4.3 Article

Bioturbation in the Venice Lagoon: Rates and relationship to organisms

期刊

出版社

GAUTHIER-VILLARS/EDITIONS ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.actao.2007.02.003

关键词

bioturbation; sediment mixing rates; modeling; functional groups; venice lagoon

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experiments were carried out during autumn 1998 and spring 1999 at four selected sites in the Venice Lagoon in order to estimate the major bioturbation modes, and for quantitative analysis of the contribution of various taxa to these modes. Fluorescent sediment particles (63-350 mu m) were supplied as a tracer pulse input at the sediment surface. Tracer depth profiles obtained after 15 and 20 days were simulated with a diffusion-advection-non-local transport model. This allowed the rates of biodiffusion (D(b)), bioadvection (W), and RS, a non-local transport coefficient to account for the displacement of sediment by regeneration, to be estimated. A combination of fresh water and marine organisms were responsible for the recorded sediment reworking, which was dominated by both types of non-local transports (conveying and regeneration). Considering all the sampling sites and seasons, Db ranged from 0.87 +/- .02 to 3.17 +/- .92 cm(2) y(-1), W from 0.12 +/- .09 to 27.41 +/- .47 cm y(-1) and RS from 0.00 +/- .00 to 5.47 +/- .09 g cm(-2) y(-1) (mean SE, n = 3). A multiple regression analysis was applied to identify the contribution from individual species to sediment transport types. Biodiffusion resulted from the combined activity of polychaetes such as Spio decoratus and meiobenthic harpacticoYd copepods, while the polychaete Hediste diuersicolor was mainly responsible for regeneration. Conveying processes were driven by another polychaete, Capitella capitata. Despite heterogeneity in the benthic community composition, biodiffusion and regeneration rates did not vary significantly between sites or season, with only bioadvection found to be higher in spring than in autumn. (c) 2007 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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