4.7 Article

Carbon export and transfer to depth across the Southern Ocean Great Calcite Belt

期刊

BIOGEOSCIENCES
卷 12, 期 13, 页码 3953-3971

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/bg-12-3953-2015

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [OCE-0960880, OCE-0961660]
  2. NASA [NNX11A072G, NNX11AL93G]
  3. NASA [141781, NNX11AL93G] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sequestration of carbon by the marine biological pump depends on the processes that alter, remineralize, and preserve particulate organic carbon (POC) during transit to the deep ocean. Here, we present data collected from the Great Calcite Belt, a calcite-rich band across the Southern Ocean surface, to compare the transformation of POC in the euphotic and mesopelagic zones of the water column. The Th-234-derived export fluxes and size-fractionated concentrations of POC, particulate inorganic carbon (PIC), and biogenic silica (BSi) were measured from the upper 1000m of 27 stations across the Atlantic and Indian sectors of the Great Calcite Belt. POC export out of the euphotic zone was correlated with BSi export. PIC export was not, but did correlate positively with POC flux transfer efficiency. Moreover, regions of high BSi concentrations, which corresponded to regions with proportionally larger particles, exhibited higher attenuation of >51 mu m POC concentrations in the mesopelagic zone. The interplay among POC size partitioning, mineral composition, and POC attenuation suggests a more fundamental driver of POC transfer through both depth regimes in the Great Calcite Belt. In particular, we argue that diatom-rich communities produce large and labile POC aggregates, which not only generate high export fluxes but also drive more remineralization in the mesopelagic zone. We observe the opposite in communities with smaller calcifying phytoplankton, such as coccolithophores. We hypothesize that these differences are influenced by inherent differences in the lability of POC exported by different phytoplankton communities.

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