Advertisement

Sulfides in the Mammoth Cave Area, Kentucky

  • Rickard A. OlsonEmail author
Chapter
  • 1k Downloads
Part of the Cave and Karst Systems of the World book series (CAKASYWO)

Abstract

The Mammoth Cave area is best known for its epigenic caves. However, the area also contains examples formed or modified by sulfide-rich brines, some associated with petroleum. These include hydrogen sulfide in shallow aquifers generated by reduction in gypsum and anhydrite beds and nodules a few tens of meters beneath the lowest cave passages in Mammoth Cave; sulfides generated in oil reservoirs located in structural traps; and rare sulfide seeps intruding into the cave system that cause local dissolution and a proliferation of cave biota. A highly acidic stream enters at least one cave in the region, and although its effect is subdued by nearby sources of meteoric water, it demonstrates the potential for significant hypogene cave development in the region. Oxidation of iron sulfide inclusions in the host limestones has produced weathering rinds and minor solutional effects on cave passages.

Keywords

Mammoth Cave Hydrogen sulfide Hydrocarbons Hypogenic seeps Biota 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Art and Peg Palmer, Horton Hobbs III, and Rickard Toomey III for help with the fieldwork, and to Kurt Helf for reviewing this paper.

References

  1. Angert E, Northup D, Reysenbach A, Peek A, Goebel B, Pace N (1998) Molecular phylogenentic analysis of a bacterial community in Sulphur River in Parker Cave, Kentucky. Am Miner 83:1583–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bullitt A (1845) Rambles in the Mammoth Cave during the year 1844 by a visiter. Morton and Griswold, Louisville, KentuckyGoogle Scholar
  3. Culver D, Sket B (2000) Hot spots of subterranean biodiversity in caves and wells. J cave karst stud 62(1):16Google Scholar
  4. Freeman L (1951) Regional aspects of Silurian and Devonian stratigraphy in Kentucky. Issue 6 of Bulletin Series IX, Kentucky Geological Survey: 347, 349, 408, 415, 434,512, 527, 528Google Scholar
  5. Hutchins B, Engel A, Nowlin W, Schwartz B (2016) Chemolithoautotrophy supports macroinvertebrate food webs and affects diversity and stability in groundwater communities. Ecol 97(6):1530–1542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kentucky New Era (1995) Oil boom boosting hopes of community. Kentucky New Era Newspaper, Hopkinsville, Kentucky, 19 Apr 1995Google Scholar
  7. Krothe N, Libra R (1983) Sulfur isotopes and hydrochemical variations in spring waters of Southern Indiana, USA. J Hydrol 61:267–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lisowski E, Olson R, Roy W, Thompson B (1985) Geochemistry and biology of Sulphur River, Parker Cave, Kentucky. Cave Research Foundation 1985 annual report, pp 26–27Google Scholar
  9. Metzger G, Fike D, Osburn R, Guo C, Addison A (2015) The source of gypsum in Mammoth Cave. Ky Geol 43(2):187–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Olson R (1992) The source of Sulphur River in Parker Cave, Kentucky, a case of oil well pollution or a natural rise of brine? Natl Speleol Soc Bull 54(2):85–86Google Scholar
  11. Olson R (2013) Potential effects of hydrogen sulfide and hydrocarbon seeps on Mammoth Cave Ecosystems. In: Mammoth Cave National Park’s 10th research symposium, pp 25–30, 14–15 Feb 2013Google Scholar
  12. Olson R, Thompson B (1988) Scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray analysis of artificial and natural substrates from the phantom flowstone of sulphur river in Parker Cave. Ky Natl Speleol Soc Bull 50:47Google Scholar
  13. Palmer A (1981) A geological guide to Mammoth Cave National Park. Zephyrus press, Teaneck, NJ, p 64, 102Google Scholar
  14. Palmer A (2007) Cave geology. Cave Books, Dayton, OH, pp 224–225Google Scholar
  15. Peale A (1886) Lists and analyses of the mineral springs of the United States. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 32. Washington Government Printing Office, p 235Google Scholar
  16. Pearson W and Jones T (1998) A final report based on a faunal inventory of subterranean streams and development of a cave aquatic biological monitoring program using a modified index of biotic integrity. Report on file at Mammoth Cave National Park, Division of Science and Resources Management, p 139Google Scholar
  17. Quinlan J, Rowe D (1978) Hydrology and water quality in the Central Kentucky Karst: phase II, part A: preliminary summary of the hydrogeology of the Mill Hole sub-basin of the Turnhole Spring Groundwater Basin. University of Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute, Lexington, KentuckyGoogle Scholar
  18. Roy W (1988) Preliminary assessment of the solution equilibria of Sulphur River in Parker Cave, Kentucky. NSS Bull 50:37–41Google Scholar
  19. Sulphur Well Homemakers (2000) Sulphur well history. Reprinted April 2000. The Printing Press, Edmonton, KentuckyGoogle Scholar
  20. Thompson B, Olson R (1988) A preliminary survey of the protozoa and bacteria from Sulphur River in Parker Cave, Kentucky. Natl Speleol Soc Bull 50:42Google Scholar
  21. Webster KD, Etiope G, Drobniak A, Schimmelmann A, Pratt L (2012) Measurement of terrestrial methane concentrations comparable to proposed methane concentrations on Mars. International Workshop on Instrumentation for Planetary Missions, Abstract #1009, Greenbelt, Maryland, 10–12 Oct 2, http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/ipm2012/pdf/1009.pdf
  22. White W, Watson R, Pohl E, Brucker R (1970) The central Kentucky karst. Geogr Rev 60:88–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cave CityUSA

Personalised recommendations