Controls on Palaeogene deep-sea diatom-bearing sediment deposition and comparison with shallow marine environments

Figus, Cécile; Renaudie, Johan; Bialik, Or M.; Witkowski, Jakub

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3768

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3768

Preprints

17 Dec 2024

| 17 Dec 2024

Controls on Palaeogene deep-sea diatom-bearing sediment deposition and comparison with shallow marine environments

Cécile Figus, Johan Renaudie, Or M. Bialik, and Jakub Witkowski

Abstract. Diatoms are the key players in the present-day global biogeochemical cycles. Yet, the diatom ﬂux response to the dynamically changing climates of the Palaeogene has long been a subject to divergent interpretations. We present a compilation of Palaeogene deep-sea diatom-bearing sediments in order to gain new insight into inter-basin and latitudinal distribution of diatom accumulation zones from the K/Pg boundary to the Oligocene/Miocene transition. Our dataset includes 189 sites drilled in the Atlantic, Paciﬁc, and Indian oceans, and in the Arctic. It suggests that the number and distribution of deep-sea diatom- bearing sediment occurrences is mainly controlled by the nutrient availibility and ocean circulation. Climate appears to have only an indirect correlation with our results, which may be linked to the expansion of the Antarctic Ice Sheet during the Oligocene global cooling. A comparison of our results with the temporal ditribution of shallow marine diatomite occurrences (Figus et al., 2024a) suggests that the increase in the number of deep-sea diatom-bearing sediment occurrences (particularly in the Atlantic) during the diatomite gap (~46 to ~44 Ma) is probably related to the tectonic reorganizations occurring during this period. These palaeogeographic changes caused the cessation of shallow marine diatomite deposition, and an increase in nutrient availability through continental weathering intensiﬁcation.

Received: 01 Dec 2024 – Discussion started: 17 Dec 2024

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 1853 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (1853 KB)

Supplement (11450 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

30 Jun 2025

Controls on Palaeogene deep-sea diatom-bearing sediment deposition and comparison with shallow marine environments

Cécile Figus, Johan Renaudie, Or M. Bialik, and Jakub Witkowski

Biogeosciences, 22, 3029–3046, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-3029-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-3029-2025, 2025

Short summary

Cécile Figus, Johan Renaudie, Or M. Bialik, and Jakub Witkowski

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3768', Eunah Han, 06 Jan 2025

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3768/egusphere-2024-3768-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3768-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Cécile Figus, 24 Jan 2025
  
  Dear Eunah Han,
  Thank you for your comments on our manuscript. We will make the changes you requested in the specific and technical comments. However, we would like to discuss your general comment.
  The novelty of this paper lies in the compilation of published local-scale (sites) results, and in the comparison of deep-sea diatom-bearing sediments with our previous study on shallow marine diatomites. Although the data we use are published, no global compilation of deep-sea diatom-bearing sediments has been produced before, and the compilation of these data presents new scientific results, which are not visible without all the data being brought together. Previous studies compiling deep-sea data are on a smaller scale, such as that of Witkowski et al. (2021), so the development of a global-scale study demonstrates differences in diatom accumulation from ocean to ocean.
  In addition, the discussion is not augmented by a summary of our previous study but, as stated in the title, the second objective of this article is to compare these deep-sea results with those from the shallow marine environment, due to the different diatom responses in these two environments during the diatomite gap (middle Eocene). It is therefore necessary to present our previously published data on shallow marine diatomites in order to highlight the differences in results and controlling factors.
  Best regards,
  Cécile Figus, on behalf of all Co-Authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3768-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3768', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Feb 2025

I went through the manuscript titled “Controls on Palaeogene deep-sea diatom-bearing sediment deposition and comparison with shallow marine environments”, submitted by Figus and co-authors, to be considered for publication.
The manuscript addresses a very relevant issue, i.e. the relationships between pelagic and shallow marine diatomaceous deposition and the climatic, oceanographic and tectonic reconfigurations occurred during the Palaeogene. A noteworthy task, approached through the review of an impressive amount of data from DSDP, ODP and IODP oceanographic campaigns. The Palaeogene diatomaceous deposition is poorly studied if compared to the Neogene one, and this makes authors’ efforts even more appreciable. Works like this are absolutely needed to fix ideas, highlighting the controversies and raising new research questions. Even if the ‘smoking gun’ is still difficult to be found, this is already an important step beyond. Therefore, on my opinion this manuscript definitely deserves to be published.
Below I provide some suggestions and I raise some questions mostly aimed at improve the discussion. I am very looking forward to know authors’ opinion about.

