Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T02:42:31.645Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Full solar spectrum measurements of absorption of light in a sample of the Beacon Sandstone containing the Antarctic cryptoendolithic microbial community

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2012

Christopher P. McKay
Christopher P. McKay*
Affiliation:
Space Sciences Division, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA
*
chris.mckay@nasa.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We report measures of absorption (negative log10 of the transmissivity) of a collimated beam through a 2.27 mm surface layer of Beacon Sandstone that harbours a cryptoendolithic microbial community. Consistent with the findings of previous work in the visible light range with these rocks, and in analogous sediments, blue wavelengths are more strongly attenuated than red. At wavelengths from 2400–1200 nm the absorption of the dry rock layer is roughly constant at 3.1 except in the water bands at 2000 nm and 1600 nm. From 1200–300 nm the absorption increases from 3.1 to 6.4, below 300–190 nm (the lowest wavelength measured) the absorption exceeds 6.4. When the rock is saturated with water the absorption uniformly decreases by about 0.1–0.2 over the 700–400 nm region but decreases sharply for lower wavelengths, with the decrease equal to 0.5 at 300 nm. Thus, the relative protection against UV is attenuated when the rock is wet. Even with this decreased absorption the UV absorption is still greater than that for the visible. The absorption at wavelengths less than 300 nm was too large to measure (> 6.4) for both the wet and dry rocks.

Keywords

habitabilityIR lightUV lightwet transmissivity
Type
Biological Sciences
Information
Antarctic Science , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , 24 May 2012 , pp. 243 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Antarctic Science Ltd 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berner, T.Evenari, M. 1978. The influence of temperature and light penetration on the abundance of the hypolithic algae in the Negev Desert of Israel. Oecologia, 33, 255–260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beatty, J.T., Overmann, J., Lince, M.T., Manske, A.K., Lang, A.S., Blankenship, R.E., van Dover, C.L., Martinson, T.A.Plumley, F.G. 2005. An obligately photosynthetic bacterial anaerobe from a deep-sea hydrothermal vent. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States, 102, 9306–9310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Büdel, B., Weber, B., Kühl, M., Pfanz, H., Sültemeyer, D.Wessels, D.C.J. 2004. Reshaping of sandstone surfaces by cryptoendolithic cyanobacteria: bioalkalization causes chemical weathering in arid landscapes. Geobiology, 2, 261–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, M., Schliep, M., Willows, R.D., Cai, Z.-L., Neilan, B.A.Scheer, H. 2010. A red-shifted chlorophyll. Science, 329, 1318–1319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cockell, C.S., Lee, P., Osinski, G., Horneck, G.Broady, P. 2002. Impact-induced microbial endolithic habitats. Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 37, 1287–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockell, C.S., McKay, C.P., Warren-Rhodes, K.Horneck, G. 2008. Ultraviolet radiation-induced limitation to epilithic microbial growth in arid deserts: dosimetric experiments in the hyperarid core of the Atacama Desert. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B, 90, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cockell, C.S., Kaltenegger, L.Raven, J.A. 2009. Cryptic photosynthesis: extrasolar planetary oxygen without a surface biological signature. Astrobiology, 9, 623–636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedmann, E.I. 1982. Endolithic microorganisms in the Antarctic cold desert. Science, 215, 1045–1053.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haardt, H.Nielsen, G.A.E. 1980. Attenuation measurements of monochromatic light in marine sediments. Oceanological Acta, 3, 333–338.Google Scholar
Herrera, A., Cockell, C.S., Self, S., Blaxter, M., Reitner, J., Thorsteinsson, T., Arp, G., Dröse, W.Tindle, A.G. 2009. A cryptoendolithic community in volcanic glass. Astrobiology, 9, 369–381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horath, T., Neu, T.R.Bachofen, R. 2006. An endolithic microbial community in dolomite rock in central Switzerland: characterization by reflection spectroscopy, pigment analyses, scanning electron microscopy, and laser scanning microscopy. Microbial Ecology, 51, 353–364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, K.A.Lawley, B. 2003. A novel Antarctic microbial endolithic community within gypsum crusts. Environmental Microbiology, 5, 555–565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ichimi, K., Tada, K.Montani, S. 2008. Simple estimation of penetration rate of light in intertidal sediments. Journal of Oceanography, 64, 399–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, B.B.DesMarais, D.J. 1986. A simple fiber-optic microprobe for high resolution light measurements: application in marine sediment. Limnology & Oceanography, 31, 1376–1383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kühl, M.Jørgensen, B.B. 1992. Spectral light measurements in microbenthic phototrophic communities with a fiber-optic microprobe coupled to a sensitive diode array detector. Limnology & Oceanography, 37, 1813–1823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kühl, M.Jørgensen, B.B. 1994. The light field of microbenthic communities: radiance distribution and microscale optics of sandy coastal sediments. Limnology & Oceanography, 39, 1368–1398.Google Scholar
Kühl, M., Lassen, C.Jørgensen, B.B. 1994. Light penetration and light intensity in sandy marine sediments measured with irradiance and scalar irradiance fiber-optic microprobes. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 105, 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kühl, M., Lassen, C.Revsbech, N.P. 1997. A simple light meter for measurements of PAR (400 to 700 nm) with fiber-optic microprobes: application for P vs Eo(PAR) measurements in a microbial mat. Aquatic Microbial Ecology, 13, 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littler, M.M., Littler, D.S., Blair, S.M.Norris, J.N. 1986. Deep-water plant communities from an uncharted seamount off San Salvador Island, Bahamas: distribution, abundance and primary production. Deep-Sea Research, 33, 881–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthes, U., Turner, S.J.Larson, D.W. 2001. Light attenuation by limestone rock and its constraint on the depth distribution of endolithic algae and cyanobacteria. International Journal of Plant Science, 162, 263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, C.P.Friedmann, E.I. 1985. The cryptoendolithic microbial environment in the Antarctic cold desert: temperature variations in nature. Polar Biology, 4, 19–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKay, C.P., Clow, G.D., Andersen, D.T.Wharton, R.A. Jr 1994. Light transmission and reflection in perennially ice-covered Lake Hoare, Antarctica. Journal of Geophysical Research, 99, 20 427–20 444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nienow, J.A., McKay, C.P.Friedmann, E.I. 1988. The cryptoendolithic microbial environment in the Ross Desert of Antarctica: light in the photosynthetically active region. Microbial Ecology, 16, 271–289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phoenix, V.R., Konhauser, K.O., Adams, D.G.Bottrell, S.H. 2001. Role of biomineralization as an ultraviolet shield: implications for Archean life. Geology, 29, 823–826.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phoenix, V.R., Bennet, P.C., Engel, A.S., Tyler, S.W.Ferris, F.G. 2006. Chilean high-altitude hot-spring sinters: a model system for UV screening mechanisms by early Precambrian cyanobacteria. Geobiology, 4, 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, J.A., Kübler, J.E.Beardall, J. 2000. Put out the light, and then put out the light. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 80, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagan, C.Pollack, J. 1974. Differential transmission of sunlight on Mars: biological implications. Icarus, 21, 490–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dover, C.L., Reynolds, G.T., Chave, A.D.Tyson, J.A. 1996. Light at deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Geophysical Research Letters, 23, 2049–2052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar