cryogenian glaciation and the onset of carbon-isotope decoupling … · 2013. 7. 30. · values...
TRANSCRIPT
13. J. Helbert, A. Maturilli, N. Mueller, in VenusGeochemistry: Progress, Prospects, and New Missions(Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, TX, 2009), abstr.2010.
14. J. Helbert, A. Maturilli, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 285, 347(2009).
15. Coronae are circular volcano-tectonic features that areunique to Venus and have an average diameter of~250 km (5). They are defined by their circular and oftenradial fractures and always produce some form of volcanism.
16. G. E. McGill, S. J. Steenstrup, C. Barton, P. G. Ford,Geophys. Res. Lett. 8, 737 (1981).
17. R. J. Phillips, M. C. Malin, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci.12, 411 (1984).
18. E. R. Stofan, S. E. Smrekar, D. L. Bindschadler, D. Senske,J. Geophys. Res. 23, 317 (1995).
19. Estimated elastic thickness values at Themis Regio aretypically 10 to 20 km (20, 21). The authors of (22)conducted a global admittance study and found values ofelastic thickness of 0 to 50 km at both Dione andThemis Regiones. Their analysis also shows regions oflarge elastic thickness, up to 100 km, in the northernportion of Dione Regio covering Ushas Mons. Estimates ofaverage apparent depth of compensation (ADC) for Dioneand Themis Regiones are 130 km and 100 km (21),respectively. The elastic thickness at Imdr Regio cannotbe reliably estimated due to the low resolution of thegravity field in that region (53). Stofan et al. (18)estimated an ADC of 260 km, which is consistent with adeep plume.
20. M. Simons, S. C. Solomon, B. H. Hager, Geophys. J. Int.13, 24 (1997).
21. S. E. Smrekar, E. R. Stofan, Icarus 139, 100 (1999).22. F. S. Anderson, S. E. Smrekar, J. Geophys. Res. Planets
111, E08006 (2006).23. S. T. Keddie, J. W. Head, J. Geophys. Res. 101, 11,729
(1995).24. E. R. Stofan, J. E. Guest, A. W. Brian, Mapping of V-28
and V-53, T. K. P. Gregg, K. L. Tanaka, R. S. Saunders,
Eds. (U.S. Geological Society Open-File Report 2005-1271, Abstracts of the Annual Meeting of PlanetaryGeologic Mappers, Washington, DC, 2005), pp. 20–21.
25. E. R. Stofan, S. E. Smrekar, J. Helbert, P. Martin,N. Mueller, Lunar Planet. Sci. XXXIX, abstr. 1033(2009).
26. B. D. Campbell et al., J. Geophys. Res. 97, 16,249(1992).
27. R. J. Phillips, N. R. Izenberg, Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 1617(1995).
28. C. M. Pieters et al., Science 234, 1379 (1986).29. B. Fegley Jr., R. G. Prinn, Nature 337, 55 (1989).30. A. H. Treiman, C. C. Allen, Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. XXV,
1415 (1994).31. M. I. Zolotov, V. P. Volkov, in Venus Geology,
Geochemistry, Geophysics—Research Results from theUSSR (Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, 1992),pp. 177–199.
32. B. Fegley, A. H. Treiman, V. L. Sharpton, Proc. LunarPlanet. Sci. 22, 3 (1992).
33. B. Fegley, K. Lodders, A. H. Treiman, G. Klingelhöfer,Icarus 115, 159 (1995a).
34. B. Fegley et al., Icarus 118, 373 (1995b).35. A. M. Baldridge, S. J. Hook, C. I. Grove, G. Rivera,
Remote Sens. Environ. 113, 711 (2009).36. L. T. Elkins-Tanton et al., Contrib. Minerol. Petrol. 153,
191 (2007).37. S. A. Gibson, R. N. Thompson, A. P. Dickin, Earth Planet.
Sci. Lett. 174, 355 (2000).38. L. S. Glaze, J. Geophys. Res. 104, 18,899 (1999).39. New Scientist 23, 52 (2009) (www.newscientist.com/
article/dn17534).40. V. S. Meadows, D. Crisp, J. Geophys. Res. 101, 4595
(1996).41. B. Fegley, Icarus 128, 474 (1997).42. E. R. Stofan, A. W. Brian, J. E. Guest, Icarus 173, 312
(2005).43. P. R. Hooper, in Large Igneous Provinces: Continental,
Oceanic and Planetary Flood Volcanism, J. J. Mahoney,
M. F. Coffin, Eds. (Monograph 100, American GeophysicalUnion, Washington, DC, 1997), pp. 1–28.
44. M. A. Bullock, D. H. Grinspoon, Icarus 150, 19 (2001).45. R. G. Strom, G. G. Schaber, D. D. Dawson, J. Geophys.
Res. 99, 10,899 (1994).46. K. M. Roberts, J. E. Guest, J. W. Head, M. G. Lancaster,
J. Geophys. Res. 97, 15,991 (1992).47. C. R. K. Kilburn, in Encyclopedia of Volcanoes,
H. Sigurdsson, Ed. (Academic Press, San Diego, CA,2000), pp. 291–306.
48. We have rounded these numbers in recognition that theage estimates have higher uncertainties than the volumeestimates.
49. G. Choblet, E. M. Parmentier, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter.173, 290 (2009).
50. M. E. Davies et al., Celestial Mech. 39, 103 (1986).51. P. K. Seidelmann et al., Celestial Mech. Dyn. Astron. 82,
83 (2002).52. M. E. Davies et al., J. Geophys. Res. 97, 13,141
(1992).53. A. S. Konopliv, W. S. Banerdt, W. L. Sjogren, Icarus 139,
3 (1999).54. G. L. Hashimoto, T. Imamura, Icarus 154, 239 (2001).55. This research was carried out in part at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, and wassponsored by the Planetary Geology and GeophysicsProgram and NASA. We gratefully acknowledge the workof the entire Venus Express and VIRTIS teams. We thankthe European Space Agency, Agenzia Spaziale Italiana,Centre National des Etudes Spatiales, CNRS/InstitutNational des Sciences de l’Univers, and the othernational space agencies that have supported thisresearch. VIRTIS is led by INAF-IASF, Rome, Italy, andLESIA, Observatoire de Paris, France.
7 January 2010; accepted 25 March 2010Published online 8 April 2010;10.1126/science.1186785Include this information when citing this paper.
Cryogenian Glaciation and the Onsetof Carbon-Isotope DecouplingNicholas L. Swanson-Hysell,1 Catherine V. Rose,1 Claire C. Calmet,1 Galen P. Halverson,2*Matthew T. Hurtgen,3 Adam C. Maloof1†
Global carbon cycle perturbations throughout Earth history are frequently linked to changingpaleogeography, glaciation, ocean oxygenation, and biological innovation. A pronouncedcarbonate carbon-isotope excursion during the Ediacaran Period (635 to 542 million yearsago), accompanied by invariant or decoupled organic carbon-isotope values, has been explainedwith a model that relies on a large oceanic reservoir of organic carbon. We present carbonate andorganic matter carbon-isotope data that demonstrate no decoupling from approximately 820 to760 million years ago and complete decoupling between the Sturtian and Marinoan glacialevents of the Cryogenian Period (approximately 720 to 635 million years ago). Growth of theorganic carbon pool may be related to iron-rich and sulfate-poor deep-ocean conditions facilitatedby an increase in the Fe:S ratio of the riverine flux after Sturtian glacial removal of a long-livedcontinental regolith.
Throughout most of the Phanerozoic Eon[542 million years ago (Ma) to present],paired records of carbonate carbon (d13Ccarb)
and coeval bulk organic carbon (d13Corg) iso-topes are consistent with a model in which theorganic carbon in marine sediments is derivedand fractionated from contemporaneous dissolvedinorganic carbon (DIC). In contrast, d13Ccarb andd13Corg records from Ediacaran (635 to 542 Ma)carbonate successions (1–3) show relatively in-
variant d13Corg during large changes to d13Ccarb
across the ~580 million-year-old Shuram-Wonokaanomaly (Fig. 1 and fig. S1). This behavior hasbeen used to develop and support a model forthe Neoproterozoic (1000 to 542 Ma) carboncycle in which invariant d13Corg values result froma very large oceanic reservoir of 13C-depleted dis-solved organic carbon (DOC) and particulateorganic carbon (POC) (or, alternatively, sourcedfrom a large sedimentary reservoir) that over-
whelms the signal from primary biomass frac-tionated from contemporaneous DIC (4). Weconsider the large oceanic reservoir model and,as in (2), use the term DOC to collectively referto organic carbon that is truly dissolved as wellas suspended colloidal organic carbon and finePOC. The buildup and maintenance of a largeDOC pool implies low Corg remineralization—perhaps associated with low oxygen and sulfatelevels—but high nutrient liberation efficiency.In such an ocean, the d13C of the DIC pool issensitive to inputs (via remineralization) from the13C-depleted DOC pool that can drive negativeexcursions. The end of the invariance in thed13Corg record in the latter stages of the Shuram-Wonoka anomaly has been interpreted as thedemise of the large DOC pool (2, 3).
Stratigraphically constrained coupled recordsof d13Ccarb–d
13Corg at sufficient detail to test thiscarbon cycle model have been available onlyfrom carbonates of Ediacaran age (2, 3). Wepresent paired d13Ccarb and d13Corg data from
1Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, Princeton,NJ 08544, USA. 2Geology and Geophysics, University of Ade-laide Mawson Laboratories, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.3Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, NorthwesternUniversity, Evanston, IL 60208, USA.*Present address: Department of Earth and Planetary Sci-ences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2A7, Canada.†To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:[email protected]
30 APRIL 2010 VOL 328 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org608
REPORTS
on
Apr
il 29
, 201
0 w
ww
.sci
ence
mag
.org
Dow
nloa
ded
from
older Neoproterozoic strata: the Bitter SpringsFormation of the Amadeus Basin, central Aus-tralia, that was deposited during the Tonian Pe-riod (1000 to ~720 Ma) and the Etina-TrezonaFormations of the adjacent Adelaide Rift Com-plex deposited during the Cryogenian Period(~720 to 635 Ma) (5). Together with publisheddata from the Ediacaran Wonoka Formation (1),also of the Adelaide Rift Complex, these recordsspan numerous d13Ccarb shifts throughout theNeoproterozoic Era on a single continent, enabl-ing a test of the hypothesis that a large res-ervoir of DOC and corresponding invariancein d13Corg was a feature of the carbon cycle forthe entire era.
The paired carbon isotope data from the Bit-ter Springs Formation demonstrate covariationacross the onset of the ~800-Ma Bitter Springsstage and throughout the stage itself. At thetermination of the Bitter Springs stage, d13Ccarb
values shift abruptly from –2.7 per mil (‰) to+5.3‰, whereas d13Corg shifts from –29.9‰ to–26.7‰ (Fig. 1). The stable isotope results arevirtually identical between the 2-km-deep Wallaradrill core and a surface outcrop 120 km away,indicating that the signal is basin-wide and thatneither surface oxidation nor meteoric diagenesishave substantially altered the d13Ccarb–d
13Corg
record. The sympathetic shifts in d13Ccarb andd13Corg across the Bitter Springs stage confirmthat the stage reflects a large-scale perturbationto the isotopic composition of the DIC pool andthat organic matter in the sediments is repre-sentative of coeval biomass that fixed carbonfrom this 13C-depleted DIC (fig. S1). In starkcontrast, d13Corg values remain invariant acrossthe Cryogenian Trezona anomaly, in whichd13Ccarb drops by 18‰. Before the Trezonaanomaly, the d13Ccarb values of the Etina For-mation plateau at ~8‰, which is similar to thevalues observed in Cryogenian interglacial car-bonates from Namibia (6), Mongolia (7), andScotland (8). After deposition of the Enoramashale, carbonates of the subtidal Trezona For-mation record d13Ccarb values of –10‰ that in-crease up-stratigraphy to –2‰ before the glacialsediments of the Elatina Formation. Despite thesedramatic changes in d13Ccarb, d
13Corg values re-mained constant at –25‰ (Fig. 1). Unlikeduring the Shuram-Wonoka anomaly, therewas not an increase in the variability of d13Corg
values upwards through the Trezona anomaly.The new Australian data sets do not show sig-nificant correlation between d13Corg and totalorganic carbon, a proxy that is sometimes usedas evidence for alteration of the d13Corg signal(fig. S3). Taken together, the new data constrainthe buildup of a large DOC pool to after theBitter Springs stage of the mid-to-late Tonian butbefore the onset of the end-Cryogenian glaciation.
