4.7 Article

Iron fertilisation and biogeochemical cycles in the sub-Arctic northwest Pacific during the late Pliocene intensification of northern hemisphere glaciation

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 307, 期 3-4, 页码 253-265

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2011.05.029

关键词

aeolian dust; volcanic glass; ice rafted debris; North Pacific; nutrient use; northern hemisphere glaciation

资金

  1. US National Science Foundation
  2. Marie Curie Fellowship (IIF) [7555]
  3. NERC [NE/F012969/1]
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/F012969/2, NE/F012969/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. NERC [NE/F012969/1, NE/F012969/2] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increases in the low-field mass-specific magnetic susceptibility (chi), dropstones and the terrigenous sediment component from Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Site 882 (similar to 45 degrees N) have been interpreted to indicate a major onset of ice-rafting to the sub-Arctic northwest Pacific Ocean during marine isotope stage (MIS) G6 (from similar to 2.75 Ma). In contrast, studies of the terrigenous content of sediments cored downwind of ODP Site 882 indicate that dust and disseminated volcanic ash deposition in the sub-Arctic Pacific increased markedly during MIS G6. To investigate the relative contribution of dust, volcanic ash and ice rafting to the Pliocene chi increase, we present new high-resolution environmental magnetic and ice-rafted debris records from ODP Sites 882 and 885. Our results demonstrate that the chi increase at both sites across MIS G6 is predominantly controlled by a previously overlooked mixture of aeolian dust and volcanic ash. Our findings call into question the reliability of chi as a proxy for ice-rafting to the North Pacific. They also highlight a previously undocumented link between iron fertilisation and biogeochemical cycling in the North Pacific at a key stage during intensification of late Pliocene northern hemisphere glaciation. (C) 2011 Elsevier 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

4.7
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