4.8 Article

Two-step vegetation response to enhanced precipitation in Northeast Brazil during Heinrich event 1

期刊

GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY
卷 16, 期 6, 页码 1647-1660

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02023.x

关键词

deglaciation; Heinrich Stadial 1; marine sediments; Northeast Brazil; vegetation

资金

  1. Federal Department for Science and Technology in Germany
  2. Department of Environment, Brazil
  3. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High resolution palynological and geochemical data of sediment core GeoB 3910-2 (located offshore Northeast Brazil) spanning the period between 19 600 and 14 500 calibrated year bp (19.6-14.5 ka) show a land-cover change in the catchment area of local rivers in two steps related to changes in precipitation associated with Heinrich Event 1 (H1 stadial). At the end of the last glacial maximum, the landscape in semi-arid Northeast Brazil was dominated by a very dry type of caatinga vegetation, mainly composed of grasslands with some herbs and shrubs. After 18 ka, considerably more humid conditions are suggested by changes in the vegetation and by C-org and C/N data indicative of fluvial erosion. The caatinga became wetter and along lakes and rivers, sedges and gallery forest expanded. The most humid period was recorded between 16.5 and 15 ka, when humid gallery (and floodplain) forest and even small patches of mountainous Atlantic rain forest occurred together with dry forest, the latter being considered as a rather lush type of caatinga vegetation. During this humid phase erosion decreased as less lithogenic material and more organic terrestrial material were deposited on the continental slope of northern Brazil. After 15 ka arid conditions returned. During the humid second phase of the H1 stadial, a rich variety of landscapes existed in Northeast Brazil and during the drier periods small pockets of forest could probably survive in favorable spots, which would have increased the resilience of the forest to climate change.

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

4.8
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