This timing for the growth of the DOC pooland the onset of non-steady-state dynamics isconsistent with very low sulfate levels in theCryogenian oceans (9) and a return to ferrugi-nous conditions in the deep ocean during early
Fig. 1. Carbonate carbon iso-tope values and organic carbonisotope values from Neoprotero-zoic carbonates of Australia withsimplified lithostratigraphy. Theplotted lithofacies represent thelithologies that dominate eachinterval, with wider boxes corre-sponding to deposition in shal-lower water. N389 field-sectionand Wallara-1 core data are fromthe Bitter Springs Formation ofthe Amadeus Basin, depositedbefore the Sturtian glacial event.C227 and C215 are part of a con-tinuous field section through theinterglacial stratigraphy of theAdelaide Rift Complex. Data forthe Wonoka Formation are from(1). The Bitter Springs, Trezona,and Shuram carbon isotope anom-alies are labeled next to thecarbon isotope records. The pre–Sturtian Islay anomaly is notrecorded in the Bitter SpringsFormation because of a discon-formity at the contact with theoverlying glacial sediments. TheGlobal Boundary Stratotype Sec-tion and Point for the Cryogenian/Ediacaran Period boundary is atthe contact between the glaci-genic Elatina formation and theoverlying Nuccaleena cap carbon-ate. Though it has yet to beformally defined with a strato-type section, we place the Tonian/Cryogenian boundary at the low-ermost evidence for Neoprotero-zoic glaciation, in concurrencewith the 2009 recommendationof the International Commissionon Stratigraphy.
Wal
lara
-1 c
ore
dept
h (m
)
AREY-ONGA
TREZ
ONA
Fm.
ETIN
A Fm
.Bit
ter Sp
rings
Fm.
ELAT
INAFm
.
C22
7 st
ratig
raph
ic h
eigh
t (m
)N
389
stra
tigra
phic
he
ight
(m
)C
215
stra
tigra
phic
he
ight
(m
)
LITHOFACIEScarbonates siliciclastics
stromatoliteribbonite
sandstonesiltstone
grainstone diamictite
S
M
δ13Ccarb
δ C
δ C
δ13Corg
δ13Ccarbδ13Corg
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
1300
1500
–1900
–1800
–1700
–1600
–1500
–2000
ED
IAC
AR
AN
CR
YO
GE
NIA
NT
ON
IAN
Bit
ter
Sp
rin
gs
Sta
ge
M SMarinoan glaciation Sturtian glaciation
unconformity
Trez
on
a A
no
mal
yS
hu
ram
An
om
aly
ENORAMA Fm.
BRACHINA, ABC, BUNYEROO Fms.
1400
600
700
800
–10 0 10–30 –20
–10 0 10–30 –20
–10 0 10–30 –20
200
100
WONO
KA F
m.0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Bun
yero
o G
orge
st
ratig
raph
ic h
eigh
t (m
)
~635 Ma
~551 Ma
~720 Ma
~800 Ma
HEAVI-TREE
this study Calver(2000)
POUN
DFm
.
Ediacaran Fossils
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 328 30 APRIL 2010 609
REPORTS
on
Apr
il 29
, 201
0 w
ww
.sci
ence
mag
.org
Dow
nloa
ded
from
Cryogenian glaciation (10, 11). In such an ocean,decreased rates of aerobic respiration and bacte-rial sulfate reduction would slow organic carbonremineralization and extend the residence timeof DOC. Preferential remineralization of organicP over C, as occurs with increasing depth in themodern ocean (12), could increase the C:P ratioof DOC with the liberated phosphate, helping tosustain the productivity necessary to accumulatea large DOC pool. Furthermore, anoxic bottom-water conditions would favor burial of high C:Porganic matter because of decreased burial of Pbound to Fe oxyhydroxides (13), further main-taining nutrient supply and sustaining the pri-mary productivity required to explain elevatedCryogenian d13Ccarb values (14).
The return to ferruginous ocean conditionsand the buildup of DOC can be explained as aconsequence of global glaciation. The develop-ment of a thick continental regolith of uncon-solidated, chemically leached debris and soilduring the 1.5 billion years between the ~2.2-billion-year-old Paleoproterozoic Makganyeneglaciation of South Africa (15) and the ~720-Maearly Cryogenian pan-glacial event (16) wouldhave suppressed the Fe:S ratio of continentalrunoff. After reaching a depth of ~0.5 m, thethickness of regolith is inversely proportional tothe weatherability of the top of bedrock (Fig.2B) (17, 18). Although the average concentra-tions of Fe oxides are similar between sedimen-tary rocks and the rest of the upper continentalcrust, the average concentration of S is eight timesgreater in sedimentary lithologies (19). Thus, thedevelopment of a thick regolith on continentalinteriors in the absence of glacial erosion and
the preferential weathering of S-rich sedimenta-ry and ophiolitic rocks on continental margins,where tectonic uplift could facilitate physical re-moval of regolith, would have limited relative Feinput to the ocean. This mechanism for main-taining high relative S delivery helps to explainevidence for widespread euxinic conditionsthrough the Mesoproterozoic [1.6 to 1.0 billionyears ago (20, 21)].
The association of banded-iron formation(BIF) with Sturtian-age glacial deposits demon-strates that during the glaciation, Fe supply fromhydrothermal and continental-weathering sourcesexceeded sulfide availability (9). This Fe inputremoved available oxidants, resulting in anoxia,low sulfate levels, and BIF deposition. Althoughthe presence of BIF associated with the glacia-tion indicates transient ferruginous conditions,the maintenance of iron-rich deep oceans (10, 11)requires that a high relative flux of Fe continuedin the post-glacial period. Ubiquitous continentalice sheets during the Sturtian glaciation wouldhave scoured continental interiors, removingthe thick mantle of regolith. The relatively thickSturtian glacial deposits may represent physicalevidence of redeposited regolith that was erodedby dynamic early Cryogenian ice sheets, where-as the relatively thin Marinoan glacial depositsmay reflect the activity of stable late Cryogenianice sheets frozen to scoured bedrock—similar tothe Pleistocene evolution of the Canadian Shieldand Laurentide ice sheet (22). When ice sheetsretreated during the high CO2 escape from theearly Cryogenian glaciation, the vigorous weath-ering of freshly exposed continental crust wouldresult in a higher proportional delivery of Fe to
S into the ocean than during the preceding 1.5billion years. This postulated increase in therelative delivery of material derived from con-tinental interiors as compared with continentalmargins is supported by a steady increase in the87Sr/86Sr composition of the ocean after theSturtian ice age (23). Because the DOC reser-voir does not build up until after the Sturtianglaciation in this model, it predicts that d13Corg
will vary across the immediately pre-SturtianIslay negative d13Ccarb anomaly (8).
The sudden post-Sturtian increase in weath-erability could have led to lower equilibrium at-mospheric CO2 during the Cryogenian withoutchanges to volcanic CO2 input (Fig. 2C). Changesin CO2 are connected to the evolving sensitivityof silicate weathering rates to CO2 [weather-ability (kw)] and the varying fraction of totalcarbon burial that occurs as organic carbon ( forg)(14). High steady-state values of d13Ccarb duringthe late Tonian have been used to argue that ahigh forg helped lower CO2 before glaciation(14). The prevalence of continental landmass atlow latitude that facilitated high forg may haveincreased kw because of the abundance of silicaterocks associated with Grenville-age orogenicbelts in tropical weathering regimes. Landscapedisequilibrium associated with Bitter Springs–stage rapid true-polar wander (24) and increaseddelivery of moisture to continental interiors dur-ing the opening of incipient ocean basins asRodinia rifted apart (25) would have furtherincreased kw. Together, these late Tonian changeswould have reduced CO2 enough to initiateSturtian glaciation. However, it was the Sturtianglaciers themselves that scoured the continents,removing the long-lived Proterozoic regolith,greatly increasing continental weatherability,and setting up a new climatic regime with lowerCO2, a ferruginous ocean with high d13Ccarb,and a large DOC pool.
Although the close association of the Trezonaanomaly below Marinoan glacial deposits hasbeen interpreted as evidence for a causal rela-tionship between the two (14), the glacioeustaticsea level fall related to Marinoan glaciation didnot occur until after recovery from the most nega-tive d13Ccarb values. In some sections, TrezonaFormation d13Ccarb values recover to ~0‰ andare followed by more than 100 m of shallowing-upward peritidal sandstones before the first gla-cial deposits, further attenuating the connectionbetween the Trezona anomaly and glaciation.If the increase in kw and sustained high forg ofthe Cryogenian led to global cooling and oxy-gen release, the Trezona anomaly could reflectoxygenation of the deep ocean and partial re-mineralization of the large 13C-depleted DOCpool, as has been suggested for the Shuram-Wonoka anomaly. Organic carbon remineral-ization represents a negative climate feedback,releasing CO2 and preventing glaciation—whichis consistent with the lack of glacioeustatic changeduring the Trezona anomaly itself. The d13Ccarb
recovery and eventual Marinoan glaciation oc-
0 1 2 3
Weatherability of Continental
Interiors
Deep OceanChemistry
Carbon Cycle
LIP
regolith thickness (meters)
pCO2
loca
l wea
ther
abili
ty
NeoproterozoicMesoproterozoicPaleoproterozoic2.0 1.5 1.0
S-richFe-rich Fe
O2
high
low
little DOClarge DOC
Makg
anye
ne
Stu
rtia
n
Marin
oan
Gas
kier
s
high
kw
, hig
h f or
g
(Cry
ogen
ian)
low kw, low forg
(Mesoproterozoic)
med
ium k w, h
igh for
g
(Ton
ian)
A B
C
in=
F out
)
Fig. 2. (A) Summary illustration relating Proterozoic deep-ocean chemistry [modified from (26)], smallversus large DOC carbon cycle, and the weatherability of continental interiors. Before the first Neo-proterozoic glaciation, there was no unusual concentration of large igneous province events [shown ascompiled by (27), with solid and dashed lines indicating <20- and >20-Ma uncertainty, respectively].Because local weatherability is a function of regolith thickness [(B), modified from (18)], regolithdevelopment on continental interiors through the nonglacial Mesoproterozoic (28) would lead to thedepicted decrease in regional weatherability in (A). The relationship shown schematically in (C) is Fin =(kw × MCO2 )/(1 – forg), where kw is the slope of the weathering-CO2 feedback and is partly a function ofthe regional weatherability depicted in (B). An increase in kw and in the relative burial of C as organicmatter can result in a decrease in CO2, as shown for the Mesoproterozoic → Tonian → Cryogenian,without changes in volcanic An increase input.
30 APRIL 2010 VOL 328 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org610
REPORTS
on
Apr
il 29
, 201
0 w
ww
.sci
ence
mag
.org
Dow
nloa
ded
from
curred when the large DOC pool had been re-duced in size enough to no longer represent anegative feedback to global climatic cooling.
References and Notes1. C. R. Calver, Precambrian Res. 100, 121 (2000).2. D. A. Fike, J. P. Grotzinger, L. M. Pratt, R. E. Summons,
Nature 444, 744 (2006).3. K. A. McFadden et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105,
3197 (2008).4. D. H. Rothman, J. M. Hayes, R. E. Summons, Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100, 8124 (2003).5. Data tables and methods are available as supporting
material on Science Online.6. G. P. Halverson, P. F. Hoffman, D. P. Schrag, A. C. Maloof,
A. H. N. Rice, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 117, 1181 (2005).7. F. A. Macdonald, D. S. Jones, D. P. Schrag, Geology 37,
123 (2009).8. A. R. Prave, A. E. Fallick, C. W. Thomas, C. M. Graham,
J. Geol. Soc. London 166, 845 (2009).9. M. T. Hurtgen, M. A. Arthur, N. Suits, A. J. Kaufman,
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 203, 413 (2002).10. D. E. Canfield et al., Science 321, 949 (2008).
11. C. Li et al., Science 328, 80 (2010).12. P. Sannigrahi, E. D. Ingall, R. Benner, Geochim.
Cosmochim. Acta 70, 5868 (2006).13. P. Van Cappellen, E. D. Ingall, Paleoceanography 9, 677
(1994).14. D. P. Schrag, R. A. Berner, P. F. Hoffman, G. P. Halverson,
Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 10, 1029/2001GC000219(2002).
15. R. E. Kopp, J. L. Kirschvink, I. A. Hilburn, C. Z. Nash,Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 11131 (2005).
16. F. A. Macdonald et al., Science 327, 1241 (2010).17. F. Ahnert, Ed., Geomorphological Models: Theoretical
and Empirical Aspects (Catena, Reiskirchen, Germany,1987), pp. 31–50.
18. E. J. Gabet, S. M. Mudd, Geology 37, 151 (2009).19. K. H. Wedepohl, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 59, 1217
(1995).20. D. E. Canfield, Nature 396, 450 (1998).21. T. W. Lyons, A. D. Anbar, S. Severmann, C. Scott,
B. C. Gill, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 37, 507 (2009).22. P. U. Clark, D. Pollard, Paleoceanography 13, 1 (1998).23. G. P. Halverson, F. O. Dudas, A. C. Maloof, S. A. Bowring,
Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 256, 103 (2007).24. A. C. Maloof et al., Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 118, 1099 (2006).
