4.7 Article

Recycling and deposition of inorganic carbon from calcium carbonate encrustations of charophytes

期刊

LIMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lno.12479

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the fate of inorganic carbon accumulated by Chara and Nitellopsis in six Polish lakes. The results showed that the efficiency of CaCO3 release varied between different species of these two genera. The study also found that lake water properties and overwintering patterns influenced the final loss of CaCO3.
Many aquatic primary producers can use bicarbonates as a carbon source for photosynthesis. Charophytes of the two genera: Chara and Nitellopsis are quite efficient in this process. Some species of these macroalgae produce carbonate encrustations, mainly calcium carbonate, constituting up to 86% of the summer maximum dry weight of the standing crop. In this study, we analyzed the fate of inorganic carbon accumulated this way in Chara spp. and Nitellopsis obtusa from six Polish lakes located in two regions (warmer W Poland and cooler NE Poland). Our study distinguished two groups of charophyte species that differed in the way of CaCO3 release from their summer standing crops. On average, the corticate Chara rudis and C. tomentosa belonging to the first group were less efficient in depositing CaCO3 from summer to autumn than the less corticate C. contraria and ecorticate N. obtusa of the second group. The latter two species were more efficient in inorganic carbon burial in sediments. On the contrary, dissolution of encrustation was more typical of the first species group and was facilitated by decreasing the pH and saturation index of calcite in lake water. The final output of CaCO3 loss mainly resulted from combined species-specific features, lake water properties and overwintering patterns. Our study revealed that inorganic carbon cycling through charophytes involves burial and dissolution and is more complex than previously thought.

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