GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

X
feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
  • 2020-2024  (1)
  • 2015-2019  (2)
Document type
Keywords
Publisher
Years
Year
  • 1
    facet.materialart.
    Unknown
    Spatiotemporal variation in pCO₂, CH₄, N₂O, DOM, and ancillary water quality measured in the Ganges, Mekong, and Yellow River during 2016 to 2019 (2021)
    PANGAEA
    Details
    Publication Date: 2023-12-07
    Description: Despite growing research on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from inland waters, few systematic efforts have been made to assess the regional-scale GHG emissions from Asian rivers under increasing anthropogenic stress. We examined factors controlling longitudinal and seasonal variations in the partial pressure of CO₂ (pCO₂), and CH₄ and N₂O concentrations in the Ganges, Mekong, and Yellow River (Huang He) by simultaneously measuring gas concentrations and stable C isotopes, and optical properties of dissolved organic matter (DOM) from 2016 to 2019. The levels of pCO₂ and CH₄ were distinctively higher in polluted tributaries and affected reaches of the Ganges and Mekong than in the Yellow River. The highest levels of N₂O were found in the Ganges, followed by Yellow River and Mekong. Across these basins, dry-season mean concentrations of CO₂, CH₄, and N₂O were 1.6, 2, and 7 times higher than those measured in the monsoon season, respectively. This seasonality was consistent with that of δ¹³C-CO₂, while δ¹³C-CH₄ showed an opposite pattern. The overall results suggest that neglecting localized pollution impacts on GHG emissions from increasingly urbanized river basins can result in inaccurate estimates of global riverine GHG emissions.
    Keywords: according to Huguet et al. (2009); according to Zsolnay et al. (1999); Air-water gas flux, river, Lauerwald et al. (2015); Biological index; Carbon, organic, dissolved; Carbon, organic, particulate; Carbon dioxide, flux, in mass carbon; Carbon dioxide (water) partial pressure; Conductivity, electrolytic; Date/Time of event; Distance; Event label; Fluorescence, dissolved organic matter; Fluorescence index; Fluorescence index, McKnight et al. (2001); Ganges_G1; Ganges_G10; Ganges_G11; Ganges_G11_1; Ganges_G11_2; Ganges_G12; Ganges_G13; Ganges_G13_1; Ganges_G14; Ganges_G14_1; Ganges_G2; Ganges_G2_1; Ganges_G3; Ganges_G3_1; Ganges_G4; Ganges_G5; Ganges_G6; Ganges_G7; Ganges_G7_1; Ganges_G8; Ganges_G9; Ganges_H1; Ganges_H1_1; Ganges_H2; Ganges_H3; Ganges_J1; Ganges_J2; Ganges_J3; Ganges_J3_1; Ganges_J3_2; Ganges_J4; Ganges_T1; Ganges_T1_1; Ganges_T2; Ganges_T2_1; Ganges_T3; Ganges_T3_1; Ganges_T4; Ganges_T4_1; Ganges_T4_2; Ganges_T5; Ganges_T6; Ganges_W1; Ganges_W2; Ganges_W3; Ganges_W4; Ganges_W4_1; Ganges_W5; Ganges_W6; Ganges_W6_1; Ganges_W7; Ganges_W7_1; Ganges_W8; Greenhouse gases; HAND; Humification index; Ion chromatography; Latitude of event; Longitude of event; Mekong_M1; Mekong_M10; Mekong_M10_1; Mekong_M11; Mekong_M11_1; Mekong_M2; Mekong_M2_1; Mekong_M3; Mekong_M3_1; Mekong_M4; Mekong_M5; Mekong_M5_1; Mekong_M6; Mekong_M6_1; Mekong_M7; Mekong_M7_1; Mekong_M8; Mekong_M8_1; Mekong_M9; Mekong_M9_1; Mekong_T1; Mekong_T2; Mekong_T2_1; Mekong_T3; Mekong_T3_1; Mekong_T4; Mekong_T4_1; Mekong_T5; Mekong_T5_1; Mekong_T6; Mekong_T6_1; Mekong_T7; Mekong_T7_1; Mekong_W1; Mekong_W1_1; Mekong_W2; Mekong_W2_1; Mekong_W3; Mekong_W4; Mekong_W5; Mekong_W5_1; Mekong_W6; Mekong_W6_1; Mekong_W7; Mekong_W7_1; Methane; Methane, flux, in mass carbon; Nitrogen, inorganic, dissolved; Nitrogen, organic, particulate; Nitrogen in ammonium; Nitrogen in nitrate; Nitrous oxide, dissolved; Nitrous oxide, flux, in mass nitrogen; organic matter; Oxygen, dissolved; Parallel factor analysis (PARAFAC); pH; Phosphorus in orthophosphate; River; Sample comment; Sample ID; Sampling by hand; Season; Specific ultraviolet absorbance normalized to DOC, 254 nm, per mass carbon; Specific UV absorbance 254nm, DOC normalised, Weishaar et al. (2003); Suspended matter, total; Temperature, water; water pollution; Yellow_T1; Yellow_T1_1; Yellow_T2; Yellow_T2_1; Yellow_Y1; Yellow_Y2; Yellow_Y3; Yellow_Y4; Yellow_Y4_1; Yellow_Y5; Yellow_Y6; Yellow_Y7; Yellow_Y8; δ13C; δ13C, carbon dioxide, dissolved; δ13C, methane, dissolved
    Type: Dataset
    Format: text/tab-separated-values, 3479 data points
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    DATA PANGAEA
  • 2
    facet.materialart.
