4.6 Article

Source area and seasonal 87Sr/86Sr variations in rivers of the Amazon basin

期刊

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 187-197

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.10131

关键词

Amazon basin; dissolved strontium isotopes; Amazon River; seasonal variation; erosion source rock

资金

  1. CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico) [CNPq 482018/2007-0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report the results of a detailed study of dissolved Sr isotopes in the Solimoes and Beni-Madeira Rivers of the Amazon basin. This study developed data collected over 8years indicating large spatial and temporal variations in dissolved Sr isotopes among the rivers of the Amazon basin. The large Sr-87/Sr-86 variations were found to be correlated with the geology of the source areas of the suspended sediments. The Beni-Madeira River displays a high average Sr-87/Sr-86 ratio and large Sr-87/Sr-86 fluctuations during the hydrological cycle. This large average value and fluctuations were related to the presence of Precambrian rocks and Ordovician sediments in the source area of the suspended sediment of the river. In contrast, the Solimoes River displays a narrow range of Sr isotope ratio variations and an average value close to 0.709. This river drains mostly Phanerozoic rocks of northern Peru and Ecuador that are characterized by low Sr isotope ratios. The isotopic fluctuations in the Beni-Madeira River were observed to propagate downstream at least as far as bidos. This signal is characterized by an inverse relationship between the concentration of elemental Sr and its isotopic ratios. We further demonstrate that the Sr isotopic composition and content in the Beni-Madeira River is controlled by suspended sediments derived from the Andes. Despite draining areas underlain by Precambrian rocks and having high Sr-87/Sr-86 ratios, such rivers as the Negro and Tapajos play a minor role in the total Sr budget of the Amazon basin. Copyright (c) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据