Weiguo Wang, Mengwei Zhao, Yanguang Liu, Min Jiang, Chengqiang Wu, Yang Liu. Evolution of the North Atlantic Current and Barents Ice Sheet as revealed by grain size populations in the northern Norwegian Sea during the last 60 ka[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2021, 40(10): 106-117. doi: 10.1007/s13131-021-1848-5
Citation:
Weiguo Wang, Mengwei Zhao, Yanguang Liu, Min Jiang, Chengqiang Wu, Yang Liu. Evolution of the North Atlantic Current and Barents Ice Sheet as revealed by grain size populations in the northern Norwegian Sea during the last 60 ka[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2021, 40(10): 106-117. doi: 10.1007/s13131-021-1848-5
Weiguo Wang, Mengwei Zhao, Yanguang Liu, Min Jiang, Chengqiang Wu, Yang Liu. Evolution of the North Atlantic Current and Barents Ice Sheet as revealed by grain size populations in the northern Norwegian Sea during the last 60 ka[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2021, 40(10): 106-117. doi: 10.1007/s13131-021-1848-5
Citation:
Weiguo Wang, Mengwei Zhao, Yanguang Liu, Min Jiang, Chengqiang Wu, Yang Liu. Evolution of the North Atlantic Current and Barents Ice Sheet as revealed by grain size populations in the northern Norwegian Sea during the last 60 ka[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2021, 40(10): 106-117. doi: 10.1007/s13131-021-1848-5
Evolution of the North Atlantic Current and Barents Ice Sheet as revealed by grain size populations in the northern Norwegian Sea during the last 60 ka
Third Institute of Oceanography, Ministry of Natural Resources, Xiamen 361005, China
2.
Pilot National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology (Qingdao), Qingdao 266237, China
3.
First Institute of Oceanography, Ministry of Natural Resources, Qingdao 266061, China
4.
School of Earth Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
Funds:
The Basic Scientific Research Operation Fee of the Third Institute of Oceanography, the Ministry of Natural Resources under contract No. 2018006; the project of the Chinese Arctic and Antarctic Administration of the State Oceanic Administration under contract No. CHINARE2016-03-02; the Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation under contract No. ZR2019BD054.
The grain size distribution of bulk sediment samples was decomposed in a core to reconstruct paleoceanographic evolution over the past 60 ka in the northern Norwegian Sea. The results show that sediments consisted of 3–4 grain populations derived from the North Atlantic Current (NAC) and Barents Ice Sheet (BIS). The grain size data suggest three palaeoceanographic evolution stages: (1) an environment affected by BIS and NAC and changed with the interstadial/stadial transition in phase with the Greenland ice-core record at 60–31 ka BP, during which discharge of icebergs and the content of the coarsest population containing ice-rafted debris (IRD) in the sediments increased significantly during stadial, while the fine silt population containing volcanic glasses increased with the enhancement of NAC during the interstadial; (2) an extreme environment controlled by BIS at 31–13 ka BP. BIS reached to its maximum at about 31 ka BP and the turbid plumes that formed at the leading edge of BIS contributed to a significant increase in the clayey population in sediments. Icebergs drained into the northern Norwegian Sea with periodical calving of the BIS at 31–19 ka BP. Subsequently, the ablation of the BIS discharged massive floods with clayey sediments and icebergs into the Norwegian Sea at 19–13 ka BP, resulting in a constant increase in clay and IRD in sediments; and (3) a marine environment similar to the present one under the strong influence of NAC following the complete melting of the BIS after 13 ka BP, NAC is the dominant transport agent and no IRD occurred in sediments. The fine silt populations containing volcanic glasses transported by NAC significantly increased.
The seabed is one of the important boundaries for acoustic propagation in the ocean, especially in shallow seas. As the basic parameter for underwater acoustic study, the sediment sound speed is conventionally obtained by direct measurement methods, including laboratory and in situ measurements and acoustic inversion (e.g., Hamilton et al., 1956; Hamilton, 1963; Zhou et al., 2009, Yang and Tang, 2017; Wang et al., 2018). Additionally, many studies have established the empirical or theoretical models for sound speed prediction (e.g., Biot, 1956a, b; Hamilton, 1971; Stoll, 1977; Hamilton and Bachman, 1982; Buckingham, 2000, 2007; Williams, 2001; Chotiros and Isakson, 2004, 2014; Kimura, 2011). The sound speed of sediment are related to the temperature and pressure; therefore, the sound speed ratio, which is defined as the ratio of the sound speed in sediment to that in seawater under the same conditions (temperature, pressure and salinity), was suggested to eliminate the effects of temperature and pressure (Hamilton, 1971). The sound speed ratio is widely used in theoretical and empirical prediction models, especially the latter (Hamilton and Bachman, 1982; Jackson and Richardson, 2007).
