4.3 Article

The niche of benthic foraminifera, critical thresholds and proxies

期刊

MARINE MICROPALEONTOLOGY
卷 41, 期 1-2, 页码 1-7

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0377-8398(00)00057-8

关键词

benthic foraminifera; niche; proxies; organic carbon flux; oxygen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ecological studies of benthic foraminifera are carried out to explain patterns of distribution and the dynamics of communities. They are also used to provide data to establish proxy relationships with selected factors. According to niche theory. the patterns of distribution of benthic foraminifera are controlled by those environmental factors that have reached their critical thresholds. For each species, in variable environments, different factors may be limiting distributions both temporally and spatially. For a species or an assemblage to be useful as a proxy its abundance must show a strong correlation with the chosen factor. Since numerous factors influence each species, it is only in those environments where the majority of factors show little variation but one particular factor shows significant variation that the proxy relationship for that factor can be determined. On theoretical grounds, the reliability of using foraminiferal abundance as a proxy of a selected environmental factor should be restricted to the range close to the upper and lower thresholds. For oxygen, foraminifera are potential proxies fur the lower limits but once oxygen levels rise to values of perhaps >1 or 2 mi l(-1), there is no longer a relationship between oxygen levels and abundance. By contrast. the flux of organic matter over a large range shows a sufficiently close relationship with foraminiferal assemblages so that transfer functions can be derived for the deep sea. However. the relationship at species level is far less clear cut. Much more accurate estimates of primary productivity and modern organic flux rates art: required to improve the determination of past flux rates. (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

4.3
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