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202533207
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error