25. Y. Goddéris et al., C. R. Geosci. 339, 212 (2007).26. D. T. Johnston, F. Wolfe-Simon, A. Pearson, A. H. Knoll,
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 16925 (2009).27. R. E. Ernst, K. L. Buchan, Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Am. 352,
483 (2001).28. L. C. Kah, R. Riding, Geology 35, 799 (2007).29. We thank K. Bovee, R. Levin, W. Jacobsen, L. Wingate,
and L. Godfrey for assistance with sample preparationand analysis and D. Rothman, L. Kah, R. Kopp, N. Cassar,J. Higgins, J. Husson, and D. Sigman for comments anddiscussions. This work was supported by NSF grantsEAR-0514657 and EAR-084294 to A.C.M., EAR-0720045to M.T.H., an American Association of PetroleumGeologists Grant to C.V.R., and an NSF East Asia andPacific Summer Institute fellowship to N.L.S.-H.
Supporting Online Materialwww.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5978/608/DC1Materials and MethodsFigs. S1 to S4Table S1References
10 November 2009; accepted 11 March 201010.1126/science.1184508
Asian Monsoon Transport of Pollutionto the StratosphereWilliam J. Randel,1* Mijeong Park,1 Louisa Emmons,1 Doug Kinnison,1 Peter Bernath,2,3Kaley A. Walker,4,3 Chris Boone,3 Hugh Pumphrey5
Transport of air from the troposphere to the stratosphere occurs primarily in the tropics, associated withthe ascending branch of the Brewer-Dobson circulation. Here, we identify the transport of air massesfrom the surface, through the Asian monsoon, and deep into the stratosphere, using satellite observationsof hydrogen cyanide (HCN), a tropospheric pollutant produced in biomass burning. A key factor inthis identification is that HCN has a strong sink from contact with the ocean; much of the air in the tropicalupper troposphere is relatively depleted in HCN, and hence, broad tropical upwelling cannot be themain source for the stratosphere. The monsoon circulation provides an effective pathway for pollutionfrom Asia, India, and Indonesia to enter the global stratosphere.
The Asian summer monsoon circulationcontains a strong anticyclonic vortex inthe upper troposphere and lower strato-
sphere (UTLS), spanning Asia to the MiddleEast. The anticyclone is a region of persistent
enhanced pollution in the upper troposphereduring boreal summer, linked to rapid verticaltransport of surface air from Asia, India, andIndonesia in deep convection, and confinementby the strong anticyclonic circulation (1–6). A
mean upward circulation on the eastern side ofthe anticyclone extends the transport into thelower stratosphere, as evidenced by satelliteobservations of water vapor (7) and ozone (8),plus carbon monoxide and other pollution tracers(1, 4, 5). Model calculations have suggested thattransport from the monsoon region could con-tribute substantially to the budget of stratosphericwater vapor (8, 9), but this effect has not beenisolated from broader-scale tropical upwelling inobservational data.
Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is produced pri-marily as a result of biomass and biofuel burningand is often used as a tracer of pollution originat-ing from fires (10–12). In the free atmosphere,
1National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA.2Department of Chemistry, University of York, Heslington, UK.3Department of Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,Ontario, Canada. 4Department of Physics, University ofToronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5School of GeoSciences,University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:[email protected]
Fig. 1. Time average mixing ratio [parts per billion by volume (ppbv)] ofHCN near 13.5 km during boreal summer (June to August) derived from (A)ACE-FTS observations and (B) WACCM chemical transport model calcu-
lations. Arrows in both panels denote winds at this level derived frommeteorological analysis, showing that the HCN maximum is linked with theupper tropospheric Asian monsoon anticyclone.
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 328 30 APRIL 2010 611
REPORTS
on
Apr
il 29
, 201
0 w
ww
.sci
ence
mag
.org
Dow
nloa
ded
from
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5978/608/DC1
Supporting Online Material for
Cryogenian Glaciation and the Onset of Carbon-Isotope Decoupling
Nicholas L. Swanson-Hysell, Catherine V. Rose, Claire C. Calmet, Galen P. Halverson, Matthew T. Hurtgen, Adam C. Maloof*
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]
Published 30 April 2010, Science 328, 608 (2010)
DOI: 10.1126/science.1184508
This PDF file includes:
Materials and Methods
Figs. S1 to S4
Table S1
References
Supplementary Online Materials: Cryogenian glaciation and the onset of carbon-isotope decoupling
S1 Methods
S1.1 δ13Ccarb methods
All samples used in this study were collected in the course of measuring stratigraphic sections or logging
drill core. Samples were chosen so as to minimize veining, fractures, and siliciclastic material. In order to
prepare powders for carbonate carbon isotopic analysis, samples were slabbed perpendicular to laminations,
polished to clarify internal structure and subsampled with 1 mm dental drill bits. At the University of
Michigan Stable Isotope Laboratory, all powders were heated to 200◦C to remove volatile contaminants and
water. Samples were then placed in individual borosilicate reaction vessels and reacted at 76◦C with 3 drops
of H3PO4 in a Finnigan MAT Kiel I preparation device coupled directly to the inlet of a Finnigan MAT 251
triple collector isotope ratio mass spectrometer. δ13C and δ18O data were acquired simultaneously and are
reported in the standard delta notation as the h difference from the VPDB standard. Precision and accuracy
of data are monitored through daily analysis of at least six standards which are run to bracket sample suites
at the beginning, middle, and end of the day’s run. Measured precision is maintained at better than 0.1h
(1σ) for both δ13C and δ18O.
S1.2 δ13Corg methods
Organic carbon isotopic values were obtained from the total organic carbon (TOC) of insoluble residues.
After removing the outside layer of surface oxidation and large veins, whole rock samples were crushed
into powder. Insoluble residues for organic carbon isotope analysis were obtained by acidifying these whole
rock powders in 6N HCl for 24 hours to dissolve all carbonate minerals. Care was taken to ensure that
acid was added and acidification continued until there was absolutely no visible carbonate dissolution so
that the analyses would not be affected by contamination from residual inorganic carbon. The insoluble
residues were then rinsed with DI water, dried and loaded into tin capsules for isotopic analysis. At the
University of Adelaide, samples were flash combusted at 1030◦C in a Fisons Elemental Analyzer. The
1
resulting CO2 gas was analyzed by continuous flow on a Fisons Optima isotope ratio mass spectrometer.
δ13Corg values were calibrated against in-house glycine and glutamic acid standards with bracketing isotopic
values. Reproducibility (typically better than 0.5h) was verified by duplicate sample analyses and regularly
interspersed in-house sucrose standards (δ13Corg = -25.8h). Values are reported in standard delta notation
relative to VPDB. At Rutgers University, δ13Corg values were obtained on a GVI Isoprime CF-IRMS linked
to a Eurovector elemental analyzer. Isotope ratios were corrected against NBS 22 using the accepted value of
-30.03h (S1). Organic C concentrations were measured using standards with known carbon concentration
and the intensity of masses 44 and 28. Isotope and concentration standards were run following eight sample
unknowns. TOC values for the bulk samples were calculated by combining the carbon concentration data
with measurements of the ratio of insoluble residue to original pre-decarbonated powder.
S2 Data
The isotopic data and total organic carbon values for the N389 field section (23◦31’7"S 134◦26’55.03"E),
C215 and C227 field sections (31◦23’44”S, 138◦51’14”E), and the Wallara-1 stratigraphic drill core (24◦36’55”S,
132◦20’23”E) are presented in Table S1. Previously developed carbon isotope data for the Wallara-1 strati-
graphic drill core show similar trends and absolute values to the new data presented here, but at much lower
resolution (S2). Cross plots of the data from Figure 1 are shown in Figures S1-S4. These plots illustrate
some important features of the data sets.
• Sympathetic shifts between δ13Ccarb and δ13Corg for the Bitter Springs Formation data can be seen
visually in Fig. S1 and result in a high R2 value (0.71) in contrast with the low R2 value (0.22) for the
combine Etina/Trezona results (Fig. S1).
• In the ∆δ13C vs. δ13Ccarb cross plots presented in Fig. S2 the fits to the data from the Trezona Forma-
tion (along with the Wonoka, Shuram and Doushantuo) have high R2 values and slopes approaching
unity. This high correlation combined with the slopes of ∼1 can be explained as a result of the vari-
ability in ∆δ13C primarily being attributable to variation in δ13Ccarb.
• The plots of δ13Corg vs. total organic carbon (TOC) % show that there is no observed dependence
2
between the values obtained for the isotopes of the organic matter in the samples and the concentration
of that organic matter.
• Knauth and Kennedy (S3) proposed covariation between δ13Ccarb and δ18Ocarb as an index for differ-
entiating between original and altered δ13Ccarb values. The δ18Ocarb values of the Etina and Trezona
Formations are scattered around -10h despite the very large difference in δ13Ccarb values. In the
Bitter Springs data there is no covariation between the large swings in δ13Ccarb values and the scatter
in δ18Ocarb values.
Supplemental References
[S1] T. Coplen, et al., Analytical Chemistry 78, 2439 (2006).
[S2] A. C. Hill, K. Arouri, P. Gorjan, M. R. Walter, in Carbonate Sedimentation and Diagenesis in an
Evolving Precambrian World (SEPM Special Publications, Tulsa, 2000), vol. 67, pp. 327–344.
[S3] L. P. Knauth, M. J. Kennedy, Nature 460, 728 (2009).
3
-35 -30 -25 -20-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
δ13Corg
δ13C ca
rb
-35 -30 -25-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
δ13Corg
δ13C ca
rb
-30 -25 -200
2
4
6
8
10
δ13Corg
δ13C ca
rb
-28 -26 -24 -22 -20 -18
4
6
8
10
12
δ13Corg
δ13C ca
rb
-30 -25 -20-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
δ13Corg
δ13C ca
rb
-35 -30 -25 -20 -15-10
-5
0
5
10
δ13Corg
δ13C ca
rb
-30 -25 -20 -15-10
-5
0
5
δ13Corg
δ13C ca
rb
-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
δ13Corg
δ13C ca
rb
-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10-10
-5
0
5
δ13Corg
δ13C ca
rb
syn-Bitter Springs Stage(Wallara1)
post-Bitter Springs Stage(Wallara1)
all Bitter Spring Formation(Wallara1)
Trezona Formation (C215)Etina/Trezona Formation(C215, C227 combined)Etina Formation (C227)
Shuram Formation Doushantuo FormationWonoka Formation
R2=0.13 R2=0.02 R2=0.22
R2=0.17 R2=0.27 R2=0.71
R2=0.06 R2=0.42 R2=0.01
Figure S1: δ13Corg vs. δ13Ccarb for the data presented here from the Bitter Springs, Etina and Trezona Formations as well as
data from the Wonoka Formation (1), the Shuram Formation (2) and the Doushantuo Formation (3) with calculated R2 values.
The syn-Bitter Springs Stage plot is of data from between meter levels 1920 to 1795 of the Wallara-1 stratigraphic drill core while
post-Bitter Springs Stage data is from between meter levels 1790 to 1425. Sample C215-148.3 was excluded as its δ13Corg value
was anomalous in comparison to nearby samples.
4
20 25 30 35 40-10
-5
0
5
10
Δδ13C
δ13C ca
rb
24 26 28 30
-6
-4
-2
0
Δδ13C
δ13C ca
rb
28 30 32 34
2
4
6
8
Δδ13C
δ13C ca
rb
25 30 35 400
5
10
15
Δδ13C
δ13C ca
rb
10 15 20 25-15
-10
-5
0
Δδ13C
δ13C ca
rb
10 20 30 40-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Δδ13C
δ13C ca
rb
10 20 30 40-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Δδ13C
δ13C ca
rb
10 20 30 40-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Δδ13C
δ13C ca
rb
slope= 0.37 [0.29 0.57]intercept=-8.5 [-14.2 -6.2]R2=0.63
slope= 0.50 [-0.68 0.66]intercept=-16.6 [-21.0 15.7]R2=0.63
slope= 0.99 [0.79 1.27]intercept=-26.4 [-35.4 -20.3]R2=0.13
slope= 0.91 [0.81 1.06]intercept=-23.6 [-26.5 -21.7]R2=0.72
slope= 0.49 [-0.53 0.59]intercept=-7.5 [-10.9 25.4]R2=0.07
slope=0.84 [0.46 0.97]intercept=-20.4 [-14.7 -22.3]R2=0.87
slope= 0.72 [0.69 0.75]intercept=-21.6 [-20.9 -22.5]R2=0.92
slope= 0.95 [0.79 1.08]intercept=-26.4 [-29.3 -22.4]R2=0.89
pre-Bitter Springs Stage(N389)
Trezona Formation (C215)Etina Formation (C227)
Shuram Formation Doushantuo FormationWonoka Formation
syn-Bitter Springs Stage(Wallara1)
post-Bitter Springs Stage(Wallara1)
Figure S2: ∆δ13C vs. δ13Ccarb for the data presented here from the Bitter Springs, Etina and Trezona Formations as well as data
from the Wonoka Formation (1), the Shuram Formation (2) and the Doushantuo Formation (3). The linear fits were computed with
the reduced major axis method and the 95% confidence intervals presented were obtained from 1000 bootstrapped data sets. R2
values are also presented for each data set. The syn-Bitter Springs Stage plot is of data from between meter levels 1920 to 1795
of the Wallara-1 stratigraphic drill core while post-Bitter Springs Stage data is from between meter levels 1790 to 1425. Samples
C227-146.6 and C227-718.0 were excluded from the fit calculated for the Etina data due to anomalous δ13Ccarb values.