The most widely used empirical equations were established by Hamilton and Bachman (1982) to predict the sound speed based on the density, porosity and mean grain size of sediment and later modified by Bachman (1989) for the sound speed ratio against the same three parameters (this set of equations is referred to hereafter the H&B model). Then, in the 1990s, with the successive development of in situ measurement systems such as the in situ sediment acoustic measurement system (ISSAMS) and acoustic lance (Richardson and Briggs, 1996; Fu et al., 1996), the “undisturbed” sediment acoustic properties were able to be obtained under real seafloor conditions. Subsequently, empirical regressions were proposed for in situ sound speed ratio prediction based on the sediment density, porosity and grain size (Richardson, 1997; Jackson and Richardson, 2007) (these equations are hereafter referred as the J&R model). However, the J&R model yields a lower sound speed ratio value than that predicted by the H&B model. Jackson and Richardson (2007) argued that the differences between the two models may be due to the measurement techniques of acoustic property and physical property, sample perturbations, or even actual differences in the sediment. Uncertainty about differences among various models makes it difficult to choose the appropriate model for predictions. Comparatively, the J&R model seems to be more suitable for prediction in that the sound speed ratio data are derived from the in-situ measurement technique and are believed to be less affected by the variation in measurement conditions than the laboratory method. Nevertheless, the J&R model was based only on 88 sites (Jackson and Richardson, 2007), and more data are necessary to confirm it, especially data measured using in situ techniques.
The South Yellow Sea (SYS) is an epicontinental sea in the western Pacific margin. Abundant terrestrial materials, delivered by the surrounding large rivers, are deposited and then reworked under the unique ocean circulation system in the SYS (Shi, 2012). In 2009 and 2010, two cruises of sediment acoustic survey (named YSSA09 and YSSA10) were conducted in the central and western parts of the SYS (Fig. 1a) to characterize the distribution of sediment acoustic and physical properties. A hydraulically driven self-contained in situ sediment acoustic measurement system (named HISAMS by Liu et al. (2013)) was used to acquire the sound speed of the sediment at 104 stations. The center measurement frequency of this system was 30 kHz. Sediment samples were collected for physical property measurements in the laboratory. The data made it possible to build empirical equations to compare with the previous models. Liu et al. (2013) published the in situ acoustic and physical property data and established regression equations of the in situ sound speed against the mean grain size, density and porosity. However, during the two survey, the bottom seawater sound speed measurements were performed at only a few stations, which was not sufficient for calculating the in situ sound speed ratio at each station. Therefore, the sound speed ratio prediction model was not provided, although the bottom seawater temperatures in the study region are variable (Fig. 1b, based on Editorial Board for Marine Atlas (EBMA), 1993). To accommodate the lack of data for the sound speed ratio calculations mentioned above, this study accessed the historical data of seawater sound speed in the SYS (Editorial Board for Marine Atlas, 1993) and used the sound speed of the bottom seawater to calculate the sound speed ratio at each in situ station. Then, the relationships between the sound speed ratio and physical properties were established and compared with the previous models.
Figure
1.
The location of the study area (a, red shaded area), contour map of the bottom seawater temperature (°C) in the study area in June (b, from Editorial Board for Marine Atlas, 1993), and contour map of the bottom seawater sound speed (m/s) in the study area in June (c, from Editorial Board for Marine Atlas, 1993). In a, the black shaded area shows the study area of Kim et al. (2011) and Bae et al. (2014), whose data were used for comparison. BS: Bohai Sea, NYS: North Yellow Sea, SYS: South Yellow Sea, ECS: East China Sea, KWC: Kuroshio Warm Current, YSWC: Yellow Sea Warm Current, YSCC: Yellow Sea Coastal Current, and KCC: Korea Coastal Current.
