4.7 Article

Peatland initiation and carbon accumulation in the Falkland Islands

期刊

QUATERNARY SCIENCE REVIEWS
卷 212, 期 -, 页码 213-218

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.03.022

关键词

South Atlantic; Carbon accumulation; Bog; Peat; Holocene

资金

  1. Quaternary Research Association
  2. Russian Science Foundation [17-14-00017]
  3. UK Department of Business, Energy, Innovation and Skills
  4. University of York
  5. Russian Science Foundation [17-14-00017] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic Ocean contain extensive peatlands at the edge of their global climatic envelope, but the long-term carbon dynamics of these sites is poorly quantified. We present new data for ten sites, compile previously-published data and produce a new synthesis. Many peatlands in the Falkland Islands developed notably early, with a fifth of basal C-14 dates pre-Holocene. Falkland Islands peats have high ash content, high carbon content and high bulk density compared to global norms. In many sites carbon accumulation rates are extremely low, which may partly relate to low average rainfall, or to carbon loss through burning and aeolian processes. However, in coastal Tussac peatlands carbon accumulation can be extremely rapid. Our re-analysis of published data from Beauchene Island, the southernmost of the Falkland Islands, yields an exceptional long-term apparent carbon accumulation rate of 139 g C m(-2) yr(-1), to our knowledge the highest recorded for any global peatland. This high accumulation might relate to the combination of a long growing-season and marine nutrient inputs. Given extensive coverage and carbon-dense peats the carbon stock of Falkland Islands peatlands is clearly considerable but robust quantification will require the development of a reliable peat map. Falkland Island peatlands challenge many standard assumptions and deserve more detailed study. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. 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