5
-35 -30 -25 -20 -150
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
δ13Corg
TOC
(%)
-35 -30 -25 -20 -150
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
δ13Corg
TOC
(%)
-35 -30 -25 -20 -150
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
δ13Corg
TOC
(%)
-35 -30 -25 -20 -150
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
δ13Corg
TOC
(%)
R2=0.009 R2=0.001
R2=0.048 R2=0.305
Trezona Formation (C215)Etina Formation (C227)
Bitter Springs Formation (N389) Bitter Springs Formation (Wallara1)
Figure S3: Plots of δ13Corg vs. total organic carbon (TOC) %. There is no observed dependence between TOC and the isotopic
values of the organic matter.
6
-15 -10 -5 0 5-10
-5
0
5
10
δ18Ocarb
δ13C ca
rb
-15 -10 -5 0 5-10
-5
0
5
10
δ18Ocarb
δ13C ca
rb
-15 -10 -5 0 5-10
-5
0
5
10
δ18Ocarb
δ13C ca
rb
-15 -10 -5 0 5-10
-5
0
5
10
δ18Ocarb
δ13C ca
rb
Trezona Formation (C215)Etina Formation (C227)
Bitter Springs Formation (N389) Bitter Springs Formation (Wallara1)
Figure S4: Plots of δ18Ocarb vs. δ13Ccarb. The variability between the high δ13Ccarb values of the Etina Formation and the low
δ13Ccarb values of the Trezona Formation is not accompanied by a notable shift in δ18Ocarb. Within the Bitter Springs formation
the large shifts in δ13Ccarb show no covariance with δ18Ocarb.
7
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
Wallara-1 2000.9∗∗ -1.0 -6.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 2000.8 -1.1 -4.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 2000.7 -27.6 26.5 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1999.5 -28.7 27.2 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1997.6 -1.3 -5.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1997.6 -1.5 -5.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1996.7 -1.0 -5.3 -29.0 27.9 0.036 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1995.4 -0.9 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1995.0 -1.2 -5.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1993.7 -0.6 -5.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1993.3 -0.7 -5.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1993.2 -29.3 28.5 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1991.5 0.1 -5.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1990.9 -0.3 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1990.3 -0.6 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1988.6 -0.8 -5.2 -30.0 29.3 Adelaide dolostone
Wallara-1 1988.1 0.4 -5.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1986.4 -0.5 -5.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1985.5 0.2 -4.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1984.2 -0.4 -4.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1983.2 -0.3 -5.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1981.9†† 0.6 -4.5 -27.7 28.3 0.016 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1981.5 0.4 -4.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1980.2 -0.3 -4.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1979.4 0.2 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1978.7 -28.6 28.7 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1978.6 0.1 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1977.1 0.5 -4.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1976.8 0.7 -4.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1975.9 -0.6 -5.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1975.0 0.2 -4.4 dolostone
Wallara-1 1973.8∗∗ -28.0 28.8 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1973.7 0.8 -5.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1972.4 0.9 -5.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1972.3 -26.5 27.7 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1972.2 1.2 -5.3 dolostone
8
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
Wallara-1 1971.7 1.2 -5.4 dolostone
Wallara-1 1970.5 0.4 -4.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1969.9 1.1 -5.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1969.2 -27.5 28.6 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1968.8 1.6 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1967.6 1.7 -5.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1967.5 1.7 -5.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1966.0∗∗ -1.3 -5.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1965.3 0.4 -4.4 dolostone
Wallara-1 1963.8 0.8 -2.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1963.2 1.0 -2.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1961.9 1.3 -3.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1961.9 -27.0 28.3 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1961.3 1.6 -3.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1960.0 1.9 -2.2 -27.6 29.5 Adelaide dolostone
Wallara-1 1958.8 2.0 -2.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1958.1 2.0 -2.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1957.2 2.2 -3.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1956.3 2.6 -2.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1955.3 -28.3 32.4 0.109 Rutgers insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1954.2 4.1 -2.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1953.5 4.2 -3.4 -27.0 0.014 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1952.0 4.8 -5.0 -26.6 31.4 dolostone
Wallara-1 1951.3 4.6 -4.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1950.6 4.7 -2.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1950.1∗∗ 4.4 -4.4 dolostone
Wallara-1 1949.6 -26.0 26.0 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1947.5 6.5 -1.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1947.1 6.6 -3.5 -26.5 33.1 Adelaide dolostone
Wallara-1 1946.1∗∗ 6.4 -5.8 -27.3 33.7 0.014 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1938.2∗∗ 4.8 -2.7 -25.3 30.1 0.006 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1937.0 1.3 -5.2 -29.1 0.076 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1936.3 -27.5 28.8 insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1936.2 1.3 -6.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1935.6 1.5 -5.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1934.3 0.5 -5.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1934.0 -25.7 26.2 Adelaide insoluble residue
9
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
Wallara-1 1933.4 0.1 -5.4 dolostone
Wallara-1 1932.2 -0.7 -5.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1931.3 -1.1 -5.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1931.1 -27.2 26.1 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1930.6 -1.1 -5.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1929.6 -1.5 -6.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1928.6 -1.8 -6.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1928.3 -1.3 -5.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1927.3 -1.3 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1926.6 -1.3 -5.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1926.0 -1.1 -5.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1924.1 -27.4 26.2 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1923.1 -1.2 -5.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1922.3 -1.1 -6.0 -30.7 29.6 0.063 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1920.7 -1.3 -5.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1920.0 -1.5 -5.6 -30.0 28.6 0.034 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1919.3 -1.5 -5.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1917.9 -1.5 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1917.2 -1.9 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1916.4 -1.6 -5.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1914.6 -1.5 -5.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1913.2 -2.1 -5.2 -30.1 28.0 0.053 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1912.6 -2.2 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1911.5 -2.3 -5.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1910.4 -2.3 -5.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1909.6 -2.4 -5.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1908.4 -2.4 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1908.1 -28.4 26.0 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1907.5 -2.8 -5.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1906.5 -3.2 -6.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1905.9 -3.2 -6.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1904.8 -2.6 -4.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1904.0 -2.6 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1901.6 -3.2 -5.4 dolostone
Wallara-1 1901.1 -2.8 -5.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1900.8 -29.1 26.3 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1899.8 -3.5 -5.7 dolostone
10
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
Wallara-1 1898.6 -3.2 -6.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1897.5 -2.9 -5.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1896.5 -2.9 -5.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1896.3 -2.9 -5.9 -30.8 27.9 0.061 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1895.2 -2.9 -6.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1893.5 -3.2 -5.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1891.9 -2.9 -5.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1891.8 -30.9 28.0 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1891.2 -2.9 -5.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1890.7 -3.1 -5.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1890.2 -3.0 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1889.2 -3.1 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1888.2 -3.1 -4.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1887.6 -3.1 -5.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1886.2 -3.2 -5.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1886.1 -28.3 25.1 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1885.9 -3.4 -5.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1884.9 -3.7 -6.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1883.2 -3.7 -5.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1882.3 -3.1 -5.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1882.0∗∗∗ -2.9 -9.8 limestone
Wallara-1 1881.2 -3.5 -5.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1880.1 -4.1 -5.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1878.8 -4.2 -4.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1878.3 -4.0 -5.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1877.8 -4.1 -5.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1877.6 -3.4 -5.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1876.4∗∗ -3.8 -5.3 -30.9 27.1 Adelaide dolostone
