Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
    • Special Volumes and Special Issue
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • FAQ
    • Terms & Conditions for use of AJS Online
  • Instructions to Authors
    • Focus and paper options
    • Submit your manuscript
  • Site Features
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Usage Statistics
    • RSS
  • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • The Journal

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Science
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
American Journal of Science

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
    • Special Volumes and Special Issue
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • FAQ
    • Terms & Conditions for use of AJS Online
  • Instructions to Authors
    • Focus and paper options
    • Submit your manuscript
  • Site Features
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Usage Statistics
    • RSS
  • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • The Journal
  • Follow ajs on Twitter
  • Visit ajs on Facebook
  • Follow ajs on Instagram
Research ArticleArticles

Does large igneous province volcanism always perturb the mercury cycle? Comparing the records of Oceanic Anoxic Event 2 and the end-Cretaceous to other Mesozoic events

Lawrence M.E. Percival, Hugh C. Jenkyns, Tamsin A. Mather, Alexander J. Dickson, Sietske J. Batenburg, Micha Ruhl, Stephen P. Hesselbo, Richard Barclay, Ian Jarvis, Stuart A. Robinson and Lineke Woelders
American Journal of Science October 2018, 318 (8) 799-860; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2475/08.2018.01
Lawrence M.E. Percival
* Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3AN, United Kingdom
§§§ Institute of Earth Sciences, Géopolis, University of Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: lawrence.percival11@gmail.com
Hugh C. Jenkyns
* Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3AN, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tamsin A. Mather
* Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3AN, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexander J. Dickson
* Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3AN, United Kingdom
‡ Department of Earth Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sietske J. Batenburg
* Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3AN, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Micha Ruhl
* Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3AN, United Kingdom
‡‡ Department of Geology, Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen P. Hesselbo
** Camborne School of Mines and Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9FE, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard Barclay
*** Smithsonian Institution, PO Box, 37012, MRC 121, Washington, D.C., 20013-7012, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ian Jarvis
§ Department of Geography and Geology, Kingston University London, Penrhyn Road, Kingston upon Thames, KT1 2EE, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stuart A. Robinson
* Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3AN, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lineke Woelders
§§ KU Leuven, Division of Geology, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, B-3001, Leuven, Belgium
‡‡‡ Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, United States of America
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Mercury (Hg) is increasingly being used as a sedimentary tracer of Large Igneous Province (LIP) volcanism, and supports hypotheses of a coincidence between the formation of several LIPs and episodes of mass extinction and major environmental perturbation. However, numerous important questions remain to be answered before Hg can be claimed as an unequivocal fingerprint of LIP volcanism, as well as an understanding of why some sedimentary records document clear Hg enrichment signals whilst others do not. Of particular importance is evaluating the impact of different volcanic styles on the global mercury cycle, as well as the role played by depositional processes in recording global Hg-cycle perturbations. Here, new mercury records of Cretaceous Oceanic Anoxic Event 2 (OAE 2: ∼94 Ma) and the latest Cretaceous (∼67–66.0 Ma) are presented. OAE 2 is associated with the emplacement of multiple, predominantly submarine, LIPs; the latest Cretaceous with subaerial volcanism of the Deccan Traps. Both of these connections are strongly supported by previously published trends towards unradiogenic osmium- (Os) isotope values in globally distributed sedimentary records. Hg data from both events show considerable variation between different locations, attributed to the effectiveness of different sediment types in registering the Hg signal, with lithologically homogeneous records documenting more clear Hg enrichments than sections with major changes in lithology such as limestones to claystones or organic-rich shales. Crucially, there is no geographically consistent signal of sedimentary Hg enrichment in stratigraphic records of either OAE 2 or the latest Cretaceous that matches Os-isotope evidence for LIP emplacement, indicating that volcanism did not cause a global Hg perturbation throughout the entire eruptive history of the LIPs formed at those times. It is suggested that the discrepancy between Os-isotope and Hg trends in records of OAE 2 is caused by the limited dispersal range of Hg emitted from submarine volcanoes compared to the global-scale distribution of Os. A similar lack of correlation between these two proxies in uppermost Cretaceous strata indicates that, although subaerial volcanism can perturb the global Hg cycle, not all subaerial eruptions will do so. These results highlight the variable impact of different volcanogenic processes on the efficiency of Hg dispersal across the globe. Factors that could influence the impact of LIP eruptions on the global mercury cycle include submarine versus subaerial volcanism, volcanic intensity or explosivity, and the potential contribution of thermogenic mercury from reactions between ascending magma and surrounding organic-rich sediments.

  • mercury
  • Cenomanian–Turonian OAE
  • end-Cretaceous
  • Large Igneous Province
  • volcanic style
  • depositional environment
View Full Text

This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.

Log in using your username and password

Forgot your user name or password?

Purchase access

You may purchase access to this article. This will require you to create an account if you don't already have one.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Science: 318 (8)
American Journal of Science
Vol. 318, Issue 8
1 Oct 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Science.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Does large igneous province volcanism always perturb the mercury cycle? Comparing the records of Oceanic Anoxic Event 2 and the end-Cretaceous to other Mesozoic events
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Science
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Science web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Does large igneous province volcanism always perturb the mercury cycle? Comparing the records of Oceanic Anoxic Event 2 and the end-Cretaceous to other Mesozoic events
Lawrence M.E. Percival, Hugh C. Jenkyns, Tamsin A. Mather, Alexander J. Dickson, Sietske J. Batenburg, Micha Ruhl, Stephen P. Hesselbo, Richard Barclay, Ian Jarvis, Stuart A. Robinson, Lineke Woelders
American Journal of Science Oct 2018, 318 (8) 799-860; DOI: 10.2475/08.2018.01

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Does large igneous province volcanism always perturb the mercury cycle? Comparing the records of Oceanic Anoxic Event 2 and the end-Cretaceous to other Mesozoic events
Lawrence M.E. Percival, Hugh C. Jenkyns, Tamsin A. Mather, Alexander J. Dickson, Sietske J. Batenburg, Micha Ruhl, Stephen P. Hesselbo, Richard Barclay, Ian Jarvis, Stuart A. Robinson, Lineke Woelders
American Journal of Science Oct 2018, 318 (8) 799-860; DOI: 10.2475/08.2018.01
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • STUDIED EVENTS AND RECORDS
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • Appendix
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Volcanic controls on seawater sulfate over the past 120 million years
  • UV-B radiation was the Devonian-Carboniferous boundary terrestrial extinction kill mechanism
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Timing and Nd-Hf isotopic mapping of early Mesozoic granitoids in the Qinling Orogen, central China: Implication for architecture, nature and processes of the orogen
  • India in the Nuna to Gondwana supercontinent cycles: Clues from the north Indian and Marwar Blocks
  • Unravelling the P-T-t history of three high-grade metamorphic events in the Epupa Complex, NW Namibia: Implications for the Paleoproterozoic to Mesoproterozoic evolution of the Congo Craton
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • mercury
  • Cenomanian–Turonian OAE
  • end-Cretaceous
  • Large Igneous Province
  • volcanic style
  • depositional environment

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Archive

More Information

  • RSS

Other Services

  • About Us

© 2023 American Journal of Science

Powered by HighWire