The Extant Shore Platform Stromatolite (SPS) Facies Association: a Glimpse Into the Archean?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Biogeosciences, 15, 2189–2203, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-2189-2018 © Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. The extant shore platform stromatolite (SPS) facies association: a glimpse into the Archean? Alan Smith1,6, Andrew Cooper1,2, Saumitra Misra1, Vishal Bharuth3, Lisa Guastella4,6, and Riaan Botes5 1Discipline of Geology, School of Agriculture, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville 3630, South Africa 2School of Environmental Science, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, UK 3Microscopy and Microanalysis Unit, University of KwaZulu Natal, Westville 3630, South Africa 4Bayworld Centre for Research and Education (BCRE), Cape Town, South Africa 5Geo-Dynamic Systems, P.O. Box 1283, Westville 3630, South Africa 6Coast Busters Inc Research Group, 29 Brown’s Grove, Sherwood, Durban 4091, South Africa Correspondence: Alan Smith ([email protected]) Received: 15 May 2017 – Discussion started: 27 June 2017 Revised: 12 February 2018 – Accepted: 23 February 2018 – Published: 13 April 2018 Abstract. Shore platform stromatolites (SPS) were first the Archean. We suggest that terraces associated with former noted at Cape Morgan on the south-east African seaboard. oceanic or lacustrine flooding surfaces on Mars are potential Since then they have been found growing discontinuously targets in the search for palaeo-SPS on Mars. in rocky peritidal zones along the entire southern African seaboard. They have also been found on the southwest Aus- tralian coast, at Giant’s Causeway in Northern Ireland, and more recently at Harris on the Scottish Hebridean Atlantic 1 Introduction coast. In this paper SPS occurrence and SPS potential as ana- logues for Precambrian fossil stromatolites, as well as po- The oldest known stromatolites include those of the Isua tential stromatolite occurrences in shore platform regions on Group (3.7 Ga), Greenland (Nutman et al., 2016); the Strel- Mars, are assessed. Sub-horizontal surfaces promote stroma- ley Pool occurrence (3.43 Ga), Australia (Allwood et al., tolite development, while tufa develops on cliffs and steep 2006); the Barberton Mountain Land (3.22 Ga), South Africa rocky surfaces. Tufa and stromatolites are end members of (Gamper et al., 2011); and the Pongola Group (2.9 Ga), a spectrum dictated by coastal topography. Extant SPS oc- South Africa (Mason and von Bruun, 1977; Bolhar et al., cur on well indurated shore platforms in high wave energy 2015). Comparison of the environment in which extant settings, often around or near headlands. They can be as- and sub-fossil stromatolites occur with ancient examples sociated with boulder beaches, boulder ridges, storm swash may advance our knowledge concerning the conditions un- terraces, coastal dunes, and peat bogs. In contrast to other der which life developed and in what environment it be- extant stromatolites, SPS are produced primarily by mineral gan. Stromatolite-building organisms probably dominated precipitation, although minor trapping and binding stromato- the Earth during the Archean and Proterozoic eons, but un- lites do occur. From a geological perspective, SPS develop in der contemporary conditions only thrive in extreme environ- mildly transgressive siliciclastic settings in various climatic ments that limit metazoan competition. Such environments and tidal regimes. We suggest that SPS could be preserved include geothermal springs (Jones et al., 2000; Berelson et in the geological record as micritic lenses on palaeo-shore al., 2011), peritidal marine environments (Logan et al., 1964; platform surfaces. SPS share many features with Precam- Reid et al., 2000; Smith and Uken, 2003; Smith et al., 2005, brian stromatolites and are a valid modern analogue despite 2011; Perissinotto et al., 2014; Rishworth et al 2016; Ed- the widely different atmospheric and oceanic conditions of wards et al., 2017), and salt lakes (Martin and Wilczewski, 1972). Prokaryotes are also recorded from the Earth’s upper Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. 