the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Silicification in the Ocean: from molecular pathways to silicifiers' ecology and biogeochemical cycles
Abstract. The oceanic silicon cycle has undergone a profound transformation from an abiotic system in the Precambrian to a biologically regulated cycle driven by siliceous organisms such as diatoms, Rhizaria, and sponges. These organisms actively uptake silicon using specialized proteins to transport and polymerize it into amorphous silica through the process of biosilification. This biological control varies depending on environmental conditions, influencing both the rate of silicification and its ecological function, including structural support, defence, and stress mitigation. Evidence suggests that silicification has evolved multiple times independently across different taxa, each developing distinct molecular mechanisms for silicon handling. This review identifies major gaps in our understanding of biosilicification, particularly among lesser-known silicifiers beyond traditional model organisms like diatoms. It emphasizes the ecological significance of these underexplored taxa and synthesizes current knowledge of molecular pathways involved in silicon uptake and polymerization. By comparing biosilicification strategies across taxa, this review calls for expanding the repertoire of model organisms and leveraging new advanced tools to uncover silicon transport mechanisms, efflux regulation, and environmental responses. It also emphasizes the need to integrate biological and geological perspectives, both to refine palaeoceanographic proxies and to improve the interpretation of microfossil records and present-day biogeochemical models. On a global scale, silicon enters the ocean primarily via terrestrial weathering and is removed through burial in sediments and/or authigenic clay formation. While open-ocean processes are relatively well studied, dynamic boundary zones – where land, sediments, and ice interact with seawater – are nowadays recognized as key regulators of silicon fluxes, though they remain poorly understood. Therefore, special attention is given to the role of dynamic boundary zones such as the interfaces between land and ocean, the benthic zone, and the cryosphere, which are often overlooked yet play critical roles in controlling silicon cycling. By bringing together cross-discipline insights, this review proposes a new integrated framework for understanding the complex biological and biogeochemical dimensions of the oceanic silicon cycle. This integrated perspective is essential for improving global silicon budget estimates, predicting climate-driven changes in marine productivity, and assessing the role of silicon in modulating Earth’s long-term carbon balance.
- Preprint
(1360 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 10 Oct 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3784', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Aug 2025
reply
Many thanks for the opportunity to review “Silicification in the ocean: from molecular pathways to silicifiers’ ecology and biogeochemical cycles” by Closset et al. This paper was conceived and written by a collaborative of early career researchers, and I have to congratulate them on the initiative and well-written paper. The manuscript represents a useful summary of the state-of-the-art on the subject of marine silicification, which is highly relevant for Ocean Sciences, finishing with some key priorities for future research. I enjoyed reading it, and I think it will be a useful resource for the community. The scientific significant and quality are excellent, and presentation quality is good. As such, and subject to just a few moderate revisions, I think that this manuscript will be highly suitable for publication in the Ocean Science Jubilee: reviews and perspectives special issue.
My main comments are to:
- ‘smooth’ over the paper, to make sure ideas and concepts are introduced at appropriate points;
- include further discussion on the use of stable silicon isotopes for the study of silicification processes.
Manuscript structure
I found some of the manuscript slightly out-of-order with respect to the overall structure of the paper. In particular there are some terms defined in Section 3, and some ideas introduced regarding diatoms, that have already been referenced (e.g., “frustule” is defined on line 397, but is used in an earlier section of the paper). I understand that different sections of the manuscript will have been written by different authors (especially in a large review as is the case here) but I would suggest that a subset of the authors have a review of the manuscript to make sure that everything appears in a sensible order. (It might well be that some of the information in Section 3 is somewhat superfluous and could simply be trimmed out).
