Active microbial sulfur cycling across a 13,500-year-old lake sediment record

Berg, Jasmine Sofia; Rodriguez, Paula Catalina; Magnabosco, Cara; Deng, Longhui; Bernasconi, Stefano M.; Vogel, Hendrik; Morlock, Marina; Lever, Mark Alexander

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4158

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4158

Preprints

23 Jan 2025

| 23 Jan 2025

Active microbial sulfur cycling across a 13,500-year-old lake sediment record

Jasmine Sofia Berg, Paula Catalina Rodriguez, Cara Magnabosco, Longhui Deng, Stefano M. Bernasconi, Hendrik Vogel, Marina Morlock, and Mark Alexander Lever

Abstract. The sulfur cycle is very important in lake sediments, despite the much lower sulfate concentrations in freshwater than seawater. To date, little is known about the formation and preservation of organic and inorganic sulfur compounds in such sediments, especially in the sulfate-depleted subsurface. Here we investigated the fate of buried S-compounds down to 10-m sediment depth, which represents the entire ~13.5 kya sedimentary history, of the sulfate-rich alpine Lake Cadagno. Chemical profiles of sulfate and reduced sulfur reveal that sulfate from lake water is depleted at the sediment surface with the concomitant formation of iron sulfide minerals. An underlying aquifer provides a second source of sulfate and other oxidants to the deepest and oldest sediment layers generating an inverse redox gradient with ongoing sulfate consumption. Active sulfur cycling within this deep layer produces highly ³⁴S-depleted chromium-reducible sulfur (CRS) (δ³⁴S between -45 and -26 ‰ VCDT) and humic-bound sulfur compared to sulfate in lake (+24 ‰) or aquifer water (+12 to +15 ‰) or CRS in surface sediments (-12 to + 13 ‰). Overall, very similar 𝜀_{sulfate-pyrite} isotope differences in both surface and deep sediments suggest rather comparable closed-system sulfur cycling despite the large differences in sulfate concentrations, organic matter content, and microbial community composition. Although sulfate is depleted in the central part of the sediment column, dsrB gene libraries suggest potential for microbial sulfur reduction throughout the sediment column, with sequences in sulfate-depleted layers being dominated by Chloroflexota. Collectively, our data suggest an active sulfur cycle that is driven by uncultivated microorganisms in deep sulfate-depleted sediments of Lake Cadagno.

Received: 26 Dec 2024 – Discussion started: 23 Jan 2025

Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Biogeosciences.

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 paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 1156 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 (1156 KB)

Supplement (362 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

10 Oct 2025

Microbial sulfur cycling across a 13 500-year-old lake sediment record

Jasmine S. Berg, Paula C. Rodriguez, Cara Magnabosco, Longhui Deng, Stefano M. Bernasconi, Hendrik Vogel, Marina Morlock, and Mark A. Lever

Biogeosciences, 22, 5483–5496, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-5483-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-5483-2025, 2025

Short summary

Jasmine Sofia Berg, Paula Catalina Rodriguez, Cara Magnabosco, Longhui Deng, Stefano M. Bernasconi, Hendrik Vogel, Marina Morlock, and Mark Alexander Lever

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-4158', Morgan Raven, 10 Mar 2025

