Evidence for high salinity of Early Cretaceous sea water from the Chesapeake Bay crater

Abstract

High-salinity groundwater more than 1,000 metres deep in the Atlantic coastal plain of the USA has been documented in several locations1,2, most recently within the 35-million-year-old Chesapeake Bay impact crater3,4,5. Suggestions for the origin of increased salinity in the crater have included evaporite dissolution6, osmosis6 and evaporation from heating7 associated with the bolide impact. Here we present chemical, isotopic and physical evidence that together indicate that groundwater in the Chesapeake crater is remnant Early Cretaceous North Atlantic (ECNA) sea water. We find that the sea water is probably 100–145 million years old and that it has an average salinity of about 70 per mil, which is twice that of modern sea water and consistent with the nearly closed ECNA basin8. Previous evidence for temperature and salinity levels of ancient oceans have been estimated indirectly from geochemical, isotopic and palaeontological analyses of solid materials in deep sediment cores. In contrast, our study identifies ancient sea water in situ and provides a direct estimate of its age and salinity. Moreover, we suggest that it is likely that remnants of ECNA sea water persist in deep sediments at many locations along the Atlantic margin.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Map showing locations of Chesapeake Bay crater and coreholes.
Figure 2: Chloride and isotope results from the deep ICDP-USGS corehole.
Figure 3: Helium-based age estimates for the deep Chesapeake crater groundwater.
Figure 4: Plate-tectonic reconstruction of the ECNA ocean.

References

  1. 1

    Manheim, F. & Paull, C. Patterns of groundwater salinity changes in a deep continental-oceanic transect off the southeastern Atlantic coast of the USA. J. Hydrol. 54, 95–105 (1981)

    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Meisler, H. The occurrence and geochemistry of salty groundwater in the Northern Atlantic coastal plain. US Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. Report 1404-D (1989)

  3. 3

    Poag, C., Koeberl, C. & Reimold, W. The Chesapeake Crater—Geology and Geophysics of a Late Eocene Submarine Impact Structure (Springer, 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    McFarland, E. & Bruce, T. Distribution, origin, and resource-management implications of ground-water salinity along the western margin of the Chesapeake Bay impact structure in eastern Virginia. US Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 1688, K1–K32 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    McFarland, E. Groundwater quality data and regional trends in the Virginia Coastal Plain, 1906–2007. US Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. Report. 1772, (2010)

  6. 6

    Poag, C. Chesapeake Invader: Discovering America’s Giant Meteorite Crater (Princeton Univ. Press, 1999)

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Sanford, W. Heat flow and brine evolution following the Chesapeake Bay bolide impact. J. Geochem. Explor. 78–79, 243–247 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Hay, W. et al. in The Evolution of Cretaceous Ocean/Climate Systems (eds Barrera, E. & Johnson, E. ) Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 332, 1–47 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Spangler, W. Subsurface geology of Atlantic Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 34, 100–132 (1950)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Radford, L., Cobb, L. & McCoy, R. Atlantic Coastal Plain Geothermal Drilling Program, DOE/Crisfield Airport No. 1 Well, Somerset County, Maryland. Tech. Rep. ET/28373–1 (Department of Energy, 1980)

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Cederstrom, D. Chloride in groundwater in the coastal plain of Virginia. Virginia Geol. Surv. Bull. 58, 1–384 (1943)

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Neuzil, C. & Provost, A. Recent experimental data may point to a greater role for osmotic pressures in the subsurface. Wat. Resour. Res. 45, 1–14 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Sanford, W. et al. Drilling the central crater of the Chesapeake Bay impact structure: a first look. Eos 85, 369–377 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Gohn, G. et al. Site report for USGS test holes drilled at Cape Charles, Northampton county, Virginia, in 2004. US Geol. Surv. Open-file Rep. Report. 2007–1094 (2007)

  15. 15

    Gohn, G. et al. Chesapeake Bay impact structure drilled. Eos 87, 349–355 (2006)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Gohn, G. et al. Deep drilling into the Chesapeake Bay impact structure. Science 320, 1740–1745 (2008)

