How do stromatolites form

Check out some of the Educational Materials for sale on our sister site fossilicious. Children's Books on Fossils and Geologic Time. Fossil Collections. Geologic Time Geologic Time Line. Cenozoic Era Quaternary Neogene Paleogene. Mesozoic Era Cretaceous Jurassic Triassic. What Is A Fossil. Fossil Collecting. How Are Fossils Formed. Clock of Eras. Geologic Time Line. Earth Science Lesson Plans. Activities For Kids. Fossil Lesson Plans. Coloring Pages.

Montessori Materials. Education articles. Most of our operating costs are funded by generous individuals. Skip to Content. Home Species Stromatolites. The Stromatolites of Hamelin Pool at Hamelin Station Reserve may look like a cross between gigantic cauliflowers and rocks, but they're incredibly important as modern examples of the earliest known life forms on Earth. These deposits built up very slowly: a single 1m structure may be 2, to 3, years old. But the tiny microbes that make up modern Stromatolites are similar to organism that existed 3.

Where do Stromatolites live? Stories about native species Get email news. Support river restoration Donate now. What's Bush Heritage doing? Donate to support native species. Probably many Archaean rocks have succumbed to these many forces.

So too have many Stromatolites from the Proterozoic. Production of stromatolites has been relatively minor during the Phanerzoic Eon with its entirely different reef ecosystems. What rock has not been lost may of course be buried deeply. The figure to the left shows Precambrian exposure within the United States. The figure indicates the paucity of localities where finding the oldest fossils exists. The north, central U. The Three Domains of Life.

As previously noted, stromatolites are most often described as biogenically-produced structures formed by colonies of photosynthesizing cyanobacteria. However, this is an enormous oversimplification given that the weight of scientific evidence suggests that all three domains of life the Archaeans, Eubacteria, and Eukaryotes appeared in the Archaean Era, and thus the so-called microbial mats would have contained representatives among all three domains.

Just how and when the base of the tree of life split into the three main branches remains one of the most important questions in all of biology and science, and is the source of constant scientific dispute. Which of the prokaryotes came first, the Archaeans or the Eubacteria remains unresolved, and a consensus has emerged that these primitive microorganisms laterally exchanged genes further confounding attempts to validate what begat what during to course of early evolution on earth.

Lateral gene transfer belies the concept of the single common ancestor see Woese, While formation by colonies of cyanobacteria is probably the primary mechanism for formation of surviving stromatolites in the deep time of the Archaean and half way through the Proterozoic, it is unlikely to have been the only mechanism. Recent research Gupta, a, b, and an extensive literature indicates the other prokaryotic and the most genetically diverse domain of life, the Archaeans , evolved alongside each other and possibly swapped genes with the Eubacteria.

All prokaryotes both Eubacteria and the Archaeans reproduce by cell division binary or multiple fission and, lacking sex, are essentially clones and among the slowest evolving organisms.

Moreover, some microfossils actually, putative ancient cellular remnants indicate that primitive Eukaryotic microorganisms may have appeared prior to 3. Thus, before the end of the Archaean time some 2. Some were autotrophs, some chemotrophs and some heterotrophs, and collectively they had a multiplicity of metabolic processes from which to derive their energy, and as they do today.

Just as microorganisms were extremely diverse in deep time, so were there a corresponding extreme diversity of biogenic and chemical abiogenic mechanisms that are plausible for the formation of laminar carbonate and other structures that we call stromatolites, and the possible ancient cellular microstructions they might contain.

Ascribing all stromatolite formation in the Archaean and Proeterozoic to cyanobacteria, as is often seen in general literature, is incorrect. Whether or not stromatolites contain preserved cellular structures microfossils also remains highly contencious, especially in older Arachean rocks. Viewing these putative ancient cells requires special polishing techniques and high magnification. Additionally, Molecular fossils or fingerprints based on atom ratios in Archaean sediments is highly contencious, but scientifically critical, since such subtle molecular traces found in Australia has led to conjecture that microorganisms with nuclei appeared before 3.

Stromatolites may hold the key to determining one of the most important questions in evolutionary biology, how and when the tree of life branched into the three domains, the Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya.

Of particular importance is when microorganisms with advanced photosynthetic metabolism first appeared, since molecular phylogenetics suggests that all three domains would have already appeared and significant evolution must have already taken place Schopf, and Olson Equivalently important is when the eukaryotic nuclear genome became a chimera with contributions from both the Archaean and Bacteria Gupta, While there is scientific consensus that phosynthetic cyanobacteria became prodigious at some point in the Archaean, as evidenced by first the rusting of the earth and ultimately the oxygenation of the atmosphere, just when that occurred remains both uncertain and contentious.

More generally, stromatolitic laminate structures themselves as well as the putative cellular structures and molecular signatures they sometimes contain have been and remain controversial, since they can be explained by either biogenic or abiotic processes Grotzinger, Further confounding the definition of what is or nor not stromatolites is known processes for bacterially mediated precipitation of minerals Paerl, Warrawoona Group in Western Australia - a scientific dispute.

The putative stromatolites with microstructures resembling bacteria from the extensive stromatolitic formations of the 3,million-year-old Strelley Pool Chert within the Warrawoona Group in Western Australia have been hotly debated ever since their discovery by Lowe , Lowe later ascribed conical form genera to abiotic evaporative precipitation, as did Grotzinger , and Brasier also found no support for the microfossils as biomarkers.

Whether microstructures within the Warrawoona Group stromatolites are the imprints of ancient filamentous and possibly photosynthetic microbes as argued by Schopf , and Awramik became a heated debate that remains unresolved.

A recent and extensive study of seven distinct stromatolitic form genera by Allwood certainly lends support to proponents of biogenetic origins of the chert, since the simultaneous set of forms is more difficult to explain with known abiogenic processes. However, whether the microstructures are fossil microbes remains unresolved.

If they are microbe fossils, there would still remain the critical question of what type they are, archaea, cyanobacteria, another type of photosynthetic bacteria, chemosynthetic bacteria, or some combination of these. While the Warrawoona Group fossil microbes remain equivocal regarding biological origins, those of the 2 Bya Gunflint Chert in Canada is not. Gunflint microfossils are diverse, abundant, and resemble the form of modern bacteria Cloud, a; Cloud b; Knoll,