The data used in this study are from the two cruises of YSSA09 and YSSA10, including the in situ sediment sound speed and the physical properties measured in laboratory, such as the mean grain size, density, porosity, and sand, silt, and clay content (Meng et al., 2012). The in situ sound speed were measured by the self-contained HISAMS, in which the acoustic transducers are inserted into the sediment by a hydraulic system and then transmit and receive sound wave signals in the sediment. The arrival time of the received sound wave signals and the distances between probes are used to determine the sound speed of the sediment. For a detailed description of the self-contained HISAMS, please refer to Kan et al. (2011). Liu et al. (2013) also described the methodology of in situ sound speed measurement and data processing, and a measurement accuracy of approximately 0.5% was acquired by calibration in the seawater using conductivity temperature depth sensors (CTD). Notably, the HISAMS utilizes a similar working style as the ISSAMS, which penetrates the transmitter and receivers into same depth below the seafloor and performs measurements in the horizontal direction. Therefore, the measurement results of the HISAMS were more comparable with those of the ISSAMS than the cross-layer averaged sound speed taken from measurements in the vertical direction (such as acoustic lance).
The sediment samples were collected by a gravity corer or a box sampler. However, sample collecting are unavailable at some stations due to the hard seabed. Therefore, only the in situ stations with available sediment samples were included in Liu et al. (2013). Each sample was then measured in the laboratory by conventional methods to acquire physical properties such as density, porosity, grain size, and particle composition. Test methods for physical properties were described in detail by Liu et al. (2013) and will not be reiterated here. As the HISAMS has no sediment sampling function, sample collection is performed before or after the in situ measurement. Although the research vessel was anchored each time before station operation, the vessel tended to drift an average of 10 m between measurements. As a result, the position of the in situ measurement was not strictly consistent with the sampling position.
The YSSA09 and YSSA10 collected seawater sound speed profiles using CTD at a total of 13 stations that were fairly evenly distributed in the study region. For these stations, the sound speed ratios were calculated using the measured sound speed of sediments and seawater. For other stations without measured seawater sound speed, the Marine Atlas of the Bohai Sea, Huanghai Sea, East China Sea (Hydrology) (Editorial Board for Marine Atlas, 1993) was used to deduce seawater sound speed data for the sound speed ratio calculation. Both YSSA09 and YSSA10 were carried out in June, so the contour map of the bottom seawater sound speed in June (Fig. 1c) in the atlas was selected and digitized according to its projection method (Mercator Projection). Then, the sound speed value on the corresponding position of the in situ measurement station was calculated by an interpolation method. Compared to the measured sound speed at the bottom of the CTD profile, the digitally interpolated seawater speed at the same station shows a general consistency (Fig. 2), with a slight difference that averages less than 0.3%, which indicates that it is appropriate to use the hydrology atlas to obtain the sound speed of the bottom seawater.
Figure
2.
Comparison of the bottom seawater sound speed interpolated from the hydrology atlas to that measured by CTD during the cruises. The 1:1 dashed line represents that the sound speed is equal, and the solid line is the fitting curve.
The relationships between the sound speed ratio and the mean grain size, density and porosity were built by quadratic equation fitting, and the correlation coefficient was obtained to evaluate the goodness of fit. Additionally, the index of acoustic impedance (IOI) was calculated by multiplying the sound speed ratio and density, and then the empirical equations between the main physical property parameter and the IOI were established by the polynomial regression method.
3.
Results
3.1
Sound speed ratio and its empirical regressions versus physical properties
The calculated sound speed ratio ranges from 0.967 to 1.074 and its upper limit is lower than that of the in situ sound speed ratio in Jackson and Richardson (2007), which is more than 1.15. There are coarse sand deposits in the southwestern part of the study area according to the sediment type atlas (Shi, 2012), but sediment samples were obtained in only a few stations due to the hard seabed. As a result, the types of sediment samples are dominated mainly by silt and clay, as shown in the Shepard ternary diagram (Fig. 3), and only a few stations with sandy sediment samples are included. These factors might explain why a relatively lower sound speed ratio was acquired in this study.
Figure
3.
Shepard ternary diagram of sediment types in the study area. The black points represent the data used in this paper and the red points represent the collected data from Bae et al. (2014).