Wallara-1 1874.9 -3.1 -4.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1874.3 -3.1 -3.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1874.2 -30.7 27.6 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1872.8 -2.8 -3.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1872.4 -3.1 -4.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1871.3 -2.9 -4.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1870.6 -3.2 -4.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1869.3 -3.0 -4.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1868.8 -31.0 27.9 Adelaide insoluble residue
11
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
Wallara-1 1868.1 -3.1 -3.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1867.1 -2.9 -4.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1866.6 -3.2 -5.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1865.9 -3.1 -3.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1865.5 -3.4 -4.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1865.0 -3.5 -5.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1864.2 -29.9 26.4 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1862.8 -3.5 -4.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1862.4 -3.8 -4.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1861.3 -4.0 -4.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1861.0 -3.6 -4.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1859.8 -4.1 -5.0 -32.1 28.0 0.145 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1859.2 -3.9 -4.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1857.6 -4.0 -4.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1857.1 -3.6 -5.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1855.7 -31.5 28.0 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1855.2 -3.6 -4.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1855.0 -3.5 -5.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1853.7 -3.4 -4.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1853.4 -3.1 -4.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1850.2 -3.4 -4.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1849.5 -3.1 -4.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1848.2 -3.3 -4.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1846.2 -2.3 -3.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1846.0 -3.1 -4.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1845.4 -3.1 -4.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1844.7 -3.0 -4.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1844.3 -31.0 28.0 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1843.4 -3.1 -4.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1842.2 -2.9 -5.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1841.4 -3.1 -5.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1840.7 -3.1 -4.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1839.6 -3.1 -4.1 -31.0 27.9 Adelaide dolostone
Wallara-1 1838.7 -3.4 -4.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1838.2 -2.9 -5.4 dolostone
Wallara-1 1837.2 -32.3 29.4 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1836.6 -2.4 -3.5 dolostone
12
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
Wallara-1 1834.7 -2.5 -4.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1833.5 -2.4 -4.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1833.3 -30.2 27.6 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1833.2 -2.6 -4.4 dolostone
Wallara-1 1832.0 -2.6 -4.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1831.7 -2.7 -3.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1831.2 -2.7 -4.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1829.9 -2.9 -3.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1829.1 -31.8 28.8 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1828.5 -3.2 -4.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1827.0 -3.6 -4.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1826.8 -3.6 -4.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1825.9∗∗ -28.9 26.2 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1825.4 -2.7 -3.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1824.7 -2.8 -4.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1823.1 -2.6 -4.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1823.0 -29.8 27.3 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1821.3 -2.5 -5.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1820.9∗∗ -2.5 -4.8 -30.4 27.9 Adelaide dolostone
Wallara-1 1819.9 -2.2 -4.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1818.5 -2.6 -4.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1818.0 -29.8 27.2 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1817.3 -2.8 -6.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1817.0 -28.3 25.5 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1815.7 -2.4 -5.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1814.4 -2.7 -6.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1813.3 -29.7 27.0 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1813.0 -30.0 27.5 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1812.4 -2.5 -6.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1811.0 -2.0 -5.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1810.5 -2.4 -6.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1809.6 -2.5 -5.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1807.7 -3.5 -6.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1807.6 -30.1 26.6 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1805.7 -2.0 -6.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1804.4 -2.5 -5.3 -30.4 27.9 0.016 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1802.7 -2.3 -5.9 dolostone
13
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
Wallara-1 1801.0 -2.0 -6.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1799.2 -2.0 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1798.0 -2.1 -5.7 -29.8 27.8 0.030 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1796.7 -3.1 -7.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1794.0 -1.8 -4.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1793.0 -1.5 -4.3 -26.8 25.3 0.007 Adelaide dolostone
Wallara-1 1791.4 -1.8 -4.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1750.2 -26.7 32.4 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1750.0 5.7 -2.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1743.0 4.9 -2.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1743.0 -27.2 32.1 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1742.7 5.1 -2.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1742.5 -26.3 31.8 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1742.4 5.6 -3.4 dolostone
Wallara-1 1741.3 5.0 -5.9 limestone
Wallara-1 1740.6 5.0 -6.0 limestone
Wallara-1 1740.3 5.1 -6.1 limestone
Wallara-1 1739.3 5.6 -5.5 limestone
Wallara-1 1738.5 5.1 -6.1 limestone
Wallara-1 1737.7 5.9 -5.7 limestone
Wallara-1 1736.8 -25.9 31.3 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1735.7 5.5 -5.5 limestone
Wallara-1 1734.2 6.1 -4.9 limestone
Wallara-1 1733.6 5.9 -5.0 limestone
Wallara-1 1733.0 6.0 -5.1 limestone
Wallara-1 1732.9 -26.3 32.3 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1732.0 5.8 -4.9 limestone
Wallara-1 1730.9 5.4 -5.3 limestone
Wallara-1 1729.6 5.3 -3.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1728.8 5.0 -2.5 -27.9 32.9 Adelaide dolostone
Wallara-1 1727.8 -26.7 31.6 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1727.7 4.9 -2.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1726.4 4.8 -5.5 limestone
Wallara-1 1723.3 3.8 -2.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1723.3 -27.0 30.8 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1721.2 4.1 -3.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1721.2 -26.6 30.8 Adelaide insoluble residue
14
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
Wallara-1 1720.3 3.9 -5.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1719.1 4.1 -2.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1718.0 1.1 -11.7 limestone
Wallara-1 1709.7 5.6 -1.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1709.7 -27.4 33.0 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1707.5 5.5 -2.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1704.7 4.9 -8.7 limestone
Wallara-1 1703.8∗∗ -26.6 31.4 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1703.7 4.8 -6.6 limestone
Wallara-1 1703.3 4.7 -6.7 limestone
Wallara-1 1702.3 5.8 -3.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1701.9 5.9 -1.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1701.9 -24.4 30.2 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1700.7 5.1 -3.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1695.6 5.3 -2.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1695.4 5.1 -2.4 dolostone
Wallara-1 1695.3 -21.5 26.9 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1673.9 3.8 -6.6 limestone
Wallara-1 1673.6 4.1 -6.4 limestone
Wallara-1 1673.2 4.3 -6.8 limestone
Wallara-1 1671.9 3.9 -9.5 limestone
Wallara-1 1671.3 3.6 -9.2 limestone
Wallara-1 1671.1†† 3.7 -7.7 -25.3 29.0 0.006 Rutgers limestone
Wallara-1 1671.0 4.3 -3.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1670.9 3.6 -3.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1665.2 4.3 -8.2 -25.8 30.1 0.006 Adelaide limestone
Wallara-1 1664.8 4.7 -7.5 limestone
Wallara-1 1664.0 4.9 -10.4 limestone
Wallara-1 1662.9 4.8 -11.4 limestone
Wallara-1 1659.8∗∗∗ -25.8 31.9 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1659.3 6.1 -10.1 limestone
Wallara-1 1658.6 6.0 -10.5 limestone
Wallara-1 1658.3 7.1 -5.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1657.8 6.2 -12.7 limestone
Wallara-1 1654.4 4.4 -3.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1652.5 4.6 -5.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1648.4 5.8 -4.8 -25.1 30.9 0.021 Rutgers dolostone
15
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
Wallara-1 1645.6 5.6 -4.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1644.2 4.8 -6.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1643.8 5.7 -4.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1642.3 6.7 -2.9 -25.5 32.2 0.014 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1641.8 7.3 -8.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1640.5∗∗∗ 6.8 -6.9 limestone
Wallara-1 1639.5 -26.1 32.8 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1639.4 6.7 -7.2 limestone
Wallara-1 1638.7 7.3 -5.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1637.5 6.7 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1637.1 6.7 -3.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1635.8 7.2 -7.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1634.9∗∗∗∗ -24.6 31.3 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1634.8 6.7 -6.8 limestone
Wallara-1 1633.4 6.1 -8.4 limestone
Wallara-1 1632.6 4.7 -6.4 dolostone
Wallara-1 1632.1 7.0 -4.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1632.0∗∗ -22.2 29.2 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1631.3 6.8 -3.4 dolostone