Berg and colleagues present a depth profile of sulfur geochemistry and target gene abundance for a ~10-meter-long core from Lake Cadagno sediments (Switzerland). This well-studied lake has moderately low concentrations of sulfate in deep porewater and experiences an influx of groundwater from below, making it a valuable intermediate case study between the ocean and very-low-sulfate lakes (e.g., Lake Superior). This dataset is likely to be of broad interest in the field. Before publication, however, there are several discussion topics that need additional attention, especially related to the interpretation of the organic S and C results and the deeper S-isotope trends. Detailed comments below are in manuscript order.
Line 111 – Please provide the essential details about your sampling procedure here so the manuscript is complete on its own without reference to Berg 2022. The reader needs be able to quickly understand e.g. that these are piston cores, at what coordinates and elevation, without an internet connection.
Line 230 – I was looking for a profile of TOC to make sense of the C:S ratio profiles before I found it in the Supplement. The x-axis for TOC concentrations appears to be missing on figure S1. Consider moving this to the main text, it’s very useful for thinking about the ratio profiles.
Fig. 2 – I realize that the x-axis in D is the full range of values observed, but it is not feasible to glean information about the relationships among CRS, HAS, and AVS in the main core at this scale. Please provide an additional zoomed-in scale or some other approach to make it possible to resolve d34S differences of a few permil. Similarly, the TC/TS range goes to 40 when the data max is 12 – it would help to adjust this so the data are easier to see.
Line 222–230 – I found it challenging to make sense of the humic acid sulfur data referenced only to total or total organic C. Values for humic acid carbon would be extremely helpful if they exist. Do we know at least roughly what proportion of TOC was extracted as HA? Either way, a discussion is warranted about the relationship between HA extracts and total or residual (protokerogen-like) OC. How should the reader think about statistics like TOC:HAS when the ratios of C:S in HA, the ratio of C:S in non-soluble OC, and the relative abundances of those pools are all potentially changing? Additional discussion on this topic would also help translate this data to comparison sites, many of which report OC and OS from protokerogen or lipids rather than HAs. Exchanges of sulfur between HA, DOM, and this pool should likely also be considered.
Line 236 / Fig S2 – The comparison with 1991 data is potentially intriguing but insufficiently explained to be useful. A description of the sampling type and associated concentration data would make this much more valuable, perhaps as a Supplement section. Otherwise this data is undersupported. (Why were they able to get sulfate data when the current study was not? Different sampling volumes I presume?) Can the new sulfate data be overlain on the 1991 data for a more direct comparison?
Line 241 – is the support for this opening sentence the 1991 pocket dataset? Please tell us more about it! If this d34S sulfide trend is directly comparable, can it be included in Figure 2 so that it can be seen next to the AVS etc?
Line 370 – I don’t see abundant S0 at the deep redox transition in Fig 2A, please clarify.
Line 383 – The statement that HAS increases over the top 10 cm (without mention of its immediate decrease below) is a bit misleading. Please provide some explanation for the peak of HAS abundance between 5–15 cm that can account for both sides of the profile.
Line 411 – 413 – The description of organic sulfur sources is a bit tangled. Are you referring to the possibility of sulfate reducers using organic sulfate esters as a sulfate source in extremely low-S lakes? (Fakharee / Phillips should be cited if so). If sulfate esters are used for MSR, they could find their way into any product of reactions with sulfate, theoretically including pyrite as well as OS, and would not necessary be associated with specific OS functional groups. To understand the OS pool, the much larger effect is expected to be the incorporation of biogenic OS materials, either from PP or potentially also from secondary production by sediment microbes (Anderson and Pratt 1995 and many others).
The discussion in 416-418 seems disconnected from the observations of HAS concentration in Figure 2. How do that data support (or not support) an argument about timing of HAS formation and stability, when peak HAS concentrations mostly experience loss at shallow depths? How might biogenic OS be related to this?
Line 438 – I was confused by the statement that “closed-system sulfate reduction is leading to similar δ34S fractionations as in surface sediments.” Closed-system processes don’t affect fractionation factors, but instead they affect the expression of those fractionations in the environment. It is not clear how closed-system distillation is creating consistent d34S distributions at depths with very different levels of system openness.
The argument for this closed-system control is, if I understand properly, the trend in CRS d³⁴S values between 600 and 800 cm depth above the groundwater source. This hypothesis needs to be explained in much greater detail to understand the mechanism being invoked and how other previous datasets might support it. Humic acid and AVS d34S values also tend light in that zone – how is that related? (and sulfate is light… why are these values not light just because they are offset from light sulfate?) Some simple calculations to compare offsets among the sulfur pools would be great. Alternative explanations for the CRS d34S trend in the deep zone should be considered.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4158-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jasmine Berg, 15 May 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2024-4158/egusphere-2024-4158-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4158-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-4158', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Mar 2025

