4.5 Article

Spatial extent and degree of oxygen depletion in the deep proto-North Atlantic basin during Oceanic Anoxic Event 2

期刊

GEOCHEMISTRY GEOPHYSICS GEOSYSTEMS
卷 15, 期 11, 页码 4254-4266

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2014GC005528

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cenomanian/ Turonian boundary event (similar to94 Ma)
  2. Focus AMP
  3. Massa project of Utrecht University
  4. Statoil
  5. European Research Council under the European Community [278364, 259627]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Massive organic matter burial due to widespread ocean anoxia across the Cenomanian/Turonian boundary event (similar to 94 Ma) resulted in a major perturbation of the global carbon cycle: the so-called Oceanic Anoxic Event 2 (OAE2). The characteristics and spatial distribution of the OAE2 deposits that formed in the deep basin of the proto-North Atlantic remain poorly described, however. Here we present proxy data of redox sensitive (trace) elements (e.g., Mo, Fe/Al, C-org/P-tot, and Mn) for OAE2 sediments from five Deep Sea Drilling Project and Ocean Drilling Program sites located in the deep proto-North Atlantic basin. Our results highlight that bottom waters in the entire deep proto-North Atlantic were anoxic during most of OAE2. Furthermore, regressions of Mo with total organic carbon content (TOC), previously shown to document the degree of water mass restriction, confirm that the water circulation in the proto-North Atlantic basin was severely restricted during OAE2. Comparison of these values to Mo/TOC ratios in the present-day Black Sea suggests a renewal frequency of the deep proto-North Atlantic water mass of between 0.5 and 4 ka, compared to a maximum of similar to 200 years for the present-day northern Atlantic. The Plenus Cold Event, a cooler episode during the early stages of OAE2 hypothesized to be caused by declining pCO(2) due to extensive burial of organic matter, appears to have led to temporary re-oxygenation of the bottom water in the deep proto-North Atlantic basin during OAE2.

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