Wallara-1 1630.1 7.6 -6.6 limestone
Wallara-1 1629.2 5.4 -2.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1628.3 5.8 -2.2 -25.5 31.4 0.048 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1626.2 7.0 -7.9 limestone
Wallara-1 1625.1 7.1 -8.3 limestone
Wallara-1 1624.0 6.9 -6.9 limestone
Wallara-1 1623.0 6.5 -7.1 limestone
Wallara-1 1622.0 6.9 -7.1 limestone
Wallara-1 1621.0 6.9 -5.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1620.5 -24.1 30.8 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1620.4 6.7 -4.8 limestone
Wallara-1 1619.3 6.4 -2.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1618.8 6.8 -3.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1617.4 5.5 -3.8 limestone
Wallara-1 1617.0 7.3 -7.6 limestone
Wallara-1 1615.9 5.5 -7.9 -27.2 32.7 0.041 Rutgers limestone
Wallara-1 1614.7 4.1 -1.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1613.1 5.1 -2.9 dolostone
16
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
Wallara-1 1611.7 6.2 -7.0 limestone
Wallara-1 1610.7 4.1 -2.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1609.8 5.8 -4.1 -26.8 32.6 0.055 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1608.8 6.9 -8.6 limestone
Wallara-1 1608.0 7.2 -7.1 limestone
Wallara-1 1607.0 6.8 -7.9 limestone
Wallara-1 1605.9 6.5 -8.1 limestone
Wallara-1 1604.9 6.0 -7.9 limestone
Wallara-1 1604.0 6.1 -8.0 limestone
Wallara-1 1603.0 6.1 -8.1 limestone
Wallara-1 1602.1 6.3 -7.0 limestone
Wallara-1 1601.5 6.3 -6.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1600.9 4.9 -10.4 limestone
Wallara-1 1594.8 4.2 -3.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1591.0 4.4 -4.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1590.9∗∗ -27.1 31.5 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1590.3 5.2 -4.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1589.4 4.6 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1587.6 4.1 -4.8 -25.8 29.8 0.038 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1586.6 4.2 -5.4 dolostone
Wallara-1 1581.1 -27.8 33.3 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1581.0 5.6 -3.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1580.0 6.2 -4.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1579.8 6.1 -5.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1578.2 5.5 -4.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1577.9 4.9 -5.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1577.4 5.1 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1576.5 4.5 -5.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1570.0 4.5 -4.0 -26.2 30.7 0.013 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1569.0 4.7 -4.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1567.9 4.7 -4.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1567.5 4.3 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1567.1 4.0 -5.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1566.6 3.3 -3.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1562.8 4.8 -4.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1561.6 4.3 -5.4 dolostone
Wallara-1 1560.2 3.4 -7.7 dolostone
17
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
Wallara-1 1559.2∗∗ 4.6 -5.0 -26.9 31.5 0.058 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1558.3 4.6 -5.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1557.6 4.0 -5.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1548.3∗∗ -27.2 31.8 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1548.0 4.6 -5.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1543.0 4.8 -5.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1542.8 -27.2 32.0 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1542.1 4.6 -5.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1541.3 4.4 -5.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1540.5 4.3 -6.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1540.4 -26.8 31.1 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1539.1 3.3 -5.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1538.5 4.3 -4.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1537.0 3.9 -4.5 -25.9 29.8 0.054 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1536.5 3.8 -5.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1535.0 2.0 -4.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1498.7 3.8 -4.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1498.0 3.6 -4.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1497.1 3.6 -4.3 -28.1 31.8 0.022 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1495.0 3.6 -6.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1494.1∗∗ -28.5 32.3 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1494.0 3.8 -4.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1493.6 3.6 -3.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1492.4 3.4 -5.2 -28.3 31.7 0.021 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1491.6 3.3 -4.4 dolostone
Wallara-1 1490.7 3.1 -4.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1489.7 2.7 -8.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1486.1 2.5 -4.4 -26.6 29.1 0.013 Rutgers dolostone
Wallara-1 1459.0 4.8 -5.0 dolostone
Wallara-1 1455.6 4.9 -4.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1455.5 5.0 -1.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1453.3 4.7 -4.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1451.1 5.0 -4.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1450.3 4.1 -3.1 dolostone
Wallara-1 1449.6 3.5 -2.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1446.5 2.6 -3.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1445.4 2.8 -3.9 dolostone
18
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
Wallara-1 1440.7 2.7 -0.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1438.2 3.8 -3.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1435.2 3.8 -4.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1434.4 4.2 -2.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1434.1 -26.4 30.6 insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1433.1 4.3 -1.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1430.1 4.8 -3.3 dolostone
Wallara-1 1430.1 -28.2 33.0 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1430.0 4.7 -3.9 dolostone
Wallara-1 1428.7 4.5 -3.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1428.4 4.3 -4.2 dolostone
Wallara-1 1428.4 -27.5 31.8 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1427.5 3.6 -2.8 dolostone
Wallara-1 1427.2 -28.2 31.8 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1426.4∗∗ -27.6 31.5 Adelaide insoluble residue
Wallara-1 1426.3 3.9 -3.7 dolostone
Wallara-1 1425.5 3.3 -3.6 dolostone
Wallara-1 1425.4∗∗ 3.2 -4.5 dolostone
Wallara-1 1424.3∗∗ 4.3 0.5 dolostone
N389 33.4 1.9 -3.5 -26.6 28.6 0.034 Adelaide dolostone
N389 34.6 2.0 -3.8 dolostone
N389 59.2 2.6 -2.8 dolostone
N389 59.6 1.1 -2.6 dolostone
N389 61.5†† 2.1 -2.8 -29.2 31.2 0.028 Adelaide dolostone
N389 62.5∗∗ 1.9 -2.7 dolostone
N389 64.1 2.6 -2.3 dolostone
N389 65.3 2.2 -2.7 dolostone
N389 66.1∗∗ 1.7 -2.3 dolostone
N389 68.2 2.2 -3.0 dolostone
N389 69.7 3.1 -3.0 dolostone
N389 70.8 2.9 -2.6 dolostone
N389 72.7 2.1 -3.5 dolostone
N389 75.0 1.8 -2.7 dolostone
N389 76.4∗∗ 1.9 -2.7 dolostone
N389 77.1 1.6 -2.4 dolostone
N389 77.9 2.9 -3.5 -25.5 28.4 0.003 Adelaide dolostone
N389 78.3 1.1 -3.0 dolostone
19
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
N389 79.8∗∗ 0.0 -3.7 dolostone
N389 83.4 0.4 -2.3 dolostone
N389 85.4 1.3 -2.3 dolostone
N389 86.3 0.9 -2.3 -24.8 25.7 0.023 Adelaide dolostone
N389 87.3 -0.0 -2.9 dolostone
N389 87.9 0.0 -2.7 dolostone
N389 89.3 0.4 -3.0 dolostone
N389 88.4 3.2 -2.8 dolostone
N389 90.4 0.9 -1.9 dolostone
N389 91.0 0.6 -2.6 dolostone
N389 92.3 0.8 -2.8 dolostone
N389 94.4∗∗ 1.1 -3.0 dolostone
N389 97.5†† 2.8 -2.9 -26.1 28.9 0.040 Adelaide dolostone
N389 98.2 1.4 -2.4 dolostone
N389 99.6 2.2 -2.1 dolostone
N389 103.4 2.3 -2.1 dolostone
N389 106.2 1.1 -5.0 dolostone
N389 109.0 1.9 -2.7 dolostone
N389 111.0 1.7 -3.4 dolostone
N389 114.3 2.9 -2.8 dolostone
N389 115.4†† 3.1 -1.8 -26.8 30.0 0.032 Adelaide dolostone
N389 117.6∗∗ 2.1 -2.5 dolostone
N389 119.2∗∗ 2.7 -2.5 dolostone
N389 120.8 2.3 -2.6 dolostone
N389 123.2 1.5 -2.3 dolostone
N389 124.2 0.6 -2.0 dolostone
N389 139.0 1.9 -2.8 dolostone
N389 141.1 3.0 -2.1 dolostone
N389 142.1 3.3 -1.9 -30.9 34.3 0.028 Adelaide dolostone
N389 143.7 2.7 -2.5 dolostone
N389 145.8 3.5 -3.3 dolostone
N389 148.3 2.9 -1.9 dolostone
N389 149.9∗∗ 3.2 -2.1 dolostone
N389 152.3 2.8 -2.2 dolostone
N389 153.4 2.6 -2.2 dolostone
N389 155.4 3.2 -2.5 dolostone
N389 156.2 2.9 -1.9 -25.0 27.8 0.022 Adelaide dolostone
20
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
N389 157.8 3.0 -2.1 dolostone
N389 158.9 3.0 -2.4 dolostone
N389 161.2∗∗ 3.0 -1.9 dolostone
N389 162.7 2.8 -2.3 dolostone
N389 164.1 3.4 -1.8 dolostone
N389 165.9 4.0 -1.7 dolostone
N389 168.8 3.2 -1.3 dolostone
N389 170.1 2.6 -2.2 dolostone
N389 170.9†† 2.1 -1.7 -27.3 29.4 0.030 Adelaide dolostone
N389 173.7 1.8 -1.8 dolostone
N389 176.9 2.1 -1.6 dolostone
N389 179.0 2.8 -1.8 dolostone
N389 180.4 1.7 -1.5 dolostone
N389 181.8†† 0.9 -2.2 -25.9 26.7 0.010 Adelaide dolostone
N389 184.3 3.0 -1.5 dolostone
N389 186.3∗∗ 2.8 -2.5 dolostone
N389 187.7 2.9 -1.1 dolostone
N389 188.4 3.1 -2.7 dolostone
N389 190.1 2.9 -1.8 -26.6 29.5 0.006 Adelaide dolostone
N389 193.1 3.5 -1.5 dolostone
N389 195.4 3.4 -1.4 dolostone
N389 198.2 2.8 -1.6 dolostone
N389 200.3 3.0 -1.7 dolostone
N389 201.3 2.8 -1.5 dolostone
N389 203.4 2.2 -1.8 dolostone
N389 204.5 2.1 -1.5 dolostone
N389 207.0 1.9 -1.3 dolostone
N389 208.9 1.2 -1.4 dolostone
N389 210.1†† 1.9 -1.8 -27.7 29.6 0.029 Adelaide dolostone
N389 211.6 -0.2 -1.9 dolostone
N389 214.7 0.7 -1.8 dolostone
N389 215.7 -0.4 -3.6 dolostone
N389 216.8†† 0.3 -1.7 -25.9 26.2 0.078 Adelaide dolostone
N389 219.0 1.2 -1.2 dolostone
N389 219.0 1.2 -1.2 dolostone
N389 221.2 -0.0 -3.0 dolostone
N389 222.8 2.1 -1.3 dolostone
21
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
N389 224.4 2.5 -0.7 dolostone
N389 225.4 2.5 -1.1 dolostone
N389 226.5∗∗ 2.6 -1.1 dolostone
N389 228.4∗∗†† 2.8 -1.3 -28.2 31.0 0.040 Adelaide dolostone
N389 230.3 2.5 -1.8 dolostone
N389 232.3 2.9 -1.0 dolostone
N389 235.0 3.0 -0.7 dolostone
N389 237.1†† 2.7 -1.4 -25.8 28.5 0.054 Adelaide dolostone
N389 238.2 2.7 -1.5 dolostone
N389 239.9 3.2 -1.6 dolostone
N389 241.8 3.2 -1.6 dolostone
N389 243.3†† 2.1 -2.2 -27.0 29.1 0.072 Adelaide dolostone
N389 244.6 2.6 -2.1 dolostone
N389 245.6 3.1 -2.1 dolostone
N389 248.2 3.1 -2.1 dolostone
N389 253.2 3.9 -2.2 dolostone
N389 257.6 2.6 -2.4 dolostone
N389 258.3 2.0 -2.7 dolostone
N389 264.9 4.2 -1.8 dolostone
N389 267.0 4.4 -2.2 dolostone
N389 267.7∗∗ 4.5 -1.9 -32.3 36.8 0.059 Adelaide dolostone
C215 0.3∗∗ -8.7 -13.0 limestone
C215 0.5 -8.6 -12.6 limestone
C215 12.3 -8.8 -12.5 -23.9 15.1 0.011 Rutgers limestone