General comments
Proxies (isotopes etc.) should be introduced in Materials and methods, while they suddenly appear at lines 140-145. I suggest to include a new paragraph where proxies are presented, and their significance for this investigation briefly described.
I believe that in the Discussions the authors should consider, besides the work of Muttoni and Kent (2007), the very recent results presented by Varkouhi et al. (2024) in a paper titled ‘Pervasive accumulations of chert in the Equatorial Pacific during the early Eocene climatic optimum’ (Marine and Petroleum Geology 167, 106940). Another relevant work to be considered is Cermeño (2016) - The geological story of marine diatoms and the last generation of fossil fuels (Perspectives in Phycology 3-2, 53-60).
On my opinion, the role of tectonics is rather vague, and must be better addressed. Among others, I suggest to consider the paper of Rea et al. (1990) - Global change at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary: climatic and evolutionary consequences of tectonic events (Palaeo3 79, 1-2, 117-128).
Did you consider the possible role of sea-level changes occurred during the Palaeogene in governing the shallow marine vs deep-sea diatomaceous deposition?
Although I know that this may go a bit far beyond the aims of the present paper, I believe that the discussion might benefit from a brief evaluation of the ecological meaning of the major diatom taxa identified in deep-sea Palaeogene sediments. Two of the authors provided excellent contributions about (see Renaudie et al., 2010 - Siliceous phytoplankton response to a Middle Eocene warming event recorded in the tropical Atlantic (Demerara Rise, ODP Site 1260A). Palaeo3 286, 3-4, 121-134; Renaudie et al., 2018 - The Paleocene record of marine diatoms in deep-sea sediments. Fossil Record 21, 183-205; Witkowski et al., 2020 - Early Paleogene biosiliceous sedimentation in the Atlantic Ocean: Testing the inorganic origin hypothesis for Paleocene and Eocene chert and porcellanite. Palaeo3 556, 109896, etc.). In these works, the widespread occurrence of representatives of the order Hemiaulales is reported. Authors are surely aware that this order comprises diatoms often involved in diatom-diazotroph associations (DDAs) in stratified, oligotrophic waters. Don’t authors think that would be interesting to deepen this aspect, especially in the light of the variations of nitrogen isotopes (see for example paragraph 3.3. in Knies et al., 2008 - Surface water productivity and paleoceanographic implications in the Cenozoic Arctic Ocean. Palaeocenography and Palaeoclimatology 23, 1)?
What can be inferred from the Palaeogene sedimentary record about the other components of the pelagic trophic chain (not only radiolarians)? Any significant event among other groups of phyto- or zooplankton (or among marine metazoans) that can be relevant for the present study?

Specific comments
Line 14: ‘in the oceans’ – ‘in the modern oceans’
Line 18: ‘supplied’ – ‘mostly supplied’; a reference is needed here, I suggest Tréguer et al. (2021) - Reviews and syntheses: The biogeochemical cycle of silicon in the modern ocean. Biogeosciences 18 (4), 1269-1289.
Line 22: ‘gravitational sinking of diatoms in the water column’ – Some references are needed here; moreover, I would expand a bit this passage. The sinking of diatom aggregates is much more than a passive process controlled by gravity. I recommend the seminal works authored by Smetacek and Grimm about this aspect. For example: Smetacek (1985) – Role of sinking in diatom life-history cycles: ecological, evolutionary and geological significance. Marine Biology 84, 239-251; Grimm et al. (1997) – Self-sedimentation of phytoplankton blooms in the geologic record. Sedimentary Geology 110 (3-4), 151-161.
Line 58: ‘opal-CT’ – ‘opal-CT and quartz’.
Line 61: ‘opal-CT (siliceous microfossils)’ – Unclear, I suggest to rephrase. It seems from this passage that siliceous microfossils are by definition composed of opal-CT.
Line 62: ‘diatoms are usually obliterated’ – An interesting exception, just for authors’ information: Hein et al. (1990) - Eocene diatom chert from Adak Island, Alaska. Journal of Sedimentary Research 60 (2), 250-257. When dealing with the diagenesis of biosiliceous remains, I suggest to cite the processes of reverse weathering (see Michalopoulos & Aller, 1995 – Science 270, 5236, 614-617) and pyritization. This latter can be very interesting for this case study, because it has been described in Palaeogene diatom-bearing sediments of Northern Europe: De Jonghe et al. (2011) - Middle Eocene diatoms from Whitecliff Bay, Isle of Wight, England: stratigraphy and preservation. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 122, 472-483.
Line 126: ‘surface/volume ratio’ – References are needed here.
Line 225: ‘(…) shallow marine diatomite(s) deposited in open ocean conditions’ – A bit confusing…

