2017
DOI: 10.1002/2016jg003572
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Water column particulate matter: A key contributor to phosphorus regeneration in a coastal eutrophic environment, the Chesapeake Bay

Abstract: Particulate phosphorus (PP) in the water column is an essential component of phosphorus (P) cycling in the Chesapeake Bay because P often limits primary productivity, yet its composition and transformation remain undercharacterized. To understand the mobilization of PP and P sequestration in the water column, we studied seasonal variations in particulate organic and inorganic P species at three sites in the Chesapeake Bay, using chemical extractions, 1‐D (31P) and 2‐D (1H‐31P) NMR spectroscopies, and electron … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
0
12
1
Order By: Relevance
“…S2–S4 for all profiles for the entire sampling period). PolyP and TPP decreased with depth in the water column, indicating remineralization of organic P and polyP during particle settling 29 . The loss of polyP through particle settling and degrading, calculated as the difference between the surface and the bottom divided by the surface concentrations, averaged 53 ± 13% and 80 ± 13% at sites 9031 and 1001, respectively, higher than the loss of TPP estimated in range of 23 ± 13% and 50 ± 22%, respectively (Table S2; recycling efficiencies of TPP and polyP are significantly different (t-test, p < 0.001for both sites)).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…S2–S4 for all profiles for the entire sampling period). PolyP and TPP decreased with depth in the water column, indicating remineralization of organic P and polyP during particle settling 29 . The loss of polyP through particle settling and degrading, calculated as the difference between the surface and the bottom divided by the surface concentrations, averaged 53 ± 13% and 80 ± 13% at sites 9031 and 1001, respectively, higher than the loss of TPP estimated in range of 23 ± 13% and 50 ± 22%, respectively (Table S2; recycling efficiencies of TPP and polyP are significantly different (t-test, p < 0.001for both sites)).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…One of the potential reasons for this variation could be the dominance of different sources or composition of particulates in upstream and downstream regions of the creek. Among P o species, phytate is a dominant compound in upstream and ditch sites but monoesters and diesters, reported to be major P o compounds in the Chesapeake Bay, , are most likely candidates in the mouth of the creek.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Questions on the ultimate fate of NaOH–P i and HNO 3 –P i pools after export from the East Creek watershed (to the Chesapeake Bay) and subsequent processes including deposition, remobilization, and remineralization is out of scope for the creek stretch studied. These processes, however, have been included in other recent studies. ,, The finding that these pools remained largely recalcitrant to biological cycling in the main channel is significant for two main reasons. First, their isotopic signatures can be utilized for source tracking since they fall out of the range of isotopic equilibrium.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Apparently, an important reason for that is the different composition of refractory and mobile fractions. Humic substances have a higher proportion of nitrogen; easily degradable "organic" fractions have a higher proportion of phosphorus (Nausch and Nausch, 2011), part of which, in oxic conditions, can be associated with iron-humic complexes as well as phosphates adsorbed on particles (e.g., Ylöstalo et al, 2016;Li et al, 2017). Unfortunately, the existing information on organic nutrients, especially on their degradability is rather fragmentary (e.g., Hoikkala et al, 2015;KnudsenLeerbeck et al, 2017;Seidel et al, 2017).…”
Section: Degradability Of Organic Nutrientsmentioning
confidence: 99%