C215 13.9 -8.7 -11.7 limestone
C215 14.9 -8.6 -12.3 limestone
C215 14.9 -8.5 -12.8 limestone
C215 15.5 -8.5 -12.5 limestone
C215 16.2 -8.4 -12.7 limestone
C215 17.1∗∗ -8.6 -12.9 limestone
C215 25.0 -8.6 -12.9 -26.4 17.7 0.005 Rutgers limestone
C215 27.4 -8.6 -12.4 limestone
C215 34.1 -8.2 -12.6 limestone
C215 34.5 -8.2 -12.6 limestone
C215 34.8 -8.1 -12.6 -25.4 17.3 0.005 Rutgers limestone
C215 36.1 -8.6 -11.8 limestone
C215 36.4 -8.7 -12.6 limestone
22
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
C215 38.3∗∗ -9.5 -12.1 -24.4 14.9 0.016 Rutgers limestone
C215 46.5∗∗ -8.5 -12.8 limestone
C215 47.7 -8.7 -12.1 limestone
C215 48.3 -8.8 -12.6 limestone
C215 54.8 -8.4 -11.8 limestone
C215 55.9 -8.6 -12.2 limestone
C215 56.2 -8.8 -11.2 limestone
C215 56.2 -8.3 -12.2 limestone
C215 56.3 -8.8 -12.5 limestone
C215 57.7 -8.3 -12.4 limestone
C215 59.4∗∗ -9.0 -11.9 limestone
C215 61.7 -8.6 -12.1 limestone
C215 63.4∗∗ -9.7 -12.3 limestone
C215 63.8 -8.8 -12.2 limestone
C215 64.9 -9.5 -11.9 -23.2 13.7 0.013 Rutgers limestone
C215 67.1 -8.6 -12.2 limestone
C215 67.9 -8.5 -12.1 limestone
C215 68.6∗∗ -8.8 -11.6 limestone
C215 71.9 -8.1 -11.6 -23.9 15.8 0.013 Rutgers limestone
C215 72.9 -8.7 -12.1 limestone
C215 73.3 -8.3 -12.0 limestone
C215 74.5∗∗ -8.2 -12.2 limestone
C215 75.3 -8.1 -11.8 limestone
C215 76.5 -8.2 -12.2 limestone
C215 77.0∗∗ -8.3 -12.1 -26.4 18.2 0.007 Rutgers limestone
C215 79.5 -26.2 0.012 Rutgers limestone
C215 77.3 -8.5 -12.1 limestone
C215 80.5 -8.3 -11.2 limestone
C215 81.2∗∗ -8.9 -10.3 limestone
C215 81.5 -8.8 -11.9 limestone
C215 82.3 -8.9 -12.0 -27.5 18.6 0.012 Rutgers limestone
C215 82.6 -9.4 -11.7 limestone
C215 87.3 -8.3 -11.7 limestone
C215 89.4 -8.9 -11.5 limestone
C215 91.5∗∗ -8.6 -11.3 limestone
C215 93.7 -8.7 -11.9 limestone
C215 94.6 -8.7 -11.9 limestone
23
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
C215 97.0∗∗ -8.6 -11.9 limestone
C215 98.2 -8.3 -11.7 limestone
C215 99.2 -8.1 -11.7 limestone
C215 100.1∗∗ -8.4 -11.8 limestone
C215 100.7 -9.2 -11.4 limestone
C215 101.4 -8.8 -11.3 -24.2 15.4 0.016 Rutgers limestone
C215 103.8 -9.6 -11.6 limestone
C215 106.5∗∗ -8.1 -11.1 limestone
C215 107.4 -7.9 -10.6 limestone
C215 108.3 -8.5 -9.4 limestone
C215 109.0 -9.8 -7.7 -24.3 14.6 0.009 Rutgers limestone
C215 117.8 -8.3 -11.4 limestone
C215 118.4 -8.1 -10.8 limestone
C215 122.4∗∗∗ -7.7 -11.3 limestone
C215 124.0∗∗ -7.5 -11.3 limestone
C215 124.8∗∗ -7.7 -11.2 limestone
C215 125.8∗∗ -7.5 -10.9 limestone
C215 126.6∗∗ -7.5 -9.5 limestone
C215 127.1††∗∗∗∗ -7.5 -8.9 -27.9 20.4 0.009 Rutgers limestone
C215 127.8∗∗ -7.7 -10.5 limestone
C215 128.6∗∗ -7.4 -8.5 limestone
C215 129.8∗∗ -7.6 -8.5 limestone
C215 130.8∗∗ -7.9 -9.6 limestone
C215 131.6∗∗ -8.0 -8.9 limestone
C215 132.5∗∗ -7.7 -8.7 limestone
C215 133.1∗∗∗∗ -7.7 -9.1 limestone
C215 134.2∗∗∗∗ -7.7 -8.6 limestone
C215 135.2∗∗ -7.4 -10.2 limestone
C215 136.0 -7.6 -10.4 limestone
C215 136.8 -7.6 -10.2 limestone
C215 137.0∗∗ -7.6 -9.8 -24.9 17.3 0.006 Rutgers limestone
C215 138.1 -7.5 -9.1 limestone
C215 138.6 -7.2 -10.2 limestone
C215 139.6 -7.3 -10.2 -25.0 17.7 0.011 Rutgers limestone
C215 142.7 -7.4 -10.0 limestone
C215 148.3 -7.7 -8.6 -30.1 22.5 0.014 Rutgers limestone
C215 149.5 -7.2 -9.9 limestone
24
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
C215 150.2∗∗ -7.3 -9.9 limestone
C215 152.2 -7.1 -9.2 limestone
C215 153.8 -7.4 -8.8 limestone
C215 155.0 -7.3 -8.6 -27.0 19.8 0.007 Rutgers limestone
C215 155.7 -7.4 -7.6 limestone
C215 156.4 -7.3 -9.2 limestone
C215 156.7∗∗ -6.8 -9.4 limestone
C215 157.2 -6.8 -9.3 limestone
C215 157.7 -6.7 -9.5 limestone
C215 158.5 -6.7 -9.6 limestone
C215 159.9 -6.6 -9.6 -24.8 18.3 0.008 Rutgers limestone
C215 160.5 -6.6 -9.5 limestone
C215 161.0 -6.7 -9.3 limestone
C215 162.3 -6.4 -9.6 limestone
C215 162.9∗∗ -6.2 -9.6 limestone
C215 165.7 -6.5 -9.5 -26.0 19.5 0.011 Rutgers limestone
C215 166.4 -6.5 -9.7 limestone
C215 167.3 -6.4 -9.5 limestone
C215 167.6 -6.3 -9.4 limestone
C215 168.4 -6.9 -9.5 -26.5 19.5 0.009 Rutgers limestone
C215 169.8 -6.4 -9.5 limestone
C215 170.5∗∗ -6.4 -9.4 limestone
C215 171.4 -6.4 -9.6 limestone
C215 172.4 -6.1 -9.4 limestone
C215 173.1 -6.1 -9.6 limestone
C215 174.1 -6.1 -9.5 limestone
C215 175.1 -6.3 -9.7 limestone
C215 175.3 -6.0 -9.6 limestone
C215 175.4††††∗∗ -6.2 -9.5 -26.1 19.8 0.009 Rutgers limestone
C215 176.5 -6.0 -9.6 limestone
C215 177.8 -6.0 -9.6 limestone
C215 179.0∗∗ -5.8 -9.4 limestone
C215 180.6 -5.9 -9.6 limestone
C215 181.0 -5.9 -9.6 limestone
C215 181.3 -5.7 -8.7 limestone
C215 182.4 -5.9 -8.8 limestone
C215 183.6 -5.8 -8.6 limestone
25
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
C215 184.6 -6.2 -9.4 -23.7 17.5 0.013 Rutgers limestone
C215 185.3 -6.2 -9.6 limestone
C215 186.3 -6.1 -9.4 limestone
C215 187.0 -6.1 -9.5 limestone
C215 188.4 -5.9 -9.5 -25.2 19.3 0.012 Rutgers limestone
C215 189.7 -5.7 -9.6 limestone
C215 190.6 -5.5 -9.3 limestone
C215 191.7 -5.6 -9.5 limestone
C215 192.5 -5.8 -9.3 limestone
C215 193.0∗∗ -5.9 -9.4 limestone
C215 193.3 -5.9 -9.5 -25.2 19.3 0.009 Rutgers limestone
C215 194.1 -5.7 -9.6 limestone
C215 195.1∗∗ -5.7 -8.1 limestone
C215 196.8†† -5.9 -9.3 -25.2 19.3 0.004 Rutgers limestone
C215 197.1 -5.5 -9.4 limestone
C215 197.6 -5.5 -9.6 limestone
C215 198.8 -5.5 -9.6 limestone
C215 199.7∗∗ -5.4 -8.9 limestone
C215 200.8 -5.5 -9.6 -24.8 19.2 0.007 Rutgers limestone
C215 201.7 -5.3 -9.4 limestone
C215 201.9 -5.5 -9.1 limestone
C215 203.1 -5.2 -9.1 limestone
C215 204.1∗∗ -5.7 -8.7 limestone
C215 205.1 -5.6 -8.9 limestone
C215 206.6 -6.2 -8.2 limestone
C215 206.7 -5.1 -9.1 -26.2 21.1 0.014 Rutgers limestone
C215 207.5 -5.4 -8.9 -25.7 20.3 0.009 Rutgers limestone
C215 208.5 -5.4 -8.9 limestone
C215 209.6 -5.5 -9.3 limestone
C215 211.1 -4.7 -9.5 limestone
C215 212.1 -5.0 -10.0 limestone
C215 212.8 -4.8 -9.6 limestone
C215 213.5 -4.8 -9.9 limestone
C215 214.2 -5.3 -9.6 -25.4 20.1 0.007 Rutgers limestone
C215 215.1 -4.8 -8.8 limestone
C215 216.1∗∗ -5.3 -9.8 limestone
C215 216.9 -5.3 -10.0 limestone
26
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
C215 217.9 -5.1 -8.4 -23.5 18.4 0.011 Rutgers limestone
C215 219.8 -4.9 -9.8 limestone
C215 221.1 -4.6 -9.7 limestone
C215 222.5 -4.7 -10.0 limestone
C215 223.5 -4.5 -9.9 -24.0 19.5 0.006 Rutgers limestone
C215 224.4∗∗ -5.2 -8.1 limestone
C215 224.7†† -4.5 -9.2 -25.6 19.3 0.005 Rutgers limestone
C215 224.9 -4.5 -8.3 limestone
C215 226.9 -4.9 -8.6 limestone
C215 228.1 -4.5 -9.5 limestone
C215 228.8 -4.5 -9.4 limestone
C215 229.3 -4.7 -9.0 limestone
C215 231.1 -4.2 -9.6 -25.9 21.7 0.008 Rutgers limestone
C215 232.1 -4.7 -8.2 limestone
C215 233.3∗∗ -4.1 -9.4 limestone
C215 234.0 -4.1 -9.4 limestone
C215 234.5 -4.2 -9.6 limestone
C215 235.2 -4.2 -9.4 limestone
C215 236.5 -4.1 -9.6 -24.9 20.9 0.008 Rutgers limestone
C215 237.5∗∗ -4.1 -9.9 limestone
C215 238.6 -3.9 -9.4 limestone
C215 239.7 -3.7 -9.3 limestone
C215 241.1∗∗ -3.7 -9.3 limestone
C215 242.3 -3.8 -10.0 limestone
C215 243.0 -3.7 -10.1 limestone
C215 243.9 -3.7 -10.0 -24.7 21.0 0.011 Rutgers limestone
C215 245.0 -3.6 -10.0 limestone
C215 246.0 -3.6 -9.7 limestone
C215 247.2∗∗ -3.7 -10.2 limestone
C215 247.9 -3.5 -9.8 limestone
C215 248.9 -3.6 -10.1 -24.5 20.9 0.009 Rutgers limestone
C215 249.9 -3.9 -9.8 limestone
C215 250.9 -3.4 -9.3 limestone
C215 251.9 -3.6 -10.4 limestone
C215 252.9 -3.6 -10.2 limestone
C215 254.0 -3.7 -10.2 -24.1 20.4 0.008 Rutgers limestone
C215 255.0 -4.3 -10.5 limestone
27
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
C215 255.6 -3.4 -10.4 -23.5 20.1 0.008 Rutgers limestone
C215 256.7 -3.1 -10.4 limestone
C215 257.5 -3.3 -10.0 limestone
C215 258.4 -3.1 -10.1 limestone
C215 259.6 -3.3 -10.2 -23.7 20.5 0.007 Rutgers limestone
C215 261.0 -3.5 -10.8 limestone
C215 261.7∗∗ -2.9 -10.6 limestone
C215 262.7 -3.1 -10.7 limestone
C215 263.6 -3.5 -9.6 limestone
C215 264.4 -3.4 -10.7 -25.7 22.4 0.017 Rutgers limestone
C215 265.2 -3.2 -10.6 limestone
C215 266.2 -3.3 -10.6 -25.2 21.9 0.013 Rutgers limestone
C215 266.5 -3.3 -10.8 limestone
C215 266.8 -3.3 -10.9 limestone
C215 267.3 -3.3 -10.9 limestone
C215 268.4 -3.4 -11.0 limestone
C215 268.9 -3.6 -11.1 limestone
C215 269.4 -3.8 -12.2 limestone
C215 270.5†† -3.4 -12.5 -24.8 22.0 0.018 Rutgers limestone
C215 271.4 -3.4 -12.6 limestone
C215 271.6 -3.5 -12.7 limestone
C215 300.0∗∗ -5.0 -9.6 -26.6 21.6 0.015 Rutgers limestone
C227 0.2 9.0 -9.6 limestone
C227 1.1 8.7 -9.9 limestone
C227 2.0 8.7 -9.8 limestone
C227 2.6 8.3 -9.9 limestone
C227 3.3 8.3 -10.6 limestone
C227 4.3 8.7 -8.5 limestone
C227 5.3 8.3 -11.3 limestone
C227 8.5 7.1 -9.9 limestone
C227 9.7††† 7.1 -10.3 -23.5 30.7 0.010 Rutgers limestone
C227 11.0∗∗ 8.1 -9.9 limestone
C227 12.9 6.9 -9.5 limestone
C227 14.0 6.6 -9.4 limestone
C227 15.0 7.6 -10.1 limestone
C227 15.6 7.2 -9.9 limestone
C227 17.0 7.1 -9.5 limestone
28
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
C227 18.5 7.9 -9.5 limestone
C227 20.0∗∗ 8.9 -6.5 limestone
C227 21.1∗∗ 8.4 -9.7 limestone
C227 22.2 7.5 -9.5 limestone
C227 23.5∗∗ 6.9 -7.9 limestone
C227 24.8 8.3 -9.8 limestone
C227 26.1∗∗ 8.0 -9.4 limestone
C227 27.3 7.9 -9.8 limestone
C227 28.6∗∗ 7.4 -11.1 limestone
C227 29.7∗∗ 6.2 -9.2 limestone
C227 30.8∗∗ 7.7 -9.3 limestone
C227 31.9 8.1 -9.7 limestone
C227 33.1 7.7 -9.8 limestone
C227 34.2∗∗ 8.2 -9.5 limestone
C227 35.4∗∗ 7.2 -9.6 limestone
C227 36.4†† 8.5 -9.6 -23.5 32.2 0.014 Rutgers limestone
C227 37.6 8.8 -9.3 limestone
C227 38.3 7.7 -9.8 limestone
C227 39.5 7.7 -9.8 limestone
C227 40.6∗∗ 7.0 -9.5 limestone
C227 41.8 6.4 -9.2 limestone
C227 43.0 6.7 -10.3 limestone
C227 44.6 7.3 -9.9 limestone
C227 45.6 8.0 -10.2 limestone
C227 46.7 8.2 -10.0 limestone
C227 47.7∗∗ 7.2 -7.2 limestone
C227 48.6 8.5 -10.6 limestone
C227 50.3 8.5 -10.6 limestone
C227 51.4 8.2 -10.6 limestone
C227 52.4††† 6.8 -10.9 -21.6 28.4 0.012 Rutgers limestone
C227 54.1 6.3 -10.3 limestone
C227 55.1 6.7 -11.6 limestone
C227 56.1∗∗ 5.9 -8.0 limestone
C227 57.8 6.2 -10.6 limestone
C227 58.7 6.9 -9.0 limestone
C227 60.7∗∗ 5.5 -10.7 limestone
C227 61.6 7.3 -11.1 limestone
29
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
C227 62.8 5.8 -11.0 limestone
C227 77.2 7.8 -10.8 limestone
C227 77.6∗∗ 7.3 -11.0 -24.2 31.5 0.021 Rutgers limestone
C227 85.2 6.0 -9.7 limestone
C227 86.4 9.8 -8.3 limestone
C227 87.7 9.4 -8.4 limestone
C227 89.1 9.8 -6.6 limestone
C227 90.3∗∗ 9.7 -8.2 limestone
C227 91.5 9.9 -9.1 limestone
C227 92.7 9.6 -10.4 -20.0 29.6 0.018 Rutgers limestone
C227 93.5 8.3 -10.3 limestone
C227 95.9 8.6 -10.4 limestone
C227 97.2 8.6 -10.4 limestone
C227 98.8 8.8 -10.2 limestone
C227 99.8 8.9 -9.2 limestone
C227 101.0 9.2 -9.4 limestone
C227 101.9∗∗ 7.9 -6.8 limestone
C227 103.0 8.1 -6.1 limestone
C227 104.0 8.7 -6.0 limestone
C227 105.1 9.9 -4.5 limestone
C227 106.4 9.8 -4.9 limestone
C227 107.8 9.7 -4.0 limestone
C227 108.8 9.6 -4.1 limestone
C227 109.9 9.7 -4.3 limestone
