4.7 Article

Eutrophication and carbon sources in Chesapeake Bay over the last 2700 yr: Human impacts in context

期刊

GEOCHIMICA ET COSMOCHIMICA ACTA
卷 67, 期 18, 页码 3385-3402

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0016-7037(03)00131-5

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To compare natural variability and trends in a developed estuary with human-influenced patterns, stable isotope ratios (delta(13)C and delta(15)N) were measured in sediments from five piston cores collected in Chesapeake Bay. Mixing of terrestrial and algal carbon sources primarily controls patterns of delta(13)C(org) profiles, so this proxy shows changes in estuary productivity and in delivery of terrestrial carbon to the bay. Analyses of delta(15)N show periods when oxygen depletion allowed intense denitrification and nutrient recycling to develop in the seasonally stratified water column, in addition to recycling taking place in surficial sediments. These conditions produced N-15-enriched (heavy) nitrogen in algal biomass, and ultimately in sediment. A pronounced increasing trend in delta(15)N of +4parts per thousand started in about A.D. 1750 to 1800 at all core sites, indicating greater eutrophication in the bay and summer oxygen depletion since that time. The timing of the change correlates with the advent of widespread land clearing and tillage in the watershed, and associated increases in erosion and sedimentation. Isotope data show that the region has experienced up to 13 wet-dry cycles in the last 2700 yr. Relative sea-level rise and basin infilling have produced a net freshening trend overprinted with cyclic climatic variability. Isotope data also constrain the relative position of the spring productivity maximum in Chesapeake Bay and distinguish local anomalies from sustained changes impacting large regions of the bay. This approach to reconstructing environmental history should be generally applicable to studies of other estuaries and coastal embayments impacted by watershed development. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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