Comment on “Evaluation of palaeo-oxygenation of the ocean bottom cross the Permian–Triassic boundary” by Kakuwa (2008): Was the Late Permian deep-superocean really oxic?

Nearly 15 years after the proposal of the superanoxia concept (Isozaki, Y., 1994. Superanoxia across the Permo–Triassic boundary: record in accreted deep-sea pelagic chert in Japan. In: Embry, A.F., Beauchamp, B., Glass, D.J. (Eds.), Pangea: Global Environments and Resources. Memoir, Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, 17, pp. 805–812.), it is an appropriate timing to re-evaluate its geological context with the updated dataset. Kakuwa (Kakuwa, Y., 2008. Evaluation of palaeo-oxygenation of the ocean bottom across the Permian–Triassic boundary. Global and Planetary Change 63, 40–56.) lately discussed that the deep-sea anoxia across the Permian–Triassic boundary (P–TB) may have been much shorter than previously proposed, on the basis of ichnofabrics and geochemical data; however, his interpretations of the data do not appear straightforward nor persuading, and thus his claim is likely misled. Here we raise comments to his explanation on the following four issues: 1) invalid application of ichnofabric indices for shallow sea sediments to deep-sea cherts, 2) misinterpretation of Ce anomaly as a redox indicator, 3) improper application of various redox sensitive trace elements, and 4) questionable interpretations of δ34S data of pyrites.