Use of stable silicon isotopes for investigating silicification
Whilst stable silicon isotopes as a tool for understanding ocean silicon cycling are mentioned throughout, there are also studies that have used silicon isotopes either specifically (or as part of a discussion) to investigate silicification processes. I would suggest it could be useful for the authors to include some examples here. For example, Marron et al., 2019, investigated silicification in cultured choanoflagellates using silicon isotopes, using isotopes to probe the possibility of similar silicification pathways between choanoflagellates and their close relatives, sponges (c.f. mechanistic modelling of sponge silicon isotope fractionation during silicification in Wille et al, 2010 – already cited, updated recently by Maldonado & Hendry, 2025). In addition to culture and field studies, Cassarino et al. 2021 investigated the role of diatom proteins in fractionating silicon isotopes using in vitro experiments using the R5 peptide, which is a model for the natural biomolecule known to play a role in diatom silicification.
Minor comments:
Line 88 refers to 32Si studies, but there are very few references to their utilisation throughout (just mentioned briefly in Box 1). There could be some pertinent studies cited for investigating silicon utilisation of silicification, for example (e.g., Krause et al., 2019 – already cited), perhaps in Section 4.
A minor point but – whilst I understand that it could be useful to include plant silicification for completeness – I do wonder about the relevance for a paper that’s specifically about marine processes. E.g., could the paragraph starting on line 249 be trimmed? And Section 3.6. could also be trimmed. Especially given the lack of information about silicification in seagrasses (e.g., line 277, line 550 onwards)?
Section 3: The section on diversity in silicifiers in the ocean is very useful, and very pertinent for those embarking on functional trait models that include silicic acid and silicifiers (e.g., Naidoo-Bagwell et al., 2024). This is alluded to on line 74, but perhaps the authors could mention improved model predictive power as a motivation for section 3 in its introduction (e.g., could make a reference to Box 3)?
Section 4.3.2. The authors do a great job in summarising the discussion surrounding the addition of ‘new’ silicon into the ocean via the in situ or benthic dissolution of lithogenic particulates (e.g., Fabre et al., 2019 – already cited). There is also evidence, which could be included in this section (alluded to on line 795), that lithogenic dissolution contributes significantly to porewater dSi accumulation and flux (e.g., Ward et al., 2022). What does this mean for our understanding of the role of bSI dissolution in benthic silicon cycling, and closing silicon budgets?
I also wonder if more could be emphasised here about the role of water column recycling and exchange processes. For example, there is evidence that detrital (biological or, indeed, lithogenic) material dissolution releases silicon that could support biological production (e.g., Poulton et al., 2019; Ng et al., 2024).
Section 4.3.3. Again a useful section, but could link the points summarised here more clearly to silicifiers to make sure it’s relevant for the paper’s key theme.
Additional references:
Cassarino, L., et al. (2021). A biomimetic peptide has no effect on the isotopic fractionation during in vitro silica precipitation. Scientific reports, 11(1), 1-10.
Marron, A., et al. (2019). The silicon isotopic composition of choanoflagellates: implications for a mechanistic understanding of isotopic fractionation during biosilicification. Biogeosciences. 16(24), 4805-4813.
Maldonado, M., & Hendry, K. R. (2025). Revisiting the silicon isotopic signal of sponge skeletons and its implications. Limnology and Oceanography. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.70138
Naidoo-Bagwell, A. A., et al. (2024). A diatom extension to the cGEnIE Earth system model–EcoGEnIE 1.1. Geoscientific Model Development, 17(4), 1729-1748.
Ng, H. C., et al. (2024). Detrital input sustains diatom production off a glaciated Arctic coast. Geophysical Research Letters, 51(12), e2024GL108324.
Poulton, A. J., et al. (2019). Dissolution dominates silica cycling in a shelf sea autumn bloom. Geophysical Research Letters, 46(12), 6765-6774.
Ward, J. P., et al. (2022). Benthic silicon cycling in the Arctic Barents Sea: A reaction-transport model study. Biogeosciences Discussions, 2022, 1-34.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3784-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3784', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Aug 2025
reply
The authors aim to synthetize current understanding in biosilification across diverse organisms and its influence on the global marine Si cycle.
In this manuscript, without a doubt, the authors have achieved their goal, delivering to a large audience existing knowledge on the different processes that control silicification in various organisms, exploring the taxonomic diversity of marine silicifiers, and assesing their role in Si cycling across geological timescales and in the modern ocean.
