4.6 Article

Declining Oxygen in the Northeast Pacific

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
卷 42, 期 3, 页码 495-501

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/JPO-D-11-0170.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [OCE-0527168, OCE-0961999, OCE-0000733, OCE-0001035]
  2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NA08NOS4730290]
  3. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
  4. Division Of Ocean Sciences
  5. Directorate For Geosciences [0961999] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Climate models predict a decrease in oceanic dissolved oxygen and a thickening of the oxygen minimum zone, associated with global warming. Comprehensive observational analyses of oxygen decline are challenging, given generally sparse historical data. The Newport hydrographic (NH) line off central Oregon is one of the few locations in the northeast Pacific with long oxygen records. Good quality data are available here primarily in two time blocks: 1960-71 and 1998-present. Standard sampling extends from midshelf (bottom depth of 58 m) to 157 km offshore (bottom depth of 2880 m). Shipboard measurements have been supplemented in recent years (2006-present) with data from autonomous underwater gliders. Oxygen declines significantly over this 50-yr period across the entire NH line. In addition to decrease in the vicinity of the oxygen minimum depth (similar to 800 m), oxygen decreases across a range of density surfaces sigma(theta) = 26-27 within the thermocline, in the depth range 100-550 m. A core of decreasing oxygen (0.7 +/- 0.2 mu mol kg(-1) yr(-1) or 0.016 +/- 0.005 ml l(-1) yr(-1)) is also found over the upper slope at 150-200-m depths, within the region of average northward flow associated with the poleward undercurrent. During the summer upwelling season, the largest decline is observed near bottom on the shelf: the dissolved oxygen of upwelled water, already low, is further reduced by shelf processes, leading to near-bottom hypoxia (<60 mu mol kg(-1)) on the Oregon shelf.

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