4.0 Article

Iron isotope systematics in Arctic rivers

Journal

COMPTES RENDUS GEOSCIENCE
Volume 347, Issue 7-8, Pages 377-385

Publisher

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.crte.2015.04.005

Keywords

Iron isotope; Colloids; River; Weathering; Arctic; Iron speciation

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [OCE 0550066]
  2. WHOI Arctic Research Initiative
  3. Labex Mer [ANR-10-LABX-19-01]
  4. FP7 [247837]
  5. RFFI [13-05-00890, 14-05-98815]
  6. BIO-GEO-CLIM [14.B25.31.0001]
  7. Office Of The Director
  8. Office of Integrative Activities [1330446] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The input of iron to the Arctic Ocean plays a critical role in the productivity of aquatic ecosystems and is potentially impacted by climate change. We examine Fe isotope systematics of dissolved and colloidal Fe from several Arctic and sub-Arctic rivers in northern Eurasia and Alaska. We demonstrate that the Fe isotopic (delta Fe-56) composition of large rivers, such as the Ob' and Lena, has a restricted range of delta Fe-56 values ca. -0.11 +/- 0.13 parts per thousand, with minimal seasonal variability, in stark contrast to smaller organic-rich rivers with an overall delta Fe-56 range from -1.7 to + 1.6 parts per thousand. The preferential enrichment with heavy Fe isotopes observed in low molecular weight colloidal fraction and during the high-flow period is consistent with the role of organic complexation of Fe. The light Fe isotope signatures of smaller rivers and meltwater reflect active redox cycling. Data synthesis reveals that small organic-rich rivers and meltwater in Arctic environments may contribute disproportionately to the input of labile Fe in the Arctic Ocean, while bearing contrasting Fe isotope compositions compared to larger rivers. (C) 2015 Academie des sciences. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available