Phytoplankton community dynamics within peritidal pools associated with living stromatolites at the freshwater–marine interface

Rishworth, Gavin M.; Perissinotto, Renzo; Miranda, Nelson A.F.; Bornman, Thomas G.; Steyn, Paul-Pierre

doi:10.1007/s00027-016-0502-3

Cited by 19 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…No attempt has been made to institute a scientific survey due to the geographical distances involved and limited manpower. Stromatolite (SPS in this paper) morphology, microstructure, and ecology is discussed in detail elsewhere (Smith et al, 2011;Perissinotto et al, 2014;Rishworth et al, 2016Rishworth et al, , 2017Edwards et al, 2017). New localities are discussed and compared with known; such review is required to establish similarities and differences.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stromatolite-building organisms probably dominated the Earth during the Archean and Proterozoic eons, but under contemporary conditions only thrive in extreme environments that limit metazoan competition. Such environments include geothermal springs (Jones et al, 2000;Berelson et al, 2011), peritidal marine environments (Logan et al, 1964;Reid et al, 2000;Smith and Uken, 2003;Smith et al, 2005Smith et al, , 2011Perissinotto et al, 2014;Rishworth et al 2016;Edwards et al, 2017), and salt lakes (Martin and Wilczewski, 1972). Prokaryotes are also recorded from the Earth's upper…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The best known extant stromatolite models are based on the trapped and bound stromatolites of Shark Bay, Western Australia and several sites in the Caribbean (Logan et al, 1964;Reid and Browne, 1991). Precambrian stromatolites, in contrast, are of the mineral precipitation variety (Awramik and Grey, 2005;Reid et al, 2011;Smith et al, 2011;Perissinotto et al, 2014;Rishworth et al, 2016;Edwards et al, 2017) and offer a plausible Precambrian stromatolite analog, which deserves scrutiny.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SPS form on shore platforms within the peritidal zone where suitable (carbonate-rich) terrestrial runoff is present (Smith et al, 2011;Perissinotto et al, 2014;Rishworth et al, 2016). These supratidal/ high intertidal zones experience extreme environmental changes, which partially exclude metazoans Rishworth et al, 2016) and enable prokaryotes to dominate. The Cape Morgan locality was discovered by Mountain (1937), although its significance was only realised much later (Smith and Uken, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1). Since then colonies have been found in Northern Ireland (Cooper et al, 2013), additional localities in the Eastern Cape province have been documented, Rishworth et al, 2016;Edwards et al, 2017),and further colonies elsewhere in southern Africa have been uncovered (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The extant shore platform stromatolite (SPS) facies association: a glimpse into the Archean?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Shore platform stromatolites (SPS) were first noted at Cape Morgan on the south-east African seaboard. Since then they have been found growing discontinuously in rocky peritidal zones along the entire southern African seaboard. They have also been found on the southwest Australian coast, at Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland, and more recently at Harris on the Scottish Hebridean Atlantic coast. In this paper SPS occurrence and SPS potential as analogues for Precambrian fossil stromatolites, as well as potential stromatolite occurrences in shore platform regions on Mars, are assessed. Sub-horizontal surfaces promote stromatolite development, while tufa develops on cliffs and steep rocky surfaces. Tufa and stromatolites are end members of a spectrum dictated by coastal topography. Extant SPS occur on well indurated shore platforms in high wave energy settings, often around or near headlands. They can be associated with boulder beaches, boulder ridges, storm swash terraces, coastal dunes, and peat bogs. In contrast to other extant stromatolites, SPS are produced primarily by mineral precipitation, although minor trapping and binding stromatolites do occur. From a geological perspective, SPS develop in mildly transgressive siliciclastic settings in various climatic and tidal regimes. We suggest that SPS could be preserved in the geological record as micritic lenses on palaeo-shore platform surfaces. SPS share many features with Precambrian stromatolites and are a valid modern analogue despite the widely different atmospheric and oceanic conditions of the Archean. We suggest that terraces associated with former oceanic or lacustrine flooding surfaces on Mars are potential targets in the search for palaeo-SPS on Mars.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The extant shore platform stromatolite (SPS) facies association: a glimpse into the Archean?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Patterns and drivers of benthic macrofaunal communities dwelling within extant peritidal stromatolites

Rishworth

Perissinotto

Bird

2017

Limnology & Oceanography

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metazoans contributed historically to the decline of the microbialites and continue to restrict their formation in most modern environments through grazing and burrowing pressures. Recent evidence suggests that metazoans can coexist with layered microbialites (stromatolites). However, the possible drivers of the invertebrate assemblage directly associated with these unique habitats are not well-understood. This study measured environmental and resource variables within peritidal stromatolites along the South African coastline and related these to the infaunal metazoan community. Clitellates (Naididae and Enchtraeidae), malacostracans (Amphipoda, Isopoda and Tanaidacea), insect larvae (Chironomidae), and polychaetes (Nereididae) were the most abundant groups. The benthic macrofaunal community was most strongly related to salinity, nutrients (dissolved inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus) and macroalgal cover. This suggests that the distribution of some species was restricted by physiological tolerances associated with salinity, while others responded to resource variability within the primary producer community. The absence of an apparent relationship between stromatolite microalgal biomass or composition and the metazoan community occupying the matrix indicates that the invertebrates might be relying on other primary producers as a food resource, such as macroalgae. This suggests that the benthic macrofaunal community may have a limited direct grazing effect on the stromatolite matrix, thereby not hindering the formation of its typical layered fabric.

show abstract

Phytoplankton communities in marine intertidal rock-pools: Effect of location, geometric shapes and allelopathy

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phytoplankton community dynamics within peritidal pools associated with living stromatolites at the freshwater–marine interface

Cited by 19 publications

References 48 publications

The extant shore platform stromatolite (SPS) facies association: a glimpse into the Archean?

The extant shore platform stromatolite (SPS) facies association: a glimpse into the Archean?

Patterns and drivers of benthic macrofaunal communities dwelling within extant peritidal stromatolites

Phytoplankton communities in marine intertidal rock-pools: Effect of location, geometric shapes and allelopathy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About