    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Sanford, W. A simulation of the hydrothermal response to the Chesapeake Bay bolide impact. Geofluids 5, 185–201 (2005)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Malinconico, M., Sanford, W. & Horton, J. Postimpact heat conduction and compaction-driven fluid flow in the Chesapeake Bay impact structure based on downhole vitrinite reflectance data, ICDP-USGS Eyreville deep core holes and Cape Charles test holes. Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Am. 458, 905–930 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Sanford, W. et al. Pore-water chemistry from the ICDP-USGS core hole in the Chesapeake Bay impact structure—implications for paleohydrology, microbial habitat, and water resources. Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Am. 458, 867–890 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Davis, S., Whittemore, D. & Fabryka-Martin, J. Uses of chloride/bromide ratios in studies of potable water. Ground Water 36, 338–350 (1998)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Jones, C., Jenkyns, H., Coe, A. & Stephen, H. Strontium isotope variations in Jurassic and Cretaceous seawater. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 58, 3061–3074 (1994)

    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Bullen, T., Krabbenhoft, D. & Kendall, C. Kinetic and mineralogic controls on the evolution of groundwater chemistry and 87Sr/86Sr in a sandy silicate aquifer, northern Wisconsin, USA. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 60, 1807–1821 (1996)

    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Ingebritsen, S., Sanford, W. & Neuzil, C. Groundwater in Geologic Process (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006)

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Oxburgh, E., O’Nions, R. & Hill, R. Helium isotopes in sedimentary basins. Nature 324, 632–635 (1986)

    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Plummer, L. et al. Old groundwater in parts of the upper Patapsco aquifer, Atlantic Coastal Plain, Maryland, USA: evidence from radiocarbon, chlorine-36 and helium-4. Hydrogeol. J. 20, 1269–1294 (2012)

    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    McFarland, E. & Bruce, T. The Virginia coastal plain hydrogeologic framework. US Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. Report. 1731 (2006)

  27. 27

    Evans, R. Origin and significance of evaporites in basins around Atlantic margin. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 62, 223–234 (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Arthur, M. & Natland, J. in Deep Drilling in the Atlantic Ocean: Continental Margins and Paleoenvironment Vol. 3 (eds Talawani, M., Hay, W. & Ryan, B. F. ) 375–401 (American Geophysical Union, 1979)

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Friedrich, O., Erbacher, J., Moriya, K. & Wilson, P. Warm saline intermediate waters in the Cretaceous tropical Atlantic Ocean. Nature Geosci. 1, 453–457 (2008)

    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Wagner, T. et al. Rapid warming and salinity changes of Cretaceous surface waters in the subtropical North Atlantic. Geology 36, 203–206 (2008)

    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Rostad, C. & Sanford, W. Polar organic compounds in pore waters of the Chesapeake Bay crater deep core hole: character of the dissolved organic carbon and drilling fluid detection. Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 458, 891–903 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Revesz, K. & Coplen, T. Determination of the δ(2H/1H) of water. USGS Techniques and Methods Report, Vol. 10, Ch. C1 (US Geological Survey, 2008)

  33. 33

    Revesz, K. & Coplen T Determination of the δ(18O/16O) of water. USGS Techniques and Methods Report, Vol. 10, Ch. C2 (US Geological Survey, 2008)

  34. 34

    Carmody, R. et al. Methods for collection of dissolved sulfate and sulfide and analysis of their sulfur isotopic composition. US Geol. Surv. Open-file Rep. Report. 97–234 (1997)

  35. 35

    Brenna, J. et al. High-precision continuous-flow isotope ratio mass spectrometry. Mass Spectrom. Rev. 16, 227–258 (1997)

    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Barth, S. Boron isotopic analysis of natural fresh and saline water by negative thermal ionization mass spectrometry. Chem. Geol. 143, 255–261 (1997)

    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37

    Sturchio, N. et al. in Perchlorate, Environmental Occurrence, Interactions and Treatment (eds Gu, B. & Coates, J. D. ) Ch. 5 93–107 (Springer, 2006)

  38. 38

    Beyerle, U. et al. A mass spectrometric system for the analysis of noble gases and tritium from water samples. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34, 2042–2050 (2000)

    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39

    Mazurek, M. et al. Natural tracer profiles across argillaceous formations. Appl. Geochem. 26, 1035–1064 (2011)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Browning, J. et al. Integrated sequence stratigraphy of the postimpact sediments from the Eyreville core holes, Chesapeake Bay impact structure inner basin. Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 458, 775–810 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

