4.8 Article

Sustained wood burial in the Bengal Fan over the last 19 My

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1913714116

关键词

carbon cycle; wood; lignin; Himalaya; Bengal Fan

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [OCE-1401217, COL-T354A55, OCE-1400805]
  2. University of Southern California Provost's Fellowship
  3. IODP-France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Ganges-Brahmaputra (G-B) River system transports over a billion tons of sediment every year from the Himalayan Mountains to the Bay of Bengal and has built the world's largest active sedimentary deposit, the Bengal Fan. High sedimentation rates drive exceptional organic matter preservation that represents a long-term sink for atmospheric CO2. While much attention has been paid to organic-rich fine sediments, coarse sediments have generally been overlooked as a locus of organic carbon (OC) burial. However, International Ocean Discovery Program Expedition 354 recently discovered abundant woody debris (millimeter- to centimeter-sized fragments) preserved within the coarse sediment layers of turbidite beds recovered from 6 marine drill sites along a transect across the Bengal Fan (similar to 8 degrees N, similar to 3,700-m water depth) with recovery spanning 19 My. Analysis of bulk wood and lignin finds mostly lowland origins of wood delivered episodically. In the last 5 My, export included C-4 plants, implying that coarse woody, lowland export continued after C-4 grassland expansion, albeit in reduced amounts. Substantial export of coarse woody debris in the last 1 My included one wood-rich deposit (similar to 0.05 Ma) that encompassed coniferous wood transported from the headwaters. In coarse layers, we found on average 0.16 weight % OC, which is half the typical biospheric OC content of sediments exported by the modern G-B Rivers. Wood burial estimates are hampered by poor drilling recovery of sands. However, high-magnitude, low-frequency wood export events are shown to be a key mechanism for C burial in turbidites.

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

4.8
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