The four figures are helpful to illustrate silicification processes in unicellular and multicellular organisms, the size range of silicifiers, the processs that control the Si cycle in the modern global ocean, and the schematic of the silicon cycle and isotopic fractionation during various processes, using diatoms as a model for the biogenic silica component (included in box 4).
Four boxes detail the use of molecular tools and radioactive tracers for studying biosilificication processes and silicon uptake, that of siliceous microfossils as markers of past and present oceanic environments, trait-based approaches to understand the function of silicification in diatoms and plants, and the use of silicon natural stable isotopes to trace the marine silica cycle. Interstingly, this manuscript also shed light on silicification processes in terrestrial organisms and compare them to those occuring in marine organisms.
General comment :
Page 62 line 1991 : It seems that Maria Lopez-Acosta and Antonia U. Thielecke are acting as the coordinators of the writing group. If this is correct their names should come first.
Minor comments :
Page 2 line 4 : what is the meaning of « regulators » ?
Page 4 line 103 : regarding this topic Jacques Livage’s works should be mentioned, for instance his publication on « Bioinspired nanostructured materials », published in September 2018 in Comptes Rendus Chimie 21(10) DOI:10.1016/j.crci.2018.08.001
Page 6 line 157, EGXQ and GRQ : meaning ?
Page 13 line 391 : how many species of diatoms ?
Page 16 line 465 : Which recent studies ?
Page 16 line 492 : could contribute up to 20% of the bSi production of the global ocean.
Page 20 Figure 1 should be improved. Aeolian inputs and reverse weathering are missing processes (see Tréguer et al. 2021). At a first look the reader gets the feeling that sponges and glaciers/Ice sheets play a major role in the Si global marine cycle, which is not true.
Page 23 line 685. Figure 3 of Tréguer and De La Rocha 2013 or Figure 1 of this manuscript ?
Page 24 Table 1. Move Marine Si sinks on page 25
Page 25 Table 1 (continuation) : Marine geological residence time
Page 25 line 715. …this task is challenging. Impossible is too much.
Page 26 line 730 submarine groundwater (Cho et al. 2018 ; Rahman et al., 2019 ;…)
Page 27 line 750 and followings. The authors should say a few words about the impacts of the Yangtze huge dam on the dowstream ecosystems as regards the Si cycle.
Page 28 line 797 and following. The authors should mention Luo et al. (2022)’s work on in the deepest hadal trench (Marianna) sediments, where alkalinity profiles are generated by organic matter mineralization that represents the dominant early diagenetic process in marine sediments, despite the occurrence of reserve weathering.
Page 29 line 825 : aSi definition.
Page 29 line 834 : « CNSi » as an abreviation of colloidal-nanoparticulate size Si is not pertinent (CNSi = carbon, nitrogen, silicon.
Page 35 line 1031 : lower case letters.
Page 64 Box 2 last line : « only about 10% of surface-dwelling diatoms are preserved in sediments ». This seems too high. What are the references supporting this statement ?
Page 67 Box 4 line 12 « isotopic fractionation in sponges spicules correlates closely with ambiant dSi concentrations »… is this statement in agreemnt with Maldonado and Hendry (L&O, July 2025) ?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3784-RC2 -
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3784', Karen J. Heywood, 22 Aug 2025
reply
I'm very grateful to both reviewers for their prompt and constructive reviews, with helpful suggestions for strengthening the paper.
The paper may receive further open comments from the community whilst it remains in the open discussion phase until early October. In the mean time, I encourage the authors to respond to the reviewers here in this online discussion. You do not need to wait until the open discussion phase has ended to respond, but you can if you prefer. You will not be able to upload your revised paper until the open discussion ends.
Karen (co-editor-in-chief)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3784-EC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
543 | 49 | 12 | 604 | 14 | 16 |
- HTML: 543
- PDF: 49
- XML: 12
- Total: 604
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 16
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1