2190 A. Smith et al.: The extant SPS facies association Figure 1. Location of SPS sites on the eastern seaboard of southern Africa, Northern Ireland and the Scottish Hebrides. crust to depths of (at least) 7 km (Sankaran, 1997) and within al. (2011) proposed the extant Cape Morgan (Fig. 1) stro- the troposphere (DeLeon-Rodriguez et al., 2012). matolites as a partial analogue for the 3.43 Ga stromatolites Stromatolites are biosedimentary structures produced by from Strelley Pool Australia. Smith et al. (2011) furthermore sediment trapping and binding and/or mineral precipitation documented extant and subfossil SPS from Cape Morgan and as a result of the growth and metabolic activity of a micro- indicated that they were found in patches from Tofo (Mozam- bial community (Awramik and Marguilis, 1976; Burne and bique) to Port Elizabeth (Eastern Cape, South Africa)(Fig. 1). Moore, 1987). The best known extant stromatolite models Since then colonies have been found in Northern Ireland are based on the trapped and bound stromatolites of Shark (Cooper et al., 2013), additional localities in the Eastern Cape Bay, Western Australia and several sites in the Caribbean province have been documented, (Perissinotto et al, 2014; (Logan et al., 1964; Reid and Browne, 1991). Precambrian Rishworth et al., 2016; Edwards et al., 2017),and further stromatolites, in contrast, are of the mineral precipitation va- colonies elsewhere in southern Africa have been uncovered riety (Awramik and Grey, 2005; Reid et al., 2011; Smith et (Fig. 1). More recently, new SPS discoveries have also been al., 2011; Perissinotto et al., 2014; Rishworth et al., 2016; made on the west coast of Harris, in the Scottish Hebrides. Edwards et al., 2017) and offer a plausible Precambrian stro- matolite analog, which deserves scrutiny. Cape Morgan (Fig. 1) in the Eastern Cape province, South 2 Methodology Africa, was the first location where SPS were found. SPS form on shore platforms within the peritidal zone where suit- This work is heavily reliant on fieldwork which has taken able (carbonate-rich) terrestrial runoff is present (Smith et advantage of many serendipitous trips. No attempt has been al., 2011; Perissinotto et al., 2014; Rishworth et al., 2016). made to institute a scientific survey due to the geographi- These supratidal/ high intertidal zones experience extreme cal distances involved and limited manpower. Stromatolite environmental changes, which partially exclude metazoans (SPS in this paper) morphology, microstructure, and ecol- (Perissinotto et al., 2014; Rishworth et al., 2016) and enable ogy is discussed in detail elsewhere (Smith et al., 2011; prokaryotes to dominate. The Cape Morgan locality was dis- Perissinotto et al., 2014; Rishworth et al., 2016, 2017; Ed- covered by Mountain (1937), although its significance was wards et al., 2017). New localities are discussed and com- only realised much later (Smith and Uken, 2003). Smith et pared with known; such review is required to establish sim- ilarities and differences. This paper will consequently focus Biogeosciences, 15, 2189–2203, 2018 www.biogeosciences.net/15/2189/2018/ A. Smith et al.: The extant SPS facies association 2191 Table 1. Location, context and stromatolite type of SPS localities (Y: yes; N: no; n/r: no record). Location Coordinates Shore Cliff Trapped Mineral Tufa platform and bound precipitation Cape Point, SA 34◦20048.4200 S; YYY 18◦27048.1600 E 1 Storms River 34◦1003400 S; Y n/r N Y n/r 24◦39046’0E 1 Oyster Bay 34◦11025.0700 S; Y N Y n/r 24◦41043.76’0E 1 Cape St Francis 34◦1204900 S; Y N N Y n/r 24◦50004’0E 1 Seaview 34◦_01003.1600 S; Y N N Y n/r 25◦_21056.48’0E 1 Skoenmakerskop 34◦_02028.2300 S; Y N Y Y n/r 25◦_32018.60’0E 1 Cape Recife 34◦_02042.1300 S; Y N N Y n/r 25◦_34007.50’0E 2Cape Morgan 32◦4103600 S; Y Minor Y Y Y 28◦2202700 E Luphatana 31◦2501000 S; YNNYN 29◦5103000 E Mtentu 31◦1403000 S; YNNYN 31◦0302200 E Port Edward 31◦02055.2600 S; YNNYN 30◦13 ’47.7900 E Ballito 29◦3201500 S; Y Minor N Y N 31◦13020’0 E Tinley Manor 29◦26043.9800 S; Y Minor N Y Minor 31◦17026.9900 E Richards Bay 28◦46015.2000 S XYNYY 32◦08000.3200 E Tofo, Mozambique 23◦4102600 S; YYNYN 35◦3300400 E 3 Giant’s Causeway, N. Ireland, UK See reference Y Y N Y N St John’s Point, N. Ireland, UK 54◦13031.2300 N; YYNYN 5◦39032.6900 W Luskentyre Bay (S), Harris, UK 57◦52008.7300 N YYNYY 6◦57’42.0100 W Luskentyre Bay (N), Harris, UK 57◦52017.6500 N YNYYN 6◦54028.5200 W Northton, Harris, UK 57◦48009.5600 N NYNYY 7◦04057.5200 W 4 Kuwait Bay, Kuwait See reference Y N N Y N 5 N. Sea, Netherlands See reference N N n/r NA N 6 SW Australia See reference Y Y N Y Y Monkey Mia, W. Australia Not known Y N N Y N NA D this data is not available 1 Perissinotto et al. (2014), 2 Smith and Uken (2003), 3 Cooper et al. (2013), 4 Alshuaibi et al. (2015), 5 Kremer et al. (2008), 6 Forbes et al. (2010). www.biogeosciences.net/15/2189/2018/ Biogeosciences, 15, 2189–2203, 2018 2192 A. Smith et al.: The extant SPS facies association Figure 2. (a) Shore platform showing a low tufa curtain (T), bar- Figure 3. (a) Trapped and bound stromatolites forming on a stro- rage (B), and pool (BP). (b) Higher tufa curtain (T) forming on a matolite apron, located on the Luskentyre Bay shore platform, Har- cliff at the back of the dolerite shore platform with stromatolites (S) ris, UK. The stromatolite is growing around cobbles swept onto at its toe (a and b from Cape Morgan), and (c) Tufa curtain from the apron by inflowing water.