4.7 Article

Large differences between carbon and nutrient loss rates along the land to ocean aquatic continuumimplications for energy:nutrient ratios at downstream sites

期刊

LIMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY
卷 62, 期 -, 页码 S183-S193

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lno.10589

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union [643052]
  2. Swedish Research Council [2014-5910, 2016-04153]
  3. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW)
  4. Swedish Research Council [2016-04153] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The balance between the availability of energy and nutrients is decisive for the growth and survival of organisms. Here, we evaluated how energy, in this study expressed as total carbon (TC), is lost along the land to ocean aquatic continuum (LOAC) in relation to nutrients, i.e., total phosphorus (TP), total nitrogen (TN), total iron (TFe), and dissolved silica (DSi). For the evaluation, we used data from 4774 lakes, 149 streams, and 52 river mouths from the boreal region. We found that the loss of all chemical variables followed a first order decay function along the LOAC with shortest half-lives for TFe and DSi (410 d and 568 d, respectively). The half-life of TC was more than twice as long as for TFe and DSi, resulting in rapidly increasing TC:TFe and TC:DSi ratios along the LOAC. In contrast, TC:TP and TC:TN ratios decreased along the LOAC. The TC and TFe concentration declines along the LOAC were quantitatively similar to the TC and TFe concentration declines from winter to summer, indicating that similar drivers are responsible for spatial and seasonal TC and TFe losses in inland waters. We conclude that the energy:nutrient ratio rapidly changes along the LOAC with an increasing surplus of energy in relation to TFe and DSi the longer water stays in the landscape. These findings have implications for the growth of aquatic organisms along the LOAC, where organisms are likely to become increasingly iron and silica limited with increasing water retention in the landscape.

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