4.7 Article

Atmospheric deposition of N, P and Fe to the Northern Indian Ocean: Implications to C- and N-fixation

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 456, Issue -, Pages 104-114

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.068

Keywords

Bay of Bengal; Arabian Sea; Air-sea deposition of nutrients; C-fixation; N-fixation; Ocean surface biogeochemistry

Funding

  1. ISRO-Geosphere Biosphere Programme, Bangaluru (India)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study presents the first data set on atmospheric input of N, P and Fe to the Northern Indian Ocean. Based on the chemical analysis of ambient aerosols, collected from the marine atmospheric boundary layer (MABL) during the continental outflow (January-April), we document that dry-deposition fluxes (mu mol m(-2) d(-1)) of N (2-167), P (0.5-4.8) and Fe (0.02-1.2) to the Bay of Bengal are significantly higher compared to those over the Arabian Sea [N: 0.2-18.6; P: 0.3-0.9; Fe: 0.001-0.015]. Using atmospherically derived P and Fe, C-fixation (1.1 Pg yr(-1)) in the Bay of Bengal is dominated by anthropogenic sources. In contrast, C-fixation (0.03 Pg yr(-1)) in the Arabian Sea is limited by P and Fe. This is attributed to the poor fractional solubility of atmospheric mineral dust transported to the Arabian Sea. However, N-fixation by diazotrophs in the two oceanic regions is somewhat similar (0.5 Tg yr(-1)). Our estimate of N-deposition (0.2 Tg yr(-1)) to the Northern Indian Ocean is significantly lower compared to model results (similar to 800-1200 mg-N m(-2) yr(-1) approximate to 5.7-8.6 Tg yr(-1) by Duce et al. (2008); similar to 4.1 Tg yr(-1) by Okin et al. (2011); similar to 0.8 Tg yr(-1) by Kanakidou et al. (2012)). An overestimate of N-deposition by models could arise due to inappropriate parameterization of temporal variability associated with the continental outflow spread over only four months. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available