the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Origin and role of non-skeletal carbonate in coralligenous build-ups: new geobiological perspectives in the biomineralization processes
Mara Cipriani
Carmine Apollaro
Daniela Basso
Pietro Bazzicalupo
Marco Bertolino
Valentina Alice Bracchi
Fabio Bruno
Gabriele Costa
Rocco Dominici
Alessandro Gallo
Maurizio Muzzupappa
Antonietta Rosso
Rossana Sanfilippo
Francesco Sciuto
Giovanni Vespasiano
Abstract. The coralligenous build-ups located in Mediterranean shelf in front of Marzamemi (SE – Sicily, Italy) represent useful natural examples to study the relationship between skeletal organisms and non-skeletal components in marine bioconstructions. Coralligenous build-ups are formed in open marine systems and their comparison with coeval bioconstructions (biostalactites) of confined environments, like submarine caves, allows depicting the complex interactions between metazoans and microbial communities in the formations of recent bioconstructions in different Mediterranean settings. In this study, two coralligenous build-ups were characterized in terms of organisms and sediments involved in their formation. The framework mainly consists of coralline algae and subordinate bryozoans and serpulids. Sponges affect the general morphology of the bioconstructions both interacting with skeletonised organisms and through bioerosion activity. The micrite (microcrystalline calcite) is a minor component of the build-ups and consists of two types: autochthonous (in situ) and allochthonous (detrital). Fine autochthonous micrite mineralized directly inside the framework cavities and shows aphanitic or peloidal fabric, produced by organomineralization processes of soft sponge tissues and microbial metabolic activity, respectively. The detrital micrite occurring inside cavities derives from external sources or erosion processes of the bioconstructions themselves. This component has been classified as organic or inorganic based on the organic matter contents deduced by UV-Epifluorescence. The minor amount of microbialites in the coralligenous compared to cave biostalactites could derive from the abundance of sponges that compete with carbonatogenic bacteria for the same cryptic spaces. The sharing of a similar relationship between sponges and microbial communities by coralligenous concretion and biotic crusts of particular submarine caves suggests that this competition is not habitat-specific. On the contrary, it may develop in a range of environmental settings, from open to cryptic systems, and could be used to clarify the role of metazoans vs microbialites in palaeoecological reconstructions.
- Preprint
(4720 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Mara Cipriani et al.
Status: open (until 06 Nov 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on bg-2023-115', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Aug 2023
reply
This is a good paper. The story is interesting, the topic new and faced with an adequate methodology. Although a lot of studies were conducted about the coralligenous bioherms, very few data were until now available about the sediment filling the coralligenous cavities. So, in my opinion this study is particularly welcome.
The group of authors covers different expertise both from a geological and biological point of view. I am particularly happy about the focus on the role of sponges in shaping the coralligenous structure. At this subject, only a comment/suggestion. (i) Sponge spicules are an important component of the micritic sediment of the coralligenous, (ii) substrate chips produced by boring sponges are also a component of the fine sediments, (iii) sponges are (probably with bivalves) the moist important bioerosive element of the coralligenous. All these points were addressed in the manuscript. Nevertheless, from a biodiversity point of view, boring sponges are only few species. Several species are insinuating and have an important structural role in maintain attached fragment of conglomerate detached by the erosive activity. So, in my opinion, different groups of sponges have antagonistic effects on the shaping coralligenous bioherms. While the bioerosion was studied in detail, very few data are available about the aggregation ability. I encourage the authors to study this aspect in this or in a future research.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2023-115-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Adriano Guido, 12 Sep 2023
reply
We are grateful to the Referee#1 for the very positive comment on our paper.
The topic on the role of sponges in shaping the coralligenous build-ups and other recent Mediterranean bioconstructions is new and the constructive vs destructive activities of these organisms were not well investigated yet. In agreement with the Referee comment we are already working on the taxonomic characterization of the sponge communities trying to discriminate boring from insinuating species and quantitatively evaluate their bioconstructive vs bioerosive effects on the build-ups. The aggregation ability of the insinuating sponges is a new aspect and we appreciated the suggestion of the Referee. This aspect will be surely added in the new paper we are planning to elaborate on the specific role of sponges on the coralligenous bioconstructions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2023-115-AC1 -
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Sep 2023
reply
Thanks for considering my suggestion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2023-115-RC2
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Sep 2023
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Adriano Guido, 12 Sep 2023
reply
-
RC3: 'Comment on bg-2023-115', Fritz Neuweiler, 12 Sep 2023
reply
This paper deals with the modern state of bioconstructions of the Mediterranean Sea known as “le coralligène” (I tend to prefer to keep the original french term). This paper is of broad interest, provides new insights, is well structured and pretty well written. Here are some remarks the authors might find useful.
While mentioning a skeletal organism (or a group of organisms) for the first time, please add the basic mineralogy of its skeleton (HMC, LMC, aragonite, especially for the Peyssonneliales, opaline). This appears important (for me) in terms of “reactivity”, ageing, preservation and pathways of early diagenesis. Is there any idea to put a number attached to “high biodiversity”, how high is very high and how it is assessed or calculated? You might eventually better define the basic attributes of “le coralligène”, its distinguishing characters (as a specific system), and its biogeohistoric origin (at least early Cretaceous in my view). Be very careful with the term “biomineralization” (line 68-70). The work of Trichet and Défarge (1995) on organomineralization might be of value here. Eventually add more inscriptions and arrows into your figures, you might also try combined figures, one overview and one zoomed in to the necessary detail. Eventually replace “micrite” by microcrystalline (in proper place), micrite is sediment (matrix), automicrite is not sediment, it has now history of transport! Fluorescence is not a distinguishing attribute of automicrite, microcrystalline sediment and early cements might also fluoresce (Neuweiler et al, 2000, 2003 in GEOLOGY). Instead the locus of fluorophores is crucial. For identifying automicrite a combination of petrographic attributes should be used (see some sort of recent review in Neuweiler at al., 2023 in SEDIMENTOLOGY)…..and by now, you should know who I am.
Congrats for this paper, again, please be more careful with the terminology (eventually also more selective and specific with the “geological” references (too much blur there); keep it as simple and fundamental as possible (mention the facts, not the interpretations), and admit what we currently do not know) and, in the future, you might dig a bit deeper what concerns the (organo-)chemical attributes and precipitation process of the automicrite in scope. Try to catch it in the making (caught in the act) by using bio-fixation methods. Great material, keep going, very nice, super potential!
Rethink about your title, I suggest…. The constructional architecture of coralligenous build-ups……….
Did not check for typos or the reference list, the editorial office should have a respective software tool
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2023-115-RC3
Mara Cipriani et al.
Mara Cipriani et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
182 | 43 | 18 | 243 | 9 | 9 |
- HTML: 182
- PDF: 43
- XML: 18
- Total: 243
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1