C227 110.0 9.5 -4.3 limestone
C227 112.1∗∗ 9.5 -4.6 limestone
C227 112.5 9.5 -4.9 limestone
C227 113.8 9.6 -4.9 limestone
C227 115.2 9.4 -5.6 limestone
C227 116.2∗∗ 8.7 -6.7 limestone
C227 117.4 9.2 -6.6 limestone
C227 118.6 9.3 -6.2 limestone
C227 119.6 9.3 -6.7 limestone
C227 120.9 9.2 -6.2 limestone
C227 121.9 9.4 -4.4 limestone
C227 122.9∗∗ 9.0 -4.5 -21.2 30.2 0.015 Rutgers limestone
C227 123.9 9.5 -4.2 limestone
30
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
C227 125.0 9.6 -4.2 limestone
C227 126.2 9.6 -3.8 limestone
C227 127.2∗∗ 9.5 -4.1 limestone
C227 128.1 9.5 -5.0 limestone
C227 129.1 9.4 -4.4 limestone
C227 130.1 8.7 -4.8 limestone
C227 130.8 8.2 -5.5 limestone
C227 131.8 8.2 -6.9 limestone
C227 132.8 8.4 -7.2 limestone
C227 133.7 9.1 -3.3 limestone
C227 134.8 9.1 -5.0 -21.5 30.6 0.038 Rutgers limestone
C227 135.8 8.9 -5.6 -21.5 30.4 0.038 Rutgers limestone
C227 136.3 9.0 -4.7 limestone
C227 137.3 9.0 -4.2 limestone
C227 138.4∗∗ 9.0 -5.8 limestone
C227 139.8 7.8 -5.5 limestone
C227 141.4 7.5 -7.9 limestone
C227 142.4 8.4 -8.5 limestone
C227 143.0 8.3 -8.2 limestone
C227 144.2 8.6 -7.8 limestone
C227 145.2 8.5 -6.9 limestone
C227 146.3∗∗ 6.6 -8.5 limestone
C227 146.6∗∗∗ 0.2 -7.3 -26.0 26.2 0.017 Rutgers limestone
C227 147.6 8.0 -9.9 limestone
C227 149.6 7.9 -9.0 limestone
C227 150.1 8.3 -9.6 limestone
C227 153.8∗∗∗ 3.5 -5.5 limestone
C227 208.2∗∗∗ 5.4 -10.7 limestone
C227 212.8∗∗∗ 0.4 -9.2 limestone
C227 214.1 8.2 -7.0 limestone
C227 214.9 7.0 -7.4 -24.4 31.5 0.017 Rutgers limestone
C227 215.9 8.2 -6.5 limestone
C227 217.6 8.6 -6.4 limestone
C227 219.0∗∗ 8.2 -6.7 limestone
C227 220.4∗∗∗ 6.1 -5.2 limestone
C227 221.7∗∗ 5.6 -5.4 limestone
C227 222.7 8.9 -3.5 -21.6 30.5 0.023 Rutgers limestone
31
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
C227 223.9 8.3 -4.2 limestone
C227 225.1 8.9 -4.2 limestone
C227 226.4 8.1 -5.4 limestone
C227 227.6 8.9 -4.5 limestone
C227 228.7∗∗ 8.6 -3.7 limestone
C227 229.7 9.0 -3.8 limestone
C227 230.7∗∗ 4.5 -6.4 limestone
C227 231.5 8.3 -5.0 limestone
C227 232.7∗∗ 8.9 -4.4 limestone
C227 233.5 8.4 -4.5 limestone
C227 234.5∗∗ 9.0 -4.7 limestone
C227 235.5 9.0 -4.7 limestone
C227 236.6 8.1 -5.0 limestone
C227 237.6 8.3 -5.1 limestone
C227 238.7∗∗ 7.6 -5.1 -23.2 30.7 0.014 Rutgers limestone
C227 240.0 8.8 -6.2 limestone
C227 240.9 8.6 -6.6 limestone
C227 246.0 7.8 -4.9 limestone
C227 247.3 9.0 -6.8 limestone
C227 248.2 8.8 -6.7 limestone
C227 249.1 9.2 -6.8 limestone
C227 250.3 9.3 -7.1 limestone
C227 251.5 9.0 -6.8 limestone
C227 252.5 9.3 -7.0 limestone
C227 253.8∗∗ 8.8 -6.2 limestone
C227 256.3 8.7 -6.3 limestone
C227 257.3 9.5 -7.2 limestone
C227 258.4 8.6 -6.1 limestone
C227 259.2 9.0 -6.7 limestone
C227 260.6 8.2 -5.6 limestone
C227 262.1†† 8.1 -6.3 -23.1 31.3 0.005 Rutgers limestone
C227 262.9∗∗ 9.0 -6.9 limestone
C227 264.1∗∗ 7.3 -7.0 limestone
C227 265.1∗∗ 5.6 -6.6 limestone
C227 266.1∗∗ 9.2 -6.4 limestone
C227 267.2∗∗ 8.3 -5.6 limestone
C227 268.2 7.0 -6.1 -23.4 30.4 0.011 Rutgers limestone
32
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
C227 269.2 7.1 -6.9 limestone
C227 270.4 7.5 -6.9 limestone
C227 271.3 7.5 -6.8 limestone
C227 272.4∗∗ 9.5 -6.4 limestone
C227 273.8 8.0 -5.1 limestone
C227 274.8 7.9 -6.5 limestone
C227 275.0 8.4 -6.3 limestone
C227 276.0 9.5 -6.5 -25.9 35.4 0.006 Rutgers limestone
C227 276.9∗∗ 9.0 -6.1 limestone
C227 277.9 8.5 -5.0 limestone
C227 278.5 9.3 -5.0 limestone
C227 278.7 9.4 -5.3 limestone
C227 279.8∗∗ 9.0 -6.8 limestone
C227 280.9∗∗ 8.3 -5.6 limestone
C227 281.9 8.5 -5.2 limestone
C227 282.9 8.7 -3.9 limestone
C227 283.9 9.1 -3.2 limestone
C227 285.0 8.6 -3.2 limestone
C227 289.1 8.4 -3.1 limestone
C227 290.2 8.7 -4.0 limestone
C227 292.6 8.3 -3.2 limestone
C227 298.2∗∗ 5.3 -4.4 limestone
C227 299.4∗∗ 1.3 -6.1 limestone
C227 301.2 8.4 -7.3 limestone
C227 302.2 9.0 -6.6 -23.5 32.5 0.016 Rutgers limestone
C227 305.6 8.8 -4.5 limestone
C227 306.6∗∗ 4.4 -5.6 limestone
C227 307.6 8.6 -4.9 limestone
C227 309.0 9.1 -4.8 limestone
C227 310.2∗∗ 9.2 -5.0 limestone
C227 311.3 9.4 -4.3 limestone
C227 312.4 9.1 -4.9 limestone
C227 313.5 9.1 -4.7 -22.2 31.4 0.012 Rutgers limestone
C227 314.5 9.2 -5.0 limestone
C227 315.8 9.5 -5.6 limestone
C227 316.8∗∗ 9.3 -5.3 limestone
C227 317.9 9.4 -5.9 limestone
33
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
C227 318.9 9.2 -5.5 limestone
C227 320.2∗∗∗ 6.3 -6.4 limestone
C227 321.2 9.7 -6.3 limestone
C227 323.3 9.6 -6.0 limestone
C227 324.1∗∗ 9.7 -6.2 limestone
C227 324.9 9.6 -7.2 limestone
C227 325.6 9.9 -7.8 limestone
C227 326.8 9.6 -8.1 limestone
C227 327.8 8.7 -7.7 limestone
C227 328.8 8.9 -8.6 limestone
C227 330.1∗∗∗ 1.3 -11.0 limestone
C227 331.5∗∗ 8.3 -8.8 limestone
C227 332.9 8.4 -8.8 -23.6 32.0 0.016 Rutgers limestone
C227 334.0 8.3 -9.5 limestone
C227 335.0∗∗∗ 6.1 -11.5 limestone
C227 396.2 7.7 -11.8 limestone
C227 397.0 8.3 -10.0 limestone
C227 398.6 9.4 -9.7 limestone
C227 400.0 9.4 -9.5 limestone
C227 401.0 9.8 -9.4 limestone
C227 402.0∗∗ 9.8 -9.0 -21.3 31.1 0.023 Rutgers limestone
C227 403.4 9.7 -8.8 limestone
C227 405.3 8.9 -7.9 limestone
C227 406.4∗∗ 9.3 -8.7 limestone
C227 407.4 9.0 -8.3 limestone
C227 408.3 8.7 -8.9 limestone
C227 409.3 9.3 -8.6 limestone
C227 410.9 8.6 -8.3 limestone
C227 412.0†† 8.5 -7.2 -23.0 31.4 0.014 Rutgers limestone
C227 413.6∗∗ 8.6 -6.5 limestone
C227 417.1 9.8 -8.7 limestone
C227 418.1 9.8 -8.1 limestone
C227 419.1 9.5 -7.8 limestone
C227 420.2 -25.9 35.0 0.039 Rutgers limestone
C227 421.1 9.1 -7.8 limestone
C227 421.9∗∗ 8.4 -7.9 limestone
C227 422.9 8.8 -8.2 limestone
34
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
C227 423.9 8.9 -7.9 limestone
C227 424.4∗∗ 9.2 -8.4 limestone
C227 425.4 8.1 -8.3 limestone
C227 426.5∗∗ 8.9 -8.0 limestone
C227 429.5 9.0 -8.5 limestone
C227 430.3∗∗∗ 7.9 -7.7 limestone
C227 431.7∗∗ 7.8 -7.3 limestone
C227 432.7 7.2 -8.4 limestone
C227 433.6 6.9 -8.2 limestone
C227 434.7 8.8 -8.6 limestone
C227 435.7 8.7 -8.6 limestone
C227 436.5 8.9 -8.4 limestone
C227 437.6∗∗ 6.8 -6.3 limestone
C227 438.6∗∗ 7.7 -7.2 limestone
C227 439.5 8.6 -7.9 limestone
C227 440.3 8.4 -7.6 limestone
C227 440.4 9.7 -8.7 limestone
C227 441.4 8.9 -8.6 -22.5 31.4 0.009 Rutgers limestone
C227 442.7 9.3 -9.8 limestone
C227 443.7 8.7 -10.3 limestone
C227 444.3 8.8 -9.9 limestone
C227 445.3 9.2 -10.7 limestone
C227 448.0 6.8 -9.3 limestone
C227 451.9 7.7 -10.0 limestone
C227 452.9 8.4 -9.0 limestone
C227 453.9 8.9 -10.3 limestone
C227 454.9∗∗ 9.2 -9.2 limestone
C227 455.7 6.9 -10.3 limestone
C227 456.6 9.1 -10.2 limestone
C227 458.1 9.1 -9.5 limestone
C227 458.4 8.9 -11.0 -25.6 34.5 0.008 Rutgers limestone
C227 459.4 8.1 -10.8 limestone
C227 460.4 8.4 -11.1 limestone
C227 462.3 8.5 -11.4 limestone
C228 463.4††† -22.7 31.2 0.013 Rutgers limestone
C227 464.0 8.5 -11.5 limestone
C227 465.0∗∗ 8.7 -11.2 limestone
35
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
C227 465.8 8.1 -10.4 limestone
C227 467.2 8.4 -11.6 -25.6 34.0 0.012 Rutgers limestone
C227 468.2 8.0 -11.1 limestone
C227 469.2 8.1 -11.9 limestone
C227 470.2 8.0 -11.9 limestone
C227 471.3 7.5 -12.1 limestone
C227 472.3 7.9 -11.9 limestone
C227 473.3 6.7 -12.3 limestone
C227 701.0 8.4 -12.7 limestone
C227 702.0†† 8.5 -12.1 -25.5 34.0 0.035 Rutgers limestone
C227 703.1 9.2 -12.3 limestone
C227 704.1∗∗ -1.1 -8.6 limestone
C227 704.9 5.4 -10.5 limestone
C227 711.5∗∗ 5.3 -9.8 limestone
C227 712.6 2.3 -9.5 limestone
C227 713.6∗∗ -2.0 -7.7 limestone
C227 714.5 8.1 -9.6 limestone
C227 713.8 3.0 -8.4 limestone
C227 716.8 9.0 -9.2 limestone
C227 718.0∗∗ 0.7 -7.8 -26.1 26.7 0.011 Rutgers limestone
C227 718.6 8.7 -9.1 limestone
C227 719.7∗∗ -2.3 -7.6 limestone
C227 720.9 5.9 -8.8 limestone
C227 721.9 9.2 -9.0 limestone
C227 723.0 9.5 -7.9 limestone
C227 724†† 9.1 -10.2 -24.6 33.7 0.008 Rutgers limestone
C227 724.9∗∗ 0.6 -8.1 limestone
C227 725.8 9.0 -10.4 limestone
C227 727.0∗∗ 4.4 -9.2 limestone
C227 728.0 7.6 -9.6 -24.3 31.9 0.008 Rutgers limestone
C227 729.3 8.2 -10.4 limestone
C227 730.3 8.3 -11.0 limestone
C227 731.3†† 7.8 -11.0 -25.1 33.0 0.011 Rutgers limestone
C227 732.4 7.3 -9.6 limestone
C227 733.5 7.8 -11.2 limestone
C227 734.5†† 7.3 -10.9 -25.3 32.6 0.011 Rutgers limestone
C227 735.5 7.1 -11.5 limestone
36
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
C227 736.5∗∗ 6.6 -11.7 limestone
C227 781.1†† 6.9 -9.9 -26.9 33.7 0.018 Rutgers limestone
C227 782.3 7.2 -9.5 limestone
C227 783.4 7.8 -11.7 limestone
C227 784.1 7.9 -11.4 limestone
C227 795.9 9.1 -11.9 limestone
C227 796.9 9.4 -11.9 limestone
C227 797.9 9.4 -11.3 limestone
C227 799.3 9.3 -10.5 -27.0 36.3 0.031 Rutgers limestone
C227 800.3 8.9 -10.7 limestone
C227 801.4 9.2 -11.0 limestone
C227 802.4 9.3 -11.0 limestone
C227 832.9 5.1 -10.9 limestone
C227 834.1∗∗ 6.5 -11.9 limestone
C227 835.2 7.1 -12.2 limestone
C227 837.4†† 8.7 -12.4 -24.6 33.3 0.010 Rutgers limestone
C227 838.4 8.7 -12.0 limestone
C227 839.4 8.7 -11.9 limestone
C227 840.5 9.0 -11.5 limestone
C227 841.5 8.7 -11.5 limestone
C227 842.6 9.1 -11.3 limestone
C227 843.9 9.0 -11.4 limestone
C227 845.1 8.9 -11.1 limestone
C227 846.1 8.7 -11.7 limestone
C227 847.0 7.9 -10.9 limestone
C227 849.5 8.1 -12.3 limestone
C227 850.5††∗∗ 8.4 -12.5 -25.0 33.4 0.008 Rutgers limestone
C227 851.6 8.3 -12.2 limestone
C227 853.6 7.4 -12.8 limestone
C227 854.7 8.1 -14.2 limestone
C227 857.1 7.9 -11.5 limestone
C227 858.2 8.1 -12.0 limestone
C227 859.2 7.7 -11.4 limestone
C227 860.2 7.8 -11.6 limestone
C227 861.2 7.5 -11.7 limestone
C227 862.3∗∗ 8.2 -12.1 -23.7 31.8 0.015 Rutgers limestone
C227 864.6 8.0 -12.1 limestone
37
Table S1: Isotopic data from the Wallara-1 drill core, P8 field section, C215 field section,
C227 field section cont.
section/core stratigraphic level δ13Ccarb δ18Ocarb δ13Corg ∆δ13C TOC % Corg lab sample type
C227 868.7 7.9 -12.5 limestone
C227 869.7 7.8 -12.8 limestone
C227 870.6 7.5 -12.6 limestone
C227 871.7 7.2 -13.0 -24.0 31.2 0.009 Rutgers limestone
C227 872.4 6.5 -12.9 limestone
C227 873.4 6.0 -12.9 limestone
C227 874.5 6.1 -13.0 limestone
C227 876.0∗∗ 5.9 -13.2 limestone
Notes: All δ13Corg values were obtained from analysis of insoluble residues isolated through decarbonation of limestone or dolostone
samples. ∗ symbols indicate that multiple δ13Ccarb analyses have been averaged into the value presented with the number of ∗ corre-
sponding to the number of analyses of the sample. The † symbols represent the same but for δ13Corg analyses. ∆δ13C was determined
through subtraction of δ13Corg from δ13Ccarb. This approximation of the difference between the two values avoids confusion with the
primary εp that is associated with the fraction between DIC and primary biomass as they are not one and the same. The Corg lab column
indicates whether the organic carbon data was collected at the University of Adelaide or at Rutgers University. All δ13Ccarb data were
generated at the University of Michigan.
38