Fossil plants in sub-basaltic andfluvial silcretes differ in their geological setting, silica source, taphonomy, preservation and the plants and communities represented: these factors collectively indicate distinct silicification pathways. This review shows that the floras in sub-basaltic silcretes are mostly autochthonous, being derived from the local vegetation, whereas the floras in inland fluvial silcretes are transported andallochthonous. The floras in both are three-dimensionally preserved. The plantsin sub-basaltic silcretes areusually permineralised, preserving internal anatomy and cellular morphology, whereas the plants in inland fluvial silcretes occur as moulds/impressions that may preserve epidermal andsurface features. Both types of silcrete floras offer insights into past environments and ecological drivers. Terrestrial (ground-dwelling) ferns are frequently preservedin situin sub-basaltic silcretes whilst in the inland fluvial silcretes they are represented only by pinnule fragments or abscised pinnules. The extraordinary anatomical preservation of soft tissues in sub-basaltic silcretes, e.g., exocarps of fruits, bark on wood, actively growing vegetative shoots (fern croziers) and root nodules, is evidence of rapid burial by volcanogenic sediments and subsequent silicification by silica-richgroundwaters. The source of silica was hydrothermal fluids released at the time of eruption and/or the weathering of overlying volcanics, and the acidic (humic) conditions resulting from buried plant material provided ideal geochemical conditions for silica precipitation and plantpermineralisation. The sub-basaltic silcrete floras formed contemporaneously with Eocene–Miocene volcanism in eastern Australia, whereas the formation of inland pedogenic and fluvial silcretes was probably initiated during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). The fine surface preservation of plants in inland fluvial silcrete floras indicates rapid burial but no organic material is preserved, probably because oxidising groundwaters stripped out the organics before silicification occurred. The comparatively less silica-rich groundwaters associated withfluvial silcretes and the sandy substrates would have further contributed to the loss of plant material.
Read full abstract