Figures
It would be nice to see some maps in the maintext, similar to those reported in Figures 1, 4 and 5 in Figus et al. (2024).
A very simple, resuming sketch (or a flow chart) could greatly help the reader to fix the major points discussed in the text.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3768-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Cécile Figus, 25 Feb 2025
  
  Dear Anonymous Reviewer 2,
  We would like to thank you for these very constructive comments, which will improve the discussion of our manuscript. We will address all these comments in detail in a document of response to the reviewers.
  Best regards,
  Cécile Figus, on behalf of all Co-Authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3768-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3768', Eunah Han, 06 Jan 2025

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3768/egusphere-2024-3768-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3768-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Cécile Figus, 24 Jan 2025
  
  Dear Eunah Han,
  Thank you for your comments on our manuscript. We will make the changes you requested in the specific and technical comments. However, we would like to discuss your general comment.
  The novelty of this paper lies in the compilation of published local-scale (sites) results, and in the comparison of deep-sea diatom-bearing sediments with our previous study on shallow marine diatomites. Although the data we use are published, no global compilation of deep-sea diatom-bearing sediments has been produced before, and the compilation of these data presents new scientific results, which are not visible without all the data being brought together. Previous studies compiling deep-sea data are on a smaller scale, such as that of Witkowski et al. (2021), so the development of a global-scale study demonstrates differences in diatom accumulation from ocean to ocean.
  In addition, the discussion is not augmented by a summary of our previous study but, as stated in the title, the second objective of this article is to compare these deep-sea results with those from the shallow marine environment, due to the different diatom responses in these two environments during the diatomite gap (middle Eocene). It is therefore necessary to present our previously published data on shallow marine diatomites in order to highlight the differences in results and controlling factors.
  Best regards,
  Cécile Figus, on behalf of all Co-Authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3768-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3768', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Feb 2025

I went through the manuscript titled “Controls on Palaeogene deep-sea diatom-bearing sediment deposition and comparison with shallow marine environments”, submitted by Figus and co-authors, to be considered for publication.
The manuscript addresses a very relevant issue, i.e. the relationships between pelagic and shallow marine diatomaceous deposition and the climatic, oceanographic and tectonic reconfigurations occurred during the Palaeogene. A noteworthy task, approached through the review of an impressive amount of data from DSDP, ODP and IODP oceanographic campaigns. The Palaeogene diatomaceous deposition is poorly studied if compared to the Neogene one, and this makes authors’ efforts even more appreciable. Works like this are absolutely needed to fix ideas, highlighting the controversies and raising new research questions. Even if the ‘smoking gun’ is still difficult to be found, this is already an important step beyond. Therefore, on my opinion this manuscript definitely deserves to be published.
Below I provide some suggestions and I raise some questions mostly aimed at improve the discussion. I am very looking forward to know authors’ opinion about.

