4.7 Article

Significant transient pCO2 perturbation at the New Zealand Oligocene-Miocene transition recorded by fossil plant stomata

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2018.01.039

关键词

Stomatal proxy; Climate change; Oligocene-Miocene boundary; Mi-1 termination; Lauraceae

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council (VR Starting Grant) [NT -7 2016 04905, VR 2015 4264]
  2. Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University
  3. Linnaeus Centre Lund University Carbon Cycle Centre (LUCCI) - Swedish Research Concil [VR 349 2007 8705]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The reorganisation of Earth's climate system from the Oligocene to the Miocene was influenced by complex interactions between Tethyan tectonics, orbital parameters, oceanographic changes, and carbon cycle feedbacks, with climate modelling indicating that pCO(2) was an important factor. Oscillating episodes of climate change during the Oligocene Miocene transition (OMT) have however been difficult to reconcile with existing pCO(2) records. Here we present a new pCO(2) record from the OMT into the early Miocene, reconstructed using the stomatal proxy method with a database of fossil Lauraceae leaves from New Zealand. The leaf database derives from three relatively well-dated sites located in the South Island of New Zealand; Foulden Maar, Mataura River and Grey Lake. Atmospheric pCO(2) values were obtained based on four separate calibrations with three nearest living equivalents, using the stomatal ratio method as well as transfer functions. Our results, based on the mean values of each of the four calibrations, indicate pCO(2) ranging 582-732 ppm (average 650 ppm) at the OMT, falling precipitously to mean values of 430-538 ppm (average 492 ppm) for the earliest Miocene and similar to 454-542 ppm (average 502 ppm) in the early Miocene. The much higher values of pCO(2) at the OMT indicate that pCO played an important role in climate dynamics during this time, potentially including the abrupt termination of glaciations.

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