Comparing ecosystem gaseous elemental mercury fluxes over a deciduous and coniferous forest

被引:14
|
作者
Zhou, Jun [1 ,2 ]
Bollen, Silas W. [1 ]
Roy, Eric M. [1 ,3 ]
Hollinger, David Y. [4 ]
Wang, Ting [1 ]
Lee, John T. [5 ]
Obrist, Daniel [1 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Massachusetts, Dept Environm Earth & Atmospher Sci, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
[2] Chinese Acad Sci, Inst Soil Sci, Key Lab Soil Environm & Pollut Remediat, Nanjing 210008, Peoples R China
[3] MIT, Dept Earth Atmospher & Planetary Sci, Cambridge, MA USA
[4] USDA Forest Serv, Northern Res Stn, Durham, NH USA
[5] Univ Maine, Sch Forest Resources, Orono, ME USA
[6] Univ Calif Agr & Nat Resources, Davis, CA 95618 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
DRY DEPOSITION; EXCHANGE; ATMOSPHERE; VEGETATION; CANOPY; ACCUMULATION; UNCERTAINTY; POOLS; AIR;
D O I
10.1038/s41467-023-38225-x
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Sources of neurotoxic mercury in forests are dominated by atmospheric gaseous elemental mercury (GEM) deposition, but a dearth of direct GEM exchange measurements causes major uncertainties about processes that determine GEM sinks. Here we present three years of forest-level GEM deposition measurements in a coniferous forest and a deciduous forest in northeastern USA, along with flux partitioning into canopy and forest floor contributions. Annual GEM deposition is 13.4 +/- 0.80 mu g m(-2) (coniferous forest) and 25.1 +/- 2.4 mu g m(-2) (deciduous forest) dominating mercury inputs (62 and 76% of total deposition). GEM uptake dominates in daytime during active vegetation periods and correlates with CO2 assimilation, attributable to plant stomatal uptake of mercury. Non-stomatal GEM deposition occurs in the coniferous canopy during nights and to the forest floor in the deciduous forest and accounts for 24 and 39% of GEM deposition, respectively. Our study shows that GEM deposition includes various pathways and is highly ecosystem-specific, which complicates global constraints of terrestrial GEM sinks. Forests are sinks for the neurotoxic mercury, but the sinks have large uncertainties. Our direct gaseous elemental mercury (GEM) exchange measurements show that GEM exchange includes complex patterns of multiple pathways to different ecosystem compartments varying over time
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparing ecosystem gaseous elemental mercury fluxes over a deciduous and coniferous forest
    Jun Zhou
    Silas W. Bollen
    Eric M. Roy
    David Y. Hollinger
    Ting Wang
    John T. Lee
    Daniel Obrist
    Nature Communications, 14
  • [2] Carbon fluxes in coniferous and deciduous forest soils
    Wunderlich, Steve
    Schulz, Christoph
    Grimmeisen, Winfried
    Borken, Werner
    PLANT AND SOIL, 2012, 357 (1-2) : 355 - 368
  • [3] Carbon fluxes in coniferous and deciduous forest soils
    Steve Wunderlich
    Christoph Schulz
    Winfried Grimmeisen
    Werner Borken
    Plant and Soil, 2012, 357 : 355 - 368
  • [4] Importance of Gaseous Elemental Mercury Fluxes in Western Maryland
    Castro, Mark S.
    Moore, Christopher W.
    ATMOSPHERE, 2016, 7 (09)
  • [5] Gaseous elemental mercury fluxes in New York City
    Carpi, A
    Chen, YF
    WATER AIR AND SOIL POLLUTION, 2002, 140 (1-4): : 371 - 379
  • [6] Fluxes of Gaseous Elemental Mercury on a Mediterranean Coastal Grassland
    Polyzou, Christiana
    Loupa, Glykeria
    Trepekli, Aikaterini
    Rapsomanikis, Spyridon
    ATMOSPHERE, 2019, 10 (09)
  • [7] Gaseous Elemental Mercury Fluxes in New York City
    Anthony Carpi
    Yung-fou Chen
    Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 2002, 140 : 371 - 379
  • [8] Gaseous mercury fluxes from the forest floor of the Adirondacks
    Choi, Hyun-Deok
    Holsen, Thomas M.
    ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION, 2009, 157 (02) : 592 - 600
  • [9] Secrets: Simulated carbon fluxes from a mixed coniferous/deciduous Belgian forest
    Sampson, DA
    Ceulemans, R
    FOREST ECOSYSTEM MODELLING, UPSCALING AND REMOTE SENSING, 1999, : 95 - 108
  • [10] Gaseous elemental mercury (GEM) fluxes over canopy of two typical subtropical forests in south China
    Yu, Qian
    Luo, Yao
    Wang, Shuxiao
    Wang, Zhiqi
    Hao, Jiming
    Duan, Lei
    ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, 2018, 18 (01) : 495 - 509