4.8 Article

Eocene emergence of highly calcifying coccolithophores despite declining atmospheric CO2

期刊

NATURE GEOSCIENCE
卷 15, 期 10, 页码 826-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41561-022-01006-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. NERC PhD studentship [NE/L002612/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coccolithophores, a type of unicellular calcifying phytoplankton, have been found to have higher calcification-to-carbon fixation ratios during the warm Eocene period. This may have played a role in positively feedbacking the reduction of atmospheric CO2 levels. This finding challenges the current understanding that decreasing p(CO)(2) leads to reduced calcification.
Coccolithophores, a group of unicellular calcifying phytoplankton, have been major contributors to marine carbonate production since the calcite plates that they produce (coccoliths) first appeared in the fossil record over 200 million years ago (Ma). The response of this process to changes in environment on evolutionary timescales remains poorly understood, particularly in warm climates. Here we integrate a dataset consisting of carbon isotope ratios of size-separated coccolith calcite from marine sediments with a cell-scale model to interrogate cellular carbon fluxes and p(CO2) through the Eocene (similar to 55-34 Ma), Earth's hottest interval of the past 100 million years. We show that the large coccolithophores that rose to dominate the oceans through the Eocene have higher calcification-to-carbon fixation ratios than their predecessors while the opposite is true for smaller coccolithophores. These changes, which occurred in the context of increasing ocean alkalization, may have played a role in an apparent positive carbon cycle feedback to decreasing p(CO)(2). Our approach also provides independent support of multiproxy-based evidence for general p(CO)(2) decline through the Eocene in step with temperature. Together, this challenges the emerging view that a general decline in p(CO)(2) reduces calcification on evolutionary timescales.

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