General comments.
Berg et al. present an interesting and mostly original study on sulfur transformations and sulfur isotope partitioning into different inorganic and organic sulfur fractions in a previously well studied Swiss lake. The isotope geochemical study includes microbiological informations, which is nice, but of secondary importance, since it represents th present situation and not necessarily for the 'paleo'-ones that are responsible for the formation of benthic geochemical signatures. Lago Cadagno is well known for its unusual element cycling, including the development of euxinic conditions due to a groundwater derived carbonate-buffered substantial sulfate supply derived from gypsum and dolomite dissolution in the catchment area.
I suggest to change the title and remove 'active', since no rates measuremements of the current sulfur transition have been carried out, and are only deduced from sediment solid phase parameters. Wath is missing is a competent discussion of the oecidative part of the sulfur cycle and relevant associatd sulfur cycling.
The presentation of data, for instance in the supplementary data, file has to be substantially improved. The lables at X axes of TIS, TOC etc. are missing, the lable at the d34S profiles from 1991 are not of publishable format/quality. In general, the basic geochemical data should be presented in the main text.

Detailed comments:
- I suggest to add the fundamental PhD thesis of Losher (1989) on S cycling in Lago di Cadagno into the introduction and reference list.
-L33: ...catchment groundwater... instead of 'aquifer groundwater'
-L33: Is the d34S of lake water column sulfate really constant?
- L34: d34S values for dissolved sulfate in the deduced steep gradient are not measured, but only deduced. Therefore, this statement on apparent isotope enrichment factors is a substantial oversimplification
-L35: Due to the lack of pore water data, it stays questionable if the term 'closed system' really describes the boundary conditions
-L53: I am sure that there are really more basic studies from the 90s of the last century that should be cited here: e.g., Jorgensen, 1990, Thamdrup et al. etc.
-L57/58 ...cultures and marine sediments... References should include: Kaplan & Rittenberg (1964), Wortmann et al. (Geology, 2001); Rudniki et al., (GCA, 2001)
-L66: add reference: Jorgensen et al. (GCA, 2004)
-L68: This is not a new result of Bryant et al., but has already been found out in the 80s of the last century and the 90s. You should refer to the original studies.
-L71: cite for closed system behaviour: Hartmann & Nielsen (1969 Geol. Rundschau, or 2012, Isot. Env. Health Stud.)
-L73: This statement is questionable. Whereas AVS may reflect system behaviour, pyrite often reflects dominantly the conditions provided by essentially open system conditions
-L78: Add Putschew et al. (OGC, 1996) and something from the 90s of the NIOZ group and more recently Amrani et al
-L80: 'substantially' instead of 'significantly'?
-L361: add Jorgensen et al. (2004, GCA)
-L364: ...disproportionation of sulfur intermediates... (Canfield & Thamdrup, 1994; Cypionka et al., 1998 FEMS)...
Question: I a repeated dispropotiontion cycling of sulfur intermediates really a plausible process in sediments? Canfield & Thamdrip (1994) proposed the model for an euxinic water column, the substantial role for benthic anaerobic sulfur cycling in competition to reductive processes is still to be shown
-L370: Which evidence of S° accumulation? Wjat would be the tole of S° reduction for isotope discrimination?
-L453: Is Fichtel et al. a suitable reference? The study belongs to a completely different type of system
-L455. Why refering to the ocean crust as aquifer, instead of much shallower submarine or limnic groundwater discharge sites(?)
-L474: I do not understand this statement. Why should memberhsip in an editorial board lead for an academic trained person lead to a compettition of interests?
-L479: Didn't the co-authors also contributed to revision and editing of the ms? Who provided funding?
-Fig.2 Presentation should be improved: No combination of dissolved and solid phase species in one each plot; spread of the X axis for S isotope results

