4.7 Article

Changing riverine organic C:N ratios along the Pearl River: Implications for estuarine and coastal carbon cycles

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 709, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136052

Keywords

Organic C:N ratio; Riverine organic carbon flux; Anthropogenic perturbation; Coastal ocean carbon cycle; Pearl River

Funding

  1. Guangdong-NSFC Joint Theme Project [U1701247]
  2. NSFC [91328203]
  3. NMENC-SYSU contract [201819]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the traditional view, riverine organic matter typically has a higher C:N ratio than marine phytoplankton 6.7:1 and has therefore been thought to be a carbon source in estuaries and coastal waters. Thus, a decrease in the riverine organic C:N ratio to <6.7:1 would potentially switch riverine organic matter from a coastal carbon source to sink. However, few studies have paid an attention to such a change. Our field investigation showed that organic C: N ratio was 11.8:1 in the pristine upstream section of a natural reserve, but decreased after the river passed through several urban cities, reaching 5.0:1 in near the Pearl River estuary. Along the river, dissolved inorganic nitrogen, total organic carbon and nitrogen all increased and they were highly negatively correlated with organic C:N ratios. The observation has a great implication that organic matter with a decreased C:N ratio from the Pearl River would potentially switch from a coastal carbon source of 2.8 x 10(11) g C/year to a sink of 2.2 x 10(11) g C/year. This carbon sink (2.2 x 10(11) g C/year) contributes to 56% of the previous estimate of the Pearl River estuarine-coastal net carbon sink. Such a decrease in organic C:N ratio also occurs in some other large rivers, which should be considered in the assessment of global coastal carbon budgets and metabolic balance. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available