4.4 Article

Carbon dioxide concentrations in eutrophic lakes: undersaturation implies atmospheric uptake

期刊

INLAND WATERS
卷 1, 期 2, 页码 125-132

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.5268/IW-1.2.366

关键词

atmospheric flux; carbon cycling; carbon dioxide; eutrophication; lakes

资金

  1. National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis
  2. NSF [DEB-94-21535, DEB-1021525]
  3. University of California at Santa Barbara
  4. State of California
  5. Iowa Department of Natural Resources
  6. Iowa State University limnology laboratory Carlander-Bachmann internship program
  7. NSF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding concentrations and contributions of carbon dioxide (CO2) in aquatic ecosystems is an important part of a comprehensive global carbon budget. Current dogma suggests that world lakes are important emitters of CO2 to the atmosphere. We estimated the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (rho CO2) in 131 agriculturally eutrophic lakes over a 7 year sampling period. Values of rho CO2 in these lakes ranged from 0.1 to 40 392 mu atm with a median of 322 mu atm (n = 3049). In contrast to previous analyses of CO2 in lakes, 60% of the eutrophic lake samples were undersaturated with CO2. Correlation analysis implied that nutrient-driven primary production, reflected by high oxygen concentrations, drives CO2 concentrations below atmospheric equilibrium. Multiple regression analysis showed several limno-logical and catchment characteristics that explained a statistically significant amount of variability in rho CO2 (R-2 = 0.32). Important variables included chlorophyll a concentration and the ratio of total nitrogen to total phosphorus. Our estimated rho CO2 values were significantly (p < 0.0001) lower than a previously published dataset of world lake rho CO2 values derived primarily from oligotrophic-mesotrophic lakes. High-nutrient lakes, especially those that are small and rich in oxygen from primary production, could act as net atmospheric CO2 uptake sites.

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

4.4
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