Latitudinal variations in <i>δ</i> <sup>30</sup> Si and <i>δ</i> <sup>15</sup> N signatures along the Peruvian shelf: quantifying the effects of nutrient utilization versus denitrification over the past 600 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The stable sedimentary nitrogen isotope compositions of bulk organic matter (δ15Nbulk) and the silicon isotope composition of diatoms (δ30SiBSi) both mainly reflect the degree of past nutrient utilization by primary producers. However, in ocean areas where anoxic and suboxic conditions prevail, the δ15Nbulk signal ultimately recorded within the sediments is also influenced by water column denitrification, causing an increase in the subsurface δ15N signature of dissolved nitrate (δ15NO3-) upwelled to the surface. Such conditions are found in the oxygen minimum zone off the coast of Peru, where, at present, an increase in subsurface δ15NO3- from north to south along the shelf is observed due to ongoing denitrification within the poleward-flowing subsurface waters, while the δ30Si signature of silicic acid (δ30Si(OH)4) at the same time remains unchanged. Here, we present three new δ30SiBSi records between 11 and 15∘ S and compare these to previously published δ30SiBSi and δ15Nbulk records from Peru covering the past 600 years. We present a new approach to calculate past subsurface δ15NO3- signatures based on the direct comparison of δ30SiBSi and δ15Nbulk signatures at a latitudinal resolution for different time periods. Our results show that, during the Current Warm Period (CWP, since 1800 CE) and prior short-term arid events, source water δ15NO3- compositions have been close to modern values, increasing southward from 7 to 10 ‰ (between 11 and 15∘ S). In contrast, during the Little Ice Age (LIA) we calculate low δ15NO3- values between 6 ‰ and 7.5 ‰. Furthermore, the direct δ30SiBSi versus δ15Nbulk comparison also enables us to relate the short-term variability in both isotope compositions to changes in the ratio of nutrients (NO3-:Si(OH)4) taken up by different dominating phytoplankton groups (diatoms and non-siliceous phytoplankton) under the variable climatic conditions of the past 600 years. Accordingly, we estimate a shift from a 1:1 (or 1:2) ratio during the CWP and a 2:1 (up to 15:1) ratio during the LIA, associated with a shift from overall high nutrient utilization to NO3--dominated (and thus non-siliceous phytoplankton) utilization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".