3.9 Article

Coccolithophore paleoproductivity and ecology response to deglacial and Holocene changes in the Azores Current System

期刊

PALEOCEANOGRAPHY
卷 27, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2012PA002281

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungs Gemeinschaft (DFG)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to test the sensitivity of marine primary productivity in the midlatitude open ocean North Atlantic to changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), we investigated two spliced sediment cores from a site south of the Azores Islands at the northern rim of the North Atlantic subtropical gyre. For this purpose we analyzed coccolithophore assemblages, diatom abundances, alkenones and conducted X-ray fluorescence (XRF) core scanning. During times of reduced AMOC, especially during Heinrich event 1 (H1) and the Younger Dryas, we observe a strong increase in productivity as evidenced by high coccolith accumulation rates, high alkenone concentrations/accumulation rates, high Ba/Ti-ratios, high abundances of diatoms and low abundances of F. profunda. The increased productivity is partly caused by a more southern position of the Azores Front (AzF), and hence by a less northward extension of the subtropical gyre, as deduced from high abundances of the temperate coccolithophore species G. muellerae and low abundances of subtropical species (Oolithotus spp., Umbellosphaera spp., Umbilicosphaera spp.). However, to explain the full range of the observed productivity increase, other factors like increased westerly winds and advection of nutrient-rich surface waters have also to be considered. Because this pattern can also be observed in other sediment cores from the midlatitude North Atlantic, we propose that during times of reduced AMOC there has been a band of strongly increased productivity across the North Atlantic at the northern rim of the contracted subtropical gyre, which partly counteracts the decreased organic carbon pump in the high northern latitudes.

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

3.9
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