4.5 Article

Accumulation rates and sources of sediments and organic carbon on the Palos Verdes shelf based on radioisotopic tracers (137Cs, 239,240Pu, 210Pb, 234Th, 238U and 14C)

期刊

MARINE CHEMISTRY
卷 73, 期 2, 页码 125-152

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-4203(00)00101-8

关键词

sedimentation rates; bioturbation; sediment sources; natural radionuclides; fallout radionuclides; Palos Verdes shelf

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report here bioturbation and sediment accumulation rates determined from replicate sediment cores at four different sampling sites on the Pales Verdes shelf, Southern California, using bomb fallout and natural radionuclides (Cs-137, Pu-239,Pu-240, Pb-210, Th-234, and C-14), along with supporting measurements of organic carbon (OC), porosity and granulometry. Present-day particle reworking, on time scales of several months, is restricted to the upper 3 cm, with rates ranging from 13 to 200 cm(2)/year, as deduced from 234Th,, profiles. There is little evidence that particle reworking reached depths significantly greater than 5 cm. Post-1963 (or post-1971) sediment accumulation rates ranged from 0.7 to 1.4 g/cm(2)/year (equivalent to 1.1-1.8 cm/year for surficial sediments), as calculated from Pu and Cs isotope profiles, with Little change over time or distance from the outfall. Lateral transport of older sediment and multiple sediment sources on the Pales Verdes shelf is suggested from radiocarbon measurements on foraminifera and bulk sedimentary organic matter at two sampling sites, which showed variable, old and refractory sources of OC, Pre-1953 sediments accumulated at rates that were at least 0.4 g/cm(2)/year (greater than or equal to 0.3 cm/year), based on Pb-210(xs) dating. Given the abundance of sediment sources to the Pales Verdes shelf, the high sedimentation rates, and shallow particle mixed layers, contaminant-enriched layers should continue to move deeper into the sediments. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. 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

4.5
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