4.7 Article

Variability of the Brazil Current during the late Holocene

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2013.12.005

关键词

South Atlantic; Late Quaternary; Western boundary current; Stable oxygen isotopes; Mg/Ca; Planlctonic foraminifera

资金

  1. FAPESP [2010/09983-9, 2012/17517-3]
  2. DFG Research Center/Cluster of Excellence The Ocean in the Earth System
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [10/09983-9] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our understanding of the centennial-scale variability of the Brazil Current (BC) during the late Holocene is elusive because of the lack of appropriate records. Here we used the Mg/Ca and oxygen isotopic composition of planktonic foraminifera from two marine sediment cores collected at 27 S and 33 degrees S off southeastern South America to assess the late Holocene variability in the upper water column of the BC. Our results show in phase fluctuations of up to 3 degrees C in sea surface temperatures (SST), and 0.8% in oxygen isotopic composition of surface sea water, a proxy for relative sea surface salinity (SSS). Time-series analyses of our records indicate a cyc.licity with a period of ca. 730 yr. We suggest that the observed cyclicity reflects variability in the strength of the BC associated to changes in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC). Positive (negative) SST and SSS anomalies are related to a strong (weak) BC and a weak (strong) AMOC. Moreover, periods of peak strength in the BC occur synchronously to a weak North Brazil Current, negative SST anomalies in the high latitudes of the North Atlantic, and positive (negative) precipitation anomalies over southeastern South America (equatorial Africa), further corroborating our hypothesis. This study shows a tight coupling between the variability of the BC and the high latitudes of the North Atlantic mediated by the AMOC even under late Holocene boundary conditions. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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