the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Electron backscatter diffraction analysis unveils foraminiferal calcite microstructure and processes of diagenetic alteration
Frances Alice Procter
Sandra Piazolo
Eleanor Heulwen John
Richard Walshaw
Paul Nicholas Pearson
Caroline Helen Lear
Tracy Aze
Abstract. Electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) analysis enables a unique perspective of the internal microstructure of foraminiferal calcite. Specifically, EBSD provides crystallographic data from within the test, highlighting the highly organised “mesocrystal” structure of crystallographically aligned domains throughout the test, formed by sequential deposits of microgranular calcite. We compared EBSD maps across the test walls of both poorly- and well-preserved specimens of the planktonic foraminifera species Globigerinoides ruber and Morozovella crater. The EBSD maps, paired with information about intra-test distributions of Mg/Ca ratios, allowed us to examine the effects of different diagenetic processes on the foraminifera test. In poorly-preserved specimens EBSD data shows extensive reorganisation of the biogenic crystal microstructure, indicating differing phases of dissolution, re-precipitation and overgrowth. The specimens with the greatest degree of microstructural reorganisation also show an absence of higher concentration magnesium bands, which are typical features of well-preserved specimens. These findings provide important insights into the extent of post-depositional changes both in microstructure and geochemical signals that must be considered when utilising foraminifera to generate proxy archive data.
- Preprint
(2949 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Frances Alice Procter et al.
Status: open (until 11 Dec 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2213', Chiara Consolaro, 15 Nov 2023
reply
I reviewed the paper Egusphere-2023-2213: Electron backscatter diffraction analysis unveils foraminiferal calcite microstructure and processes of diagenetic alteration by A. Procter et al., and I think that it is a very interesting and important topic, very well presented and well written.
I have only some minor comments to the manuscript before it can be accepted.
Line 15: "data shows" it is correct but maybe it would be preferable to use it in its plural form, so data show.
Line 29: instead of "planktic" foraminifera is better to use planktonic like it has been done in the rest of the paper.
Line 63: maybe substitute ";" with ", "after the quotes in brackets.
Lines 205-206: is there a reason why 'fanning' grains are associated with a lack of porosity or is it just an observation? Maybe elaborate further?
Lines 215-216: rewrite or clarify the sentence "with greater spread in the points for the latter".
Line 217: state what does the abbreviation IPF-Y stands for when you mention it for the first time.
Figure 3 and 4: (g, h) the axes and the letters in the 3D diagram unit cells are not well visible, please make them more visible. (i,j) The plots of the selected grains on the pole plots represented in orange and yellow are difficult to see, maybe change color or make the symbols bigger?
Line 359: please explain better what do you mean with "further along this proposed diagenetic pathway".
362: maybe substitute ";" with ":" after process, or reformulate the last part of the sentence.
Lines 409-414: maybe make a reference and clear connection with the last part of Fig. 5 (d and e)?
Appendix A- Frequency of twin boundaries: it is not possible to read the text on the graphs, maybe increase the quality of the figure?
Line 698: add a space after the reference of Putnis A., 2009
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2213-RC1
Frances Alice Procter et al.
Frances Alice Procter et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
148 | 89 | 10 | 247 | 6 | 9 |
- HTML: 148
- PDF: 89
- XML: 10
- Total: 247
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1