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4158-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jasmine Berg, 18 May 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2024-4158/egusphere-2024-4158-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4158-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-4158', Morgan Raven, 10 Mar 2025

Berg and colleagues present a depth profile of sulfur geochemistry and target gene abundance for a ~10-meter-long core from Lake Cadagno sediments (Switzerland). This well-studied lake has moderately low concentrations of sulfate in deep porewater and experiences an influx of groundwater from below, making it a valuable intermediate case study between the ocean and very-low-sulfate lakes (e.g., Lake Superior). This dataset is likely to be of broad interest in the field. Before publication, however, there are several discussion topics that need additional attention, especially related to the interpretation of the organic S and C results and the deeper S-isotope trends. Detailed comments below are in manuscript order.
Line 111 – Please provide the essential details about your sampling procedure here so the manuscript is complete on its own without reference to Berg 2022. The reader needs be able to quickly understand e.g. that these are piston cores, at what coordinates and elevation, without an internet connection.
Line 230 – I was looking for a profile of TOC to make sense of the C:S ratio profiles before I found it in the Supplement. The x-axis for TOC concentrations appears to be missing on figure S1. Consider moving this to the main text, it’s very useful for thinking about the ratio profiles.
Fig. 2 – I realize that the x-axis in D is the full range of values observed, but it is not feasible to glean information about the relationships among CRS, HAS, and AVS in the main core at this scale. Please provide an additional zoomed-in scale or some other approach to make it possible to resolve d34S differences of a few permil. Similarly, the TC/TS range goes to 40 when the data max is 12 – it would help to adjust this so the data are easier to see.
Line 222–230 – I found it challenging to make sense of the humic acid sulfur data referenced only to total or total organic C. Values for humic acid carbon would be extremely helpful if they exist. Do we know at least roughly what proportion of TOC was extracted as HA? Either way, a discussion is warranted about the relationship between HA extracts and total or residual (protokerogen-like) OC. How should the reader think about statistics like TOC:HAS when the ratios of C:S in HA, the ratio of C:S in non-soluble OC, and the relative abundances of those pools are all potentially changing? Additional discussion on this topic would also help translate this data to comparison sites, many of which report OC and OS from protokerogen or lipids rather than HAs. Exchanges of sulfur between HA, DOM, and this pool should likely also be considered.
Line 236 / Fig S2 – The comparison with 1991 data is potentially intriguing but insufficiently explained to be useful. A description of the sampling type and associated concentration data would make this much more valuable, perhaps as a Supplement section. Otherwise this data is undersupported. (Why were they able to get sulfate data when the current study was not? Different sampling volumes I presume?) Can the new sulfate data be overlain on the 1991 data for a more direct comparison?
Line 241 – is the support for this opening sentence the 1991 pocket dataset? Please tell us more about it! If this d34S sulfide trend is directly comparable, can it be included in Figure 2 so that it can be seen next to the AVS etc?
Line 370 – I don’t see abundant S0 at the deep redox transition in Fig 2A, please clarify.
Line 383 – The statement that HAS increases over the top 10 cm (without mention of its immediate decrease below) is a bit misleading. Please provide some explanation for the peak of HAS abundance between 5–15 cm that can account for both sides of the profile.
Line 411 – 413 – The description of organic sulfur sources is a bit tangled. Are you referring to the possibility of sulfate reducers using organic sulfate esters as a sulfate source in extremely low-S lakes? (Fakharee / Phillips should be cited if so). If sulfate esters are used for MSR, they could find their way into any product of reactions with sulfate, theoretically including pyrite as well as OS, and would not necessary be associated with specific OS functional groups. To understand the OS pool, the much larger effect is expected to be the incorporation of biogenic OS materials, either from PP or potentially also from secondary production by sediment microbes (Anderson and Pratt 1995 and many others).
The discussion in 416-418 seems disconnected from the observations of HAS concentration in Figure 2. How do that data support (or not support) an argument about timing of HAS formation and stability, when peak HAS concentrations mostly experience loss at shallow depths? How might biogenic OS be related to this?
Line 438 – I was confused by the statement that “closed-system sulfate reduction is leading to similar δ34S fractionations as in surface sediments.” Closed-system processes don’t affect fractionation factors, but instead they affect the expression of those fractionations in the environment. It is not clear how closed-system distillation is creating consistent d34S distributions at depths with very different levels of system openness.
The argument for this closed-system control is, if I understand properly, the trend in CRS d³⁴S values between 600 and 800 cm depth above the groundwater source. This hypothesis needs to be explained in much greater detail to understand the mechanism being invoked and how other previous datasets might support it. Humic acid and AVS d34S values also tend light in that zone – how is that related? (and sulfate is light… why are these values not light just because they are offset from light sulfate?) Some simple calculations to compare offsets among the sulfur pools would be great. Alternative explanations for the CRS d34S trend in the deep zone should be considered.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4158-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jasmine Berg, 15 May 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2024-4158/egusphere-2024-4158-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4158-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-4158', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Mar 2025