General comments
Proxies (isotopes etc.) should be introduced in Materials and methods, while they suddenly appear at lines 140-145. I suggest to include a new paragraph where proxies are presented, and their significance for this investigation briefly described.
I believe that in the Discussions the authors should consider, besides the work of Muttoni and Kent (2007), the very recent results presented by Varkouhi et al. (2024) in a paper titled ‘Pervasive accumulations of chert in the Equatorial Pacific during the early Eocene climatic optimum’ (Marine and Petroleum Geology 167, 106940). Another relevant work to be considered is Cermeño (2016) - The geological story of marine diatoms and the last generation of fossil fuels (Perspectives in Phycology 3-2, 53-60).
On my opinion, the role of tectonics is rather vague, and must be better addressed. Among others, I suggest to consider the paper of Rea et al. (1990) - Global change at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary: climatic and evolutionary consequences of tectonic events (Palaeo3 79, 1-2, 117-128).
Did you consider the possible role of sea-level changes occurred during the Palaeogene in governing the shallow marine vs deep-sea diatomaceous deposition?
Although I know that this may go a bit far beyond the aims of the present paper, I believe that the discussion might benefit from a brief evaluation of the ecological meaning of the major diatom taxa identified in deep-sea Palaeogene sediments. Two of the authors provided excellent contributions about (see Renaudie et al., 2010 - Siliceous phytoplankton response to a Middle Eocene warming event recorded in the tropical Atlantic (Demerara Rise, ODP Site 1260A). Palaeo3 286, 3-4, 121-134; Renaudie et al., 2018 - The Paleocene record of marine diatoms in deep-sea sediments. Fossil Record 21, 183-205; Witkowski et al., 2020 - Early Paleogene biosiliceous sedimentation in the Atlantic Ocean: Testing the inorganic origin hypothesis for Paleocene and Eocene chert and porcellanite. Palaeo3 556, 109896, etc.). In these works, the widespread occurrence of representatives of the order Hemiaulales is reported. Authors are surely aware that this order comprises diatoms often involved in diatom-diazotroph associations (DDAs) in stratified, oligotrophic waters. Don’t authors think that would be interesting to deepen this aspect, especially in the light of the variations of nitrogen isotopes (see for example paragraph 3.3. in Knies et al., 2008 - Surface water productivity and paleoceanographic implications in the Cenozoic Arctic Ocean. Palaeocenography and Palaeoclimatology 23, 1)?
What can be inferred from the Palaeogene sedimentary record about the other components of the pelagic trophic chain (not only radiolarians)? Any significant event among other groups of phyto- or zooplankton (or among marine metazoans) that can be relevant for the present study?

Specific comments
Line 14: ‘in the oceans’ – ‘in the modern oceans’
Line 18: ‘supplied’ – ‘mostly supplied’; a reference is needed here, I suggest Tréguer et al. (2021) - Reviews and syntheses: The biogeochemical cycle of silicon in the modern ocean. Biogeosciences 18 (4), 1269-1289.
Line 22: ‘gravitational sinking of diatoms in the water column’ – Some references are needed here; moreover, I would expand a bit this passage. The sinking of diatom aggregates is much more than a passive process controlled by gravity. I recommend the seminal works authored by Smetacek and Grimm about this aspect. For example: Smetacek (1985) – Role of sinking in diatom life-history cycles: ecological, evolutionary and geological significance. Marine Biology 84, 239-251; Grimm et al. (1997) – Self-sedimentation of phytoplankton blooms in the geologic record. Sedimentary Geology 110 (3-4), 151-161.
Line 58: ‘opal-CT’ – ‘opal-CT and quartz’.
Line 61: ‘opal-CT (siliceous microfossils)’ – Unclear, I suggest to rephrase. It seems from this passage that siliceous microfossils are by definition composed of opal-CT.
Line 62: ‘diatoms are usually obliterated’ – An interesting exception, just for authors’ information: Hein et al. (1990) - Eocene diatom chert from Adak Island, Alaska. Journal of Sedimentary Research 60 (2), 250-257. When dealing with the diagenesis of biosiliceous remains, I suggest to cite the processes of reverse weathering (see Michalopoulos & Aller, 1995 – Science 270, 5236, 614-617) and pyritization. This latter can be very interesting for this case study, because it has been described in Palaeogene diatom-bearing sediments of Northern Europe: De Jonghe et al. (2011) - Middle Eocene diatoms from Whitecliff Bay, Isle of Wight, England: stratigraphy and preservation. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 122, 472-483.
Line 126: ‘surface/volume ratio’ – References are needed here.
Line 225: ‘(…) shallow marine diatomite(s) deposited in open ocean conditions’ – A bit confusing…

Figures
It would be nice to see some maps in the maintext, similar to those reported in Figures 1, 4 and 5 in Figus et al. (2024).
A very simple, resuming sketch (or a flow chart) could greatly help the reader to fix the major points discussed in the text.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3768-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Cécile Figus, 25 Feb 2025
  
  Dear Anonymous Reviewer 2,
  We would like to thank you for these very constructive comments, which will improve the discussion of our manuscript. We will address all these comments in detail in a document of response to the reviewers.
  Best regards,
  Cécile Figus, on behalf of all Co-Authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3768-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (06 Mar 2025) by Mark Lever

AR by Cécile Figus on behalf of the Authors (10 Mar 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

EF by Katja Gänger (11 Mar 2025) Supplement

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (28 Mar 2025) by Mark Lever

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (28 Mar 2025) by Mark Lever

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (02 Apr 2025)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Dear Authors,
I went through the revised version of your manuscript titled “Controls on Palaeogene deep-sea diatom-bearing sediment deposition and comparison with shallow marine environments”, to be considered for publication on Biogeosciences.
All my previous comments have been convincingly addressed. I really appreciated your efforts in providing an improved version of the original manuscript. My comments, listed below (and based on the track change version), are now mostly formal. Therefore, on my opinion this manuscript can now be accepted for publication, after very minor revisions.

