4.4 Article

Input, composition, and potential impact of terrigenous material from free-drifting icebergs in the Weddell Sea

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.11.012

关键词

Ice rafted detritus; Southern Ocean Fe fertilization; Bioavailable Fe; Ra-224; CO2 draw down; Glaciogenic detritus

资金

  1. NSF [OPP-0636319]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hypothesis that Fe fertilization of the Southern Ocean could account for at least part of the glacial-interglacial difference in atmospheric CO2 has lead to a search for the Fe source. Iron fertilization in the open ocean can occur naturally through increased dust input, cross-shelf export, upwelling of Fe replete deep water, and release of terrigenous Fe from icebergs. However, the relative importance of these mechanisms, in terms of the flux and bioavailability of the Fe, is the source of much interest and debate. An unambiguous tracer of terrigenous material, excess Ra-224, was used to show that free-drifting icebergs are a significant Fe source to surface waters in the Southern Ocean. Activity of Ra-224 (half-life 3.7 days) was measured in the Weddell Sea in surface waters surrounding three free-drifting icebergs and in Iceberg Alley. Inventories of excess Ra-224 indicate a local terrigenous input 1-3 orders of magnitude greater than estimates of aeolian dust fluxes to the Southern Ocean. Burdens of fine terrigenous material associated with current rates of iceberg ejection are estimated to be on the order of 90 x 10(6) tons per year for Antarctica, yielding a total Fe input of similar to 3 x 10(6) tons per year. Chemical and mineralogical composition of the terrigenous material confirms that 0.04-0.4% exists as labile Fe in ferrihydrite that is potentially bioavailable (on the order of 4-40 x 10(4) tons of per year). These results suggest that free-drifting icebergs can contribute significantly to atmospheric CO2 drawdown though Fe fertilization in the Southern Ocean. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.4
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