4.7 Article

Environmental controls of marine productivity hot spots around Antarctica

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-OCEANS
卷 120, 期 8, 页码 5545-5565

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2015JC010888

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [ANT-1063592]
  2. NASA [NNX10AF42G]
  3. NASA [133591, NNX10AF42G] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antarctic coastal polynyas are biologically rich ecosystems that support large populations of mammals and birds and are globally significant sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide. To support local phytoplankton blooms, these highly productive ecosystems require a large input of iron (Fe), the sources of which are poorly known. Here we assess the relative importance of six different environmental factors in controlling the amount of phytoplankton biomass and rates of net primary production (NPP) in 46 coastal polynyas around Antarctica. Data presented here suggest that melting ice shelves are a primary supplier of Fe to coastal polynyas, with basal melt rates explaining 59% of the between-polynya variance in mean chlorophyll a (Chl a) concentration. In a multiple regression analysis, which explained 78% of the variance in chlorophyll a (Chl a) between polynyas, basal melt rate explained twice as much of the variance as the next most important variable. Fe upwelled from sediments, which is partly controlled by continental shelf width, was also important in some polynyas. Of secondary importance to phytoplankton abundance and NPP were sea surface temperature and polynya size. Surprisingly, differences in light availability and the length of the open water season explained little or none of the variance in either Chl a or NPP between polynyas. If the productivity of coastal polynyas is indeed sensitive to the release of Fe from melting ice shelves, future changes in ice shelf melt rates could dramatically influence Antarctic coastal ecosystems and the ability of continental shelf waters to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide.

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