4.8 Article

The interplay between regeneration and scavenging fluxes drives ocean iron cycling

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-12775-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Tasmania
  2. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union [724289]
  3. Australian Research Council [FT130100037, DP150100345, DP170102108, FL160100131]
  4. Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre
  5. NSF OCE [0223378, 0649639, 0752832, 1232814, 1435862]
  6. National Science Foundation [DMR-1157490]
  7. State of Florida
  8. DOE Office of Science [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  9. Directorate For Geosciences
  10. Division Of Ocean Sciences [0752832, 1435862, 0223378, 1232814] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  11. Directorate For Geosciences
  12. Division Of Ocean Sciences [0649639] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite recent advances in observational data coverage, quantitative constraints on how different physical and biogeochemical processes shape dissolved iron distributions remain elusive, lowering confidence in future projections for iron-limited regions. Here we show that dissolved iron is cycled rapidly in Pacific mode and intermediate water and accumulates at a rate controlled by the strongly opposing fluxes of regeneration and scavenging. Combining new data sets within a watermass framework shows that the multidecadal dissolved iron accumulation is much lower than expected from a meta-analysis of iron regeneration fluxes. This mismatch can only be reconciled by invoking significant rates of iron removal to balance iron regeneration, which imply generation of authigenic particulate iron pools. Consequently, rapid internal cycling of iron, rather than its physical transport, is the main control on observed iron stocks within intermediate waters globally and upper ocean iron limitation will be strongly sensitive to subtle changes to the internal cycling balance.

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