General comments.
Berg et al. present an interesting and mostly original study on sulfur transformations and sulfur isotope partitioning into different inorganic and organic sulfur fractions in a previously well studied Swiss lake. The isotope geochemical study includes microbiological informations, which is nice, but of secondary importance, since it represents th present situation and not necessarily for the 'paleo'-ones that are responsible for the formation of benthic geochemical signatures. Lago Cadagno is well known for its unusual element cycling, including the development of euxinic conditions due to a groundwater derived carbonate-buffered substantial sulfate supply derived from gypsum and dolomite dissolution in the catchment area.
I suggest to change the title and remove 'active', since no rates measuremements of the current sulfur transition have been carried out, and are only deduced from sediment solid phase parameters. Wath is missing is a competent discussion of the oecidative part of the sulfur cycle and relevant associatd sulfur cycling.
The presentation of data, for instance in the supplementary data, file has to be substantially improved. The lables at X axes of TIS, TOC etc. are missing, the lable at the d34S profiles from 1991 are not of publishable format/quality. In general, the basic geochemical data should be presented in the main text.

Detailed comments:
- I suggest to add the fundamental PhD thesis of Losher (1989) on S cycling in Lago di Cadagno into the introduction and reference list.
-L33: ...catchment groundwater... instead of 'aquifer groundwater'
-L33: Is the d34S of lake water column sulfate really constant?
- L34: d34S values for dissolved sulfate in the deduced steep gradient are not measured, but only deduced. Therefore, this statement on apparent isotope enrichment factors is a substantial oversimplification
-L35: Due to the lack of pore water data, it stays questionable if the term 'closed system' really describes the boundary conditions
-L53: I am sure that there are really more basic studies from the 90s of the last century that should be cited here: e.g., Jorgensen, 1990, Thamdrup et al. etc.
-L57/58 ...cultures and marine sediments... References should include: Kaplan & Rittenberg (1964), Wortmann et al. (Geology, 2001); Rudniki et al., (GCA, 2001)
-L66: add reference: Jorgensen et al. (GCA, 2004)
-L68: This is not a new result of Bryant et al., but has already been found out in the 80s of the last century and the 90s. You should refer to the original studies.
-L71: cite for closed system behaviour: Hartmann & Nielsen (1969 Geol. Rundschau, or 2012, Isot. Env. Health Stud.)
-L73: This statement is questionable. Whereas AVS may reflect system behaviour, pyrite often reflects dominantly the conditions provided by essentially open system conditions
-L78: Add Putschew et al. (OGC, 1996) and something from the 90s of the NIOZ group and more recently Amrani et al
-L80: 'substantially' instead of 'significantly'?
-L361: add Jorgensen et al. (2004, GCA)
-L364: ...disproportionation of sulfur intermediates... (Canfield & Thamdrup, 1994; Cypionka et al., 1998 FEMS)...
Question: I a repeated dispropotiontion cycling of sulfur intermediates really a plausible process in sediments? Canfield & Thamdrip (1994) proposed the model for an euxinic water column, the substantial role for benthic anaerobic sulfur cycling in competition to reductive processes is still to be shown
-L370: Which evidence of S° accumulation? Wjat would be the tole of S° reduction for isotope discrimination?
-L453: Is Fichtel et al. a suitable reference? The study belongs to a completely different type of system
-L455. Why refering to the ocean crust as aquifer, instead of much shallower submarine or limnic groundwater discharge sites(?)
-L474: I do not understand this statement. Why should memberhsip in an editorial board lead for an academic trained person lead to a compettition of interests?
-L479: Didn't the co-authors also contributed to revision and editing of the ms? Who provided funding?
-Fig.2 Presentation should be improved: No combination of dissolved and solid phase species in one each plot; spread of the X axis for S isotope results

