4.7 Article

The influence of Arctic Fe and Atlantic fixed N on summertime primary production in Fram Strait, North Greenland Sea

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-72100-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. GEOMAR
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG) [AC 217/1-1]
  3. Marie Skodowska-Curie Postdoctoral European Fellowship (OceanLiNES) [658035]
  4. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [658035] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Climate change has led to a similar to 40% reduction in summer Arctic sea-ice cover extent since the 1970s. Resultant increases in light availability may enhance phytoplankton production. Direct evidence for factors currently constraining summertime phytoplankton growth in the Arctic region is however lacking. GEOTRACES cruise GN05 conducted a Fram Strait transect from Svalbard to the NE Greenland Shelf in summer 2016, sampling for bioessential trace metals (Fe, Co, Zn, Mn) and macronutrients (N, Si, P) at similar to 79 degrees N. Five bioassay experiments were conducted to establish phytoplankton responses to additions of Fe, N, Fe+N and volcanic dust. Ambient nutrient concentrations suggested N and Fe were deficient in surface seawater relative to typical phytoplankton requirements. A west-to-east trend in the relative deficiency of N and Fe was apparent, with N becoming more deficient towards Greenland and Fe more deficient towards Svalbard. This aligned with phytoplankton responses in bioassay experiments, which showed greatest chlorophyll-a increases in+N treatment near Greenland and+N+Fe near Svalbard. Collectively these results suggest primary N limitation of phytoplankton growth throughout the study region, with conditions potentially approaching secondary Fe limitation in the eastern Fram Strait. We suggest that the supply of Atlantic-derived N and Arctic-derived Fe exerts a strong control on summertime nutrient stoichiometry and resultant limitation patterns across the Fram Strait region.

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