Comments
Throughout the maintext, carbon dioxide is often reported as ‘CO2’ (2 is not subscripted).
Line 3: ‘sediments occurrences’ -> ‘sediment occurrence’.
Line 10: ‘(…) during the diatomite gap’ -> ‘(…) during the diatomite gap in shallow water settings’.
Lines 29-32: I suggest a small, additional modification aimed at improve the passage (but feel free to modify it as you prefer, considering the further reference that I included). ‘Another aspect of the biological pump is the “self-sedimentation” of diatoms in the water column (i.e., diatoms seem to have developed mechanisms to accelerate gravitational mass sinking of their skeletons in the water column), leading to the burial of diatom frustules in sediments (Smetacek, 1985; Grimm et al., 1997).’ -> ‘Another aspect of the biological pump is represented by the processes accelerating the diatom sinking in the water column and the consequent burial of diatom frustules. Among them, the massive settling of large aggregates of bloom-forming or stratified-adapted diatoms (“self sedimentation” and “fall dump”, respectively) play a prominent role in enhancing diatom-bearing sediment formation (Smetacek, 1985; Grimm et al., 1997; Kemp et al., 2000).’
Line 340 – typo: remove ‘the’ before ‘present’.
Line 354 – typo: split ‘thatassumes’.

Figures
Figure 1 – Nice and useful sketch! Just a few suggestions (mere formality…):
1) Why do you report the chemical formula of orthosilicic acid while P and N are just reported as chemical symbols? I suggest to simplify and uniform: just “Si”, “P” and “N”.
2) I would remove the term ‘self-sedimentation’, which is actually only a process among many others; “sedimentation” is enough on my opinion.
3) Why upwelling should bring only nitrogen to the surface waters? I would report also Si and P.
Figure 3 (caption, line 2): “The agenta and grey circles” -> “The magenta and grey circles”.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (02 Apr 2025) by Mark Lever

AR by Cécile Figus on behalf of the Authors (02 Apr 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

EF by Daria Karpachova (02 Apr 2025) Supplement

ED: Publish as is (02 Apr 2025) by Mark Lever

AR by Cécile Figus on behalf of the Authors (03 Apr 2025)

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

30 Jun 2025

Controls on Palaeogene deep-sea diatom-bearing sediment deposition and comparison with shallow marine environments

Cécile Figus, Johan Renaudie, Or M. Bialik, and Jakub Witkowski

Biogeosciences, 22, 3029–3046, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-3029-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-3029-2025, 2025

Short summary

Cécile Figus, Johan Renaudie, Or M. Bialik, and Jakub Witkowski

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3768-supplement

Data sets

Compilations of Palaeogene deep-sea diatom-bearing sediments and associated data C. Figus et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.14245396

Cécile Figus, Johan Renaudie, Or M. Bialik, and Jakub Witkowski

Viewed

Total article views: 358 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
256	80	22	358	27	14	18

HTML: 256
PDF: 80
XML: 22
Total: 358
Supplement: 27
BibTeX: 14
EndNote: 18

Views and downloads (calculated since 17 Dec 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Dec 2024	72	12	5	89
Jan 2025	58	21	5	84
Feb 2025	41	19	2	62
Mar 2025	24	10	2	36
Apr 2025	13	4	1	18
May 2025	21	11	1	33
Jun 2025	27	3	6	36

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 17 Dec 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Dec 2024	72	12	5	89
Jan 2025	58	21	5	84
Feb 2025	41	19	2	62
Mar 2025	24	10	2	36
Apr 2025	13	4	1	18
May 2025	21	11	1	33
Jun 2025	27	3	6	36

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 334 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 334 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 30 Jun 2025

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (1853 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

The compilation of Palaeogene deep-sea diatom-bearing sediment occurrences indicates that the deposition of diatom-bearing sediments is mainly controlled by nutrient availability and ocean circulation in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans. Comparison with shallow marine diatomites suggests that the peak in the number of diatom-bearing sites in the Atlantic may be related to tectonic reorganizations that caused the cessation of shallow marine diatomite deposition between ~46 and ~44 Ma.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0