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4158-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jasmine Berg, 18 May 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2024-4158/egusphere-2024-4158-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4158-AC2

Peer review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (22 May 2025) by Tina Treude

AR by Jasmine Berg on behalf of the Authors (22 May 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (27 May 2025) by Tina Treude

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (10 Jul 2025)

ED: Publish as is (11 Jul 2025) by Tina Treude

AR by Jasmine Berg on behalf of the Authors (21 Jul 2025)

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

10 Oct 2025

Microbial sulfur cycling across a 13 500-year-old lake sediment record

Jasmine S. Berg, Paula C. Rodriguez, Cara Magnabosco, Longhui Deng, Stefano M. Bernasconi, Hendrik Vogel, Marina Morlock, and Mark A. Lever

Biogeosciences, 22, 5483–5496, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-5483-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-5483-2025, 2025

Short summary

Jasmine Sofia Berg, Paula Catalina Rodriguez, Cara Magnabosco, Longhui Deng, Stefano M. Bernasconi, Hendrik Vogel, Marina Morlock, and Mark Alexander Lever

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4158-supplement

Jasmine Sofia Berg, Paula Catalina Rodriguez, Cara Magnabosco, Longhui Deng, Stefano M. Bernasconi, Hendrik Vogel, Marina Morlock, and Mark Alexander Lever

Viewed

Total article views: 1,062 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
745	297	20	1,062	37	14	30

HTML: 745
PDF: 297
XML: 20
Total: 1,062
Supplement: 37
BibTeX: 14
EndNote: 30

Views and downloads (calculated since 23 Jan 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jan 2025	52	14	4	70
Feb 2025	27	12	1	40
Mar 2025	38	13	4	55
Apr 2025	26	219	1	246
May 2025	33	10	4	47
Jun 2025	37	14	4	55
Jul 2025	29	3	1	33
Aug 2025	83	6	0	89
Sep 2025	406	5	1	412
Oct 2025	14	1	0	15

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 23 Jan 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jan 2025	52	14	4	70
Feb 2025	27	12	1	40
Mar 2025	38	13	4	55
Apr 2025	26	219	1	246
May 2025	33	10	4	47
Jun 2025	37	14	4	55
Jul 2025	29	3	1	33
Aug 2025	83	6	0	89
Sep 2025	406	5	1	412
Oct 2025	14	1	0	15

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,032 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,032 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 10 Oct 2025

Download

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

Preprint (1156 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Our research explores microbial sulfur cycling in the 13,500-year sediment record of a sulfate-rich alpine lake. We present evidence for active sulfur cycling across sediment layers, even in sulfate-depleted zones, driven by uncultivated microorganisms. In addition, rapid organic matter sulfurization could contribute to its preservation. These findings enhance our understanding of the role of sulfur in organic matter preservation and deep biosphere processes.


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