Many hydrothermal systems are located at zones where oceanic crust is produced (mid-ocean ridges) or recycled and reincorporated into Earth’s mantle (subduction zones). These systems are characterized by seawater circulating through the uppermost part of the oceanic crust driven by deeply seated magma as the ultimate heat source. The analysis of sulfur extracted from fluids, minerals and animals reveals different organic and inorganic reactions occurring along the flowpath of the seawater through the crust and provide valuable information about the physical and chemical conditions of the hydrothermal subsurface.
Hot hydrothermal vents at the ocean floor are often represented by remarkable chimney structures: the black smokers (courtesy of MARUM, Bremen, Germany).
Our investigations were focused on multiple mid-ocean ridge and subduction related hydrothermal fields in the Atlantic Ocean and in the Tyrrhenian Sea near Italy. We sampled these sites during several research cruises using highly sophisticated sampling technology, such as remotely operated vehicles (ROV).
The sulfur data of samples from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge were used for the identification and quantification of so far undetected chemical processes in the subseafloor. Moreover, the results indicate fundamental differences with respect to subsurface structures (e.g. depth of magma chamber, seawater flowpath) and fluid evolution compared with other mid-ocean ridges, especially at the Pacific Ocean. Chemical data from the Tyrrhenian Sea suggest the existence of a microbial community consisting of diverse types of collaborating sulfur bacteria and show their significant role in the formation of metal and sulfur-rich hydrothermal deposits. In summary, these investigations improve our understanding of hydrothermal systems in different geological settings and draw a much more detailed picture of biogeochmical cycles in hydrothermal environments.
A paper referring to the Tyrrhenian Sea study is available at doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2010.11.011
Very cool subject! I'm not sure I understand what you actually sampled though. Did you collect samples of the fluid or pieces of the actual vent? Also, it would be helpful to explain why sulfur is so important to understanding hydrothermal systems.
ReplyDeleteGood overview of the study. The post is interesting and easy to follow. It may be helpful to discuss some examples of how the results have improved our understanding of hydrothermal vents. For example, you mention variation amongst the subsurface structures associated with vents. What might this include?
ReplyDeleteYou do a nice job introducing the background concepts and question initially, but it feels as if at this point you skip to the results/conclusions of the study. More information on the details of the work/sampling you did would help to draw the reader in.
ReplyDeleteOverall a really interesting post on a great topic, with enough hooks at the end (the microbial community for myself) to generate interest in the paper.
I thought this post was very well-written. It gives a general overview of the research and does not suffer from getting bogged down in the details. It is entirely appropriate for a general audience. I wanted more info regarding the subsurface sulfur cycling (and some of the other chemical data), but that is what the link to the published paper is for.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting post. I think it would help draw an audience in if you spell out why studying hydrothermal environments is important and its implications for the general populace. You do a good job of describing those things for a scientific audience, however.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading this post. A general audience may need a bit more explanation of hydrothermal activity, or perhaps appropriate external links elucidating exactly what hydrothermal circulation is, what 'organic and inorganic reactions' means, etc. Saving the audience the trip to Wikipedia may help avoid jargon overload.
ReplyDeleteI thought the images were particularly successful at getting my attention in this post, and were useful in picturing the research both in object and process.
The article was easy to read and interesting. I think that the importance of measuring sulfur could have been discussed. The results could have been explained more, such as going into more detail about the fundamental differences you mentioned.
ReplyDeleteThis post was interesting and easy to read for someone with a geological background. In that sense, I really enjoyed it. In some respects, I think this research may be on the more technical side, and therefore more difficult to explain to a general audience. In other words, you are going to have to go above and beyond to make this accessible to a general audience. If this was for a general audience, I would make the possible microbial community the selling point of this post. I think you should lead and end with that. On the other hand, I think that the different subsurface structures are the more important & interesting aspects (geologically) of this research, but for a general audience, a microbial community may be a more interesting aspect.
ReplyDeleteThis post is well written and easy to follow.
ReplyDeletemotivation, sampling, and finding is clear to me.
But for the finding part, it is helpful to elaborate a little bit, such as the difference between pacific & atlantic hydrothermal systems, how the microbial community change the sulfide deposits in terms of sulfur isotopic compositions.
I think this post is very clear and descriptive with good background information. I think you provided just enough details of your work that a general audience would be able to follow along. I think you explain the results pretty well, though I don't know how many people are going to be familiar with the concept of biogeochemical cycling.
ReplyDelete