H. Qi of the USGS in Reston assisted with δ2H, δ18O, and δ34S measurements of water and dissolved sulphate. N. Sturchio of the University of Chicago analysed δ37Cl. D. Webster and N. Bach of the USGS extracted pore waters from the cores in Reston, Virginia. J. Little, C. Johnson-Griscavage and J. Koch of the USGS extracted pore waters from the cores in Denver, Colorado. G. Casile of the USGS in Reston sampled the deep wells for dissolved gas analysis at Eyreville and Cape Charles. W. Aleman-Gonzalez, N. Bach, C. Durand, L. Edwards, J. Glidewell, J. Kirshtein, T. Kraemer, D. Larsen, M. Lowit, H. Michael, J. Murray, A. Palmer-Julson, E. Seefelt, J. Self-Trail, M. Voytek, D. Webster and B. Zinn all helped collect core samples during the three months of 24-hour drilling. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US government.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

W.E.S. compiled and interpreted the data, performed the transport simulations and wrote this article. M.W.D. analysed pore waters for the major anions and cations. T.B.C. analysed the pore waters and dissolved sulphate for their δ2H, δ18O and δ34S values. A.G.H. analysed the well-water samples for the total dissolved helium and helium isotope ratios. T.D.B. analysed the pore waters for the boron and strontium isotopic compositions and interpreted their values.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ward E. Sanford.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 Results from major cation and anion analyses.

Results from the analyses of major cation and anion concentrations and their ratios in the crater corehole pore waters19. Chloride and bromide results are given in Fig. 2. The vertical dashed black lines represent concentrations or values for modern sea water. For additional discussion see Supplementary Information.

Extended Data Figure 2 Plot of strontium and boron isotope measurements.

Plot showing the water–rock interaction of pre-impact igneous basement and resurge blocks according to the mixing lines of dissolved strontium and boron isotopes. Blue diamonds and red squares represent analyses of pore waters from cores of pre-impact and post-impact sediments from the Eyreville drill hole, respectively. For additional discussion see Methods.

Extended Data Figure 3 Detailed results from chloride and 18O transport simulations.

Results from the numerical simulation of chloride and δ18O diffusion and vertical advection. Shown are the transient change in the top model boundary condition over time, including the upward migration of the sediment–water interface and the changes in chlorinity (a), the simulated change in chloride concentration with depth and time (b), and the simulated change in δ18O abundances relative to VSMOW (Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water) with depth and time (c). Red lines are simulated values, and black diamonds shown in the 1-Myr and 0-Myr panels are observation data from cores for comparison. Simulations use the best-fit parameter values of Dm = 2 × 10−12 m2 s−1 and q = 3.5 m Myr−1. For additional discussion see Methods.

Extended Data Figure 4 Stable chloride isotope results.

a, Major lithologies drilled at the Chesapeake Bay impact crater, along with observed δ37Cl data and results of numerical simulations of δ37Cl relative to SMOC (standard mean ocean chloride) using the best-fit parameters of the chloride and δ18O advection–diffusion simulations (Fig. 2). Two conceptual models were investigated to explain the observed data, including isotopic fractionation using a ratio of diffusion coefficients of 37Cl/35Cl of 1.002, as observed in other argillaceous materials39 (b) and a δ37Cl anomaly in the resurge breccias created at the time of impact 35 Myr ago (c). The value of −14 per mil for the anomaly was the optimal value to fit the observed data. For additional discussion, see Supplementary Information.

Extended Data Figure 5 Uncertainty analysis for the chloride and 18O transport simulations.

Plots showing model uncertainty relative to the most realistic boundary conditions and global best-fit parameter values for Cl (a) and δ18O (e). Alternative boundary conditions include no sedimentation history (b, f), no transient change in the upper boundary salinity (c, g), and neither of these (d, h) for both chloride (bd) and δ18O (fh). Variations for the best-fit parameters including half (i, k, m, o) and twice (j, l, n, p) the best-fit values for both the coefficient of molecular diffusion (Dm) (il) and the magnitude of the upward fluid flux q (mp). Filled and open circles represent those data points used in the sum-of-squared-errors (SSE) calculation, and those not used, respectively. Solid lines are simulation results. For plots ip one of the two parameters is reset, and the other readjusted to a new best fit. For additional discussion see Methods.

Extended Data Figure 6 Simulation of pre-impact chloride profile.

Simulated chloride concentrations through the pre-impact coastal plain sediments. The black, red and blue lines indicate chloride concentrations at the end of the Early Cretaceous, at the end of the Cretaceous Period and at the time of the bolide impact, respectively. For additional discussion see Supplementary Information.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains the Supplementary Discussion and additional references. (PDF 189 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sanford, W., Doughten, M., Coplen, T. et al. Evidence for high salinity of Early Cretaceous sea water from the Chesapeake Bay crater. Nature 503, 252–256 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12714

Download citation

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing