Cargando…

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

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 measureme...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhou, Jun, Bollen, Silas W., Roy, Eric M., Hollinger, David Y., Wang, Ting, Lee, John T., Obrist, Daniel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10175444/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37169778
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38225-x
_version_ 1785040214323888128
author Zhou, Jun
Bollen, Silas W.
Roy, Eric M.
Hollinger, David Y.
Wang, Ting
Lee, John T.
Obrist, Daniel
author_facet Zhou, Jun
Bollen, Silas W.
Roy, Eric M.
Hollinger, David Y.
Wang, Ting
Lee, John T.
Obrist, Daniel
author_sort Zhou, Jun
collection PubMed
description 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 μg m(−2) (coniferous forest) and 25.1 ± 2.4 μg 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 CO(2) 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10175444
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101754442023-05-13 Comparing ecosystem gaseous elemental mercury fluxes over a deciduous and coniferous forest Zhou, Jun Bollen, Silas W. Roy, Eric M. Hollinger, David Y. Wang, Ting Lee, John T. Obrist, Daniel Nat Commun Article 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 μg m(−2) (coniferous forest) and 25.1 ± 2.4 μg 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 CO(2) 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. Nature Publishing Group UK 2023-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC10175444/ /pubmed/37169778 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38225-x Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Zhou, Jun
Bollen, Silas W.
Roy, Eric M.
Hollinger, David Y.
Wang, Ting
Lee, John T.
Obrist, Daniel
Comparing ecosystem gaseous elemental mercury fluxes over a deciduous and coniferous forest
title Comparing ecosystem gaseous elemental mercury fluxes over a deciduous and coniferous forest
title_full Comparing ecosystem gaseous elemental mercury fluxes over a deciduous and coniferous forest
title_fullStr Comparing ecosystem gaseous elemental mercury fluxes over a deciduous and coniferous forest
title_full_unstemmed Comparing ecosystem gaseous elemental mercury fluxes over a deciduous and coniferous forest
title_short Comparing ecosystem gaseous elemental mercury fluxes over a deciduous and coniferous forest
title_sort comparing ecosystem gaseous elemental mercury fluxes over a deciduous and coniferous forest
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10175444/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37169778
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38225-x
work_keys_str_mv AT zhoujun comparingecosystemgaseouselementalmercuryfluxesoveradeciduousandconiferousforest
AT bollensilasw comparingecosystemgaseouselementalmercuryfluxesoveradeciduousandconiferousforest
AT royericm comparingecosystemgaseouselementalmercuryfluxesoveradeciduousandconiferousforest
AT hollingerdavidy comparingecosystemgaseouselementalmercuryfluxesoveradeciduousandconiferousforest
AT wangting comparingecosystemgaseouselementalmercuryfluxesoveradeciduousandconiferousforest
AT leejohnt comparingecosystemgaseouselementalmercuryfluxesoveradeciduousandconiferousforest
AT obristdaniel comparingecosystemgaseouselementalmercuryfluxesoveradeciduousandconiferousforest