    Unknown
    Inland waters and their role in the carbon cycle of Alaska (2017)
    Wiley-Blackwell
    Details
    Publication Date: 2017-04-05
    Description: The magnitude of Alaska (AK) inland waters carbon (C) fluxes is likely to change in the future due to amplified climate warming impacts on the hydrology and biogeochemical processes in high latitude regions. Although current estimates of major aquatic C fluxes represent an essential baseline against which future change can be compared, a comprehensive assessment for AK has not yet been completed. To address this gap, we combined available datasets and applied consistent methodologies to estimate river lateral C export to the coast, river and lake carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and methane (CH 4 ) emissions, and C burial in lakes for the six major hydrologic regions in the state. Estimated total aquatic C flux for AK was 41 Tg C yr −1 . Major components of this total flux, in Tg C yr −1 , were 18 for river lateral export, 17 for river CO 2 emissions, and 8 for lake CO 2 emissions. Lake C burial offset these fluxes by 2 Tg C yr −1 . River and lake CH 4 emissions were 0.03 and 0.10 Tg C yr −1 , respectively. The Southeast and South - Central regions had the highest temperature, precipitation, terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP), and C yields (fluxes normalized to land area) were 77 and 42 g C m −2 yr −1 , respectively. Lake CO 2 emissions represented over half of the total aquatic flux from the Southwest (37 g C m −2 yr −1 ). The North Slope, Northwest, and Yukon regions had lesser yields (11, 15, and 17 g C m 2 yr −1 ), but these estimates may be the most vulnerable to future climate change, because of the heightened sensitivity of arctic and boreal ecosystems to intensified warming. Total aquatic C yield for AK was 27 g C m −2 yr −1 , which represented 16% of the estimated terrestrial NPP. Freshwater ecosystems represent a significant conduit for C loss, and a more comprehensive view of land-water-atmosphere interactions is necessary to predict future climate change impacts on the Alaskan ecosystem C balance. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Print ISSN: 1051-0761
    Electronic ISSN: 1939-5582
    Topics: Biology
    Published by Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of The Ecological Society of America (ESA).
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    PAPER CURRENT
  • 3
    facet.materialart.
    Unknown
    Carbon budget of tidal wetlands, estuaries, and shelf waters of eastern North America (2018)
    John Wiley & Sons
    Details
    Publication Date: 2022-05-25
    Description: Author Posting. © American Geophysical Union, 2018. This article is posted here by permission of American Geophysical Union for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Global Biogeochemical Cycles 32 (2018): 389-416, doi:10.1002/2017GB005790.
    Description: Carbon cycling in the coastal zone affects global carbon budgets and is critical for understanding the urgent issues of hypoxia, acidification, and tidal wetland loss. However, there are no regional carbon budgets spanning the three main ecosystems in coastal waters: tidal wetlands, estuaries, and shelf waters. Here we construct such a budget for eastern North America using historical data, empirical models, remote sensing algorithms, and process‐based models. Considering the net fluxes of total carbon at the domain boundaries, 59 ± 12% (± 2 standard errors) of the carbon entering is from rivers and 41 ± 12% is from the atmosphere, while 80 ± 9% of the carbon leaving is exported to the open ocean and 20 ± 9% is buried. Net lateral carbon transfers between the three main ecosystem types are comparable to fluxes at the domain boundaries. Each ecosystem type contributes substantially to exchange with the atmosphere, with CO2 uptake split evenly between tidal wetlands and shelf waters, and estuarine CO2 outgassing offsetting half of the uptake. Similarly, burial is about equal in tidal wetlands and shelf waters, while estuaries play a smaller but still substantial role. The importance of tidal wetlands and estuaries in the overall budget is remarkable given that they, respectively, make up only 2.4 and 8.9% of the study domain area. This study shows that coastal carbon budgets should explicitly include tidal wetlands, estuaries, shelf waters, and the linkages between them; ignoring any of them may produce a biased picture of coastal carbon cycling.
    Description: NASA Interdisciplinary Science program Grant Number: NNX14AF93G; NASA Carbon Cycle Science Program Grant Number: NNX14AM37G; NASA Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry Program Grant Number: NNX11AD47G; National Science Foundation's Chemical Oceanography Program Grant Number: OCE‐1260574
    Description: 2018-10-04
    Keywords: Carbon cycle ; Coastal zone ; Tidal wetlands ; Estuaries ; Shelf waters
    Repository Name: Woods Hole Open Access Server
    Type: Article
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    PAPER (OA)
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...