4.5 Article

CO2 Input Dynamics and Air-Sea Exchange in a Large New England Estuary

Journal

ESTUARIES AND COASTS
Volume 37, Issue 5, Pages 1078-1091

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12237-013-9749-2

Keywords

Estuary; River; Carbon dioxide; Dissolved inorganic carbon

Funding

  1. NSF [0961825, 0851447]
  2. NASA Carbon [NNX08AL8OG]
  3. NOAA Joint Center for Ocean Observation Technology [NA05NOS4731206]
  4. National Aeronautics and Space Agency through the Coastal Carbon Synthesis (CCARS) program [NNX11AD47G]
  5. Directorate For Geosciences
  6. Division Of Ocean Sciences [0961825] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Division Of Ocean Sciences
  8. Directorate For Geosciences [0851447] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Repeated surveys of the Kennebec estuary, a macrotidal river estuary in Maine, USA, between 2004 and 2008 found spatial and temporal variability both in sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the estuary and the air-sea flux of estuary CO2. On an annual basis, the surveyed area of the Kennebec estuary had an area-weighted average partial pressure of CO2 (pCO(2)) of 559 mu atm. The area-weighted average CO2 flux to the atmosphere was 3.54 mol C m(-2) year(-1). Overall, the Kennebec estuary was an annual source of 7.2 x 10(7) mol CO2 to the atmosphere. Distinct seasonality in estuarine pCO(2) was observed, with shifts in the seasonal pattern evident between lower and higher salinities. Fluxes of CO2 from the estuary were elevated following two summertime storms, and inputs of riverine CO2 outweighed internal estuarine CO2 inputs in nearly all months. River and estuarine inputs of CO2 represented 68 and 32 % of the total CO2 contributions to the estuary, respectively. This study examines the variability of CO2 in a large New England estuary, and highlights the comparatively high contribution of CO2 from riverine sources.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available