Affiliation:
1. Graduate School of Marine Science and Technology Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology Tokyo Japan
2. Institute of Arctic Climate and Environment Research Research Institute for Global Change Japan Agency for Marine–Earth Science and Technology Yokosuka Japan
3. Department of Ocean Sciences Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology Tokyo Japan
4. Institute for Space–Earth Environmental Research Nagoya University Nagoya Japan
Abstract
AbstractArctic rivers carry not only large amounts of freshwater but also biogeochemical materials into the ocean and play important roles in Arctic ocean acidification (OA). This study quantitatively evaluated the effects of riverine biogeochemical fluxes (R‐BGC; carbon and nutrients) on the Arctic marine carbonate system and OA using multi‐decadal experiments (1979–2018) with a pan‐Arctic sea ice–ocean model. Improved initial and lateral boundary conditions of carbonate properties, observation‐based riverine biogeochemical data, and land model‐based interannually varying riverine freshwater discharge were adopted to enable more realistic experiments. The model simulated negative trends in aragonite saturation state (Ω) and pH in most regions of Arctic Ocean regardless of R‐BGC. The increased riverine freshwater promoted more OA through the higher dilution effect. Compared to the experiment with riverine discharge of only freshwater, the inclusion of R‐BGC caused positive anomalies in Ω and pH (by ∼0.14 and ∼0.03 in central basins, and by ∼0.15 and ∼0.06 in shelf seas, respectively). In the central basins, these anomalies were caused mostly by carbon (total alkalinity and dissolved inorganic carbon) of the R‐BGC. In the shelf seas, nutrient (nitrate and silicate) fluxes also contributed ∼14% and ∼32% of the anomalies owing to the enhanced primary production and a corresponding reduction in seawater pCO2. R‐BGC mitigated OA (ΔΩ = −1.53 × 10−3 year−1 and ΔpH = −0.56 × 10−3 year−1) in regions where riverine freshwater was accumulated (i.e., the Canada Basin, Chukchi Cap, Eurasian Basin, and East Siberian Sea). This study stressed the importance of including R‐BGC for OA model projection.
Funder
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
Publisher
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Reference115 articles.
1. AMAP. (2013).AMAP assessment 2013: Arctic Ocean acidification. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) Oslo Norway. viii + 99 pp. Retrieved fromhttps://www.amap.no/documents/download/1577/inline
2. AMAP. (2018).AMAP assessment 2018: Arctic Ocean acidification. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) Tromsø Norway. vi+187pp. Retrieved fromhttps://www.amap.no/documents/download/3055/inline
3. Out-gassing of CO2from Siberian Shelf seas by terrestrial organic matter decomposition
4. Calcium carbonate saturation states in the waters of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and the Labrador Sea
5. The Ocean Carbon Cycle in the Western Arctic Ocean: Distributions and Air-Sea Fluxes of Carbon Dioxide