2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2019.02.033
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Kinetics of organic carbon mineralization and methane formation in marine sediments (Aarhus Bay, Denmark)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 90 publications
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, despite recent progress, it is still unknown what causes the discrepancy between measured and modeled SRR. Sulfate reduction in marine sediments is strongly focused, (a) toward the ocean margins with high depositional rates (Egger et al, 2018), and (b) toward the surface zone with complex bioirrigation, sediment reworking and sulfide reoxidation (Dale et al, 2019). This complexity causes a general discrepancy between modeled net rates and 35 S-measured gross rates of sulfate reduction, both on a local and a global scale (e.g., Canfield et al, 2005; Jørgensen and Parkes, 2010; Bowles et al, 2014).…”
Section: Synthesis and Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Finally, despite recent progress, it is still unknown what causes the discrepancy between measured and modeled SRR. Sulfate reduction in marine sediments is strongly focused, (a) toward the ocean margins with high depositional rates (Egger et al, 2018), and (b) toward the surface zone with complex bioirrigation, sediment reworking and sulfide reoxidation (Dale et al, 2019). This complexity causes a general discrepancy between modeled net rates and 35 S-measured gross rates of sulfate reduction, both on a local and a global scale (e.g., Canfield et al, 2005; Jørgensen and Parkes, 2010; Bowles et al, 2014).…”
Section: Synthesis and Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This complexity causes a general discrepancy between modeled net rates and 35 S-measured gross rates of sulfate reduction, both on a local and a global scale (e.g., Canfield et al, 2005; Jørgensen and Parkes, 2010; Bowles et al, 2014). Further research on sediment reworking and irrigation by benthic fauna and on sulfide recycling is needed to reconcile SRR determined by the two approaches (Dale et al, 2019). Furthermore, enzymatic back-reaction during microbial sulfate reduction could lead to an overestimation of rates determined by the 35 S technique.…”
Section: Synthesis and Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further details about the measurements and calculations of the dissolved CH 4 concentration can be found in Bange et al (2010). The mean precision of the CH 4 measurements, calculated as the median of the estimated standard errors (see David, 1951) from all triplicate measurements, was ±1.3 nM. Samples with an estimated standard error of >10 % were omitted.…”
Section: Sample Collection and Measurementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bange et al, 1994;Upstill-Goddard et al, 2000;Borges et al, 2016). Dissolved CH 4 in coastal waters is mainly resulting from the interplay of (i) sedimentary sources such as anaerobic methanogenesis during the decomposition of organic matter (Xiao et al, 2018;Dale et al, 2019) or seepage from oi land natural gas reservoirs (Bernard et al, 1976;Hovland et al, 1993;Judd et al, 2002) and (ii) microbial CH 4 consumption which occurs under oxic conditions in the water column and under anoxic conditions in the sediments (Pimenov et al, 2013;Steinle et al, 2017;Egger et al, 2018). Only recently, Weber et al (2019) estimated the global https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2020-107 Preprint.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%