The regressions of the sound speed ratio V pR against the mean grain size Mz, density ρ, and porosity η are listed in Table 1 and the corresponding curves are plotted in Figs 4a, b and c, respectively. The sound speed ratio increases with increasing density and mean grain size (decreasing $\phi$ values) and decreases with increasing porosity, showing the same tendency as the relationship between the sound speed and these physical properties in Liu et al. (2013). The correlation coefficient of the equation between the sound speed ratio and the mean grain size is significantly lower than that of the other two equations. The data points are more scattered for the coarser particle deposits (low $\phi $ values, high density, low porosity) than for the fine particle deposits, meaning that the uncertainty of the correlation increased with increasing sound speed ratio. This is understandable, considering the difficulties in sampling and storing coarse-grained sediment, which is easily disturbed and dehydrated. Another reason for the relatively high scatter of these data points may be due to the disagreement in the sampling position and in situ measurement position, as mentioned previously. Ideally, if the sediment is sampled synchronously when the in situ measurement device is deployed, the positions of both operations will be kept identical. Therefore, the columnar sampler should be installed on the newly developed in situ measurement system, which makes it possible to collect sediment samples and deploy in situ measurements of sound properties simultaneously.
Table
1.
Empirical relationships of the sediment sound speed ratio with physical properties
Figure
4.
Relationship between the sound speed ratio and the three physical properties of mean grain size (a), bulk density (b), and porosity (c). Black points represent our data, and black solid lines represent their fitted curves, corresponding to equations listed in Table 1. Also plotted are the curves of the H&B model (blue lines), the J&R model (pink lines) as listed in Appendix, and data from Kim et al. (2011) (green diamonds) and Bae et al. (2014) (red triangles).
3.2
Index of acoustic impedance and its empirical regressions against physical properties
Using acoustic instruments such as sub-bottom profilers and multibeam echosounders, acoustic classification of the sediment can be accomplished based on the echo signals obtained and the relationship between the sediment acoustic impedance and physical properties. Richardson and Briggs (1993, 2004) proposed the concept of the index of acoustic impedance (IOI) and established its relationship with the major physical properties of sediment. The IOI was defined as the product of sound speed ratio and the bulk density, which is different from the acoustic impedance in that it is temperature independent. Considering the specific aspects of the sedimentary environment in the SYS, we also calculated the IOI using the calculated in situ sound speed ratio and the density and established the relationships of the IOI with the major sediment physical properties by the polynomial regression method, as in the quadratic equations shown in Table 2 and the curves in Fig. 6.
Table
2.
Empirical relationships between the index of impedance (IOI) and geoacoustical and physical properties
4.1
Comparison to the previous sound speed ratio empirical regressions
The equations of the H&B model and J&R model are plotted in Fig. 4. All the equations of the H&B model show an overestimation of the sound speed ratio for three physical properties in comparison to those of the J&B model and our model, while the latter two models show relatively consistent values for the density and porosity (Figs 4b and c). Moreover, our model yields a sound speed ratio that is lower than those in the H&B and J&R model for a given mean grain size (Fig. 4a).
Considering the good agreement between our model and the J&R model for the density and porosity and their disagreement for the mean grain size, we investigated whether the relationship between the porosity (or density) and the mean grain size is different between our model and the J&R model. Since the regression equation between the porosity and mean grain size was not reported by Jackson and Richardson (2007), we determined this equation by combining the equation coupling the sound speed ratio to the mean grain size and the equation coupling the sound speed ratio to the porosity, although we are not sure to what extent this regression matches the measured values of the J&R model. As shown in Fig. 5a, the J&R model yeilds an underestimation of porosity for the given mean grain size, compared to our data, while the H&B model agrees well with our data, especially for fine-grained sediment. Therefore, the relationship between the porosity and mean grain size is different in various studies, which may be due to the sediment grain shape and the sea environment.
Figure
5.
Relationship between the porosity and the mean grain size (a), and double-parameters relationship of sound speed ratio with both porosity and mean grain size (b). In a, black points represent our data; also plotted are the H&B model (blue lines), the J&R model (pink lines), and data from Bae et al. (2014) (red triangles).
Table 1 indicates that the correlation between the sound speed ratio and mean grain size is not very close, and the R-square value is indeed low. Therefore, we attempted to combine the porosity and the mean grain size to establish a two-parameter empirical equation for predicting the sound speed ratio, as listed in Table 1 and shown in Fig. 5b. With this two-parameter empirical equation, the R-square value is improved compared to that of the single-parameter equation using the mean grain size. These results indicate that the development of multiple-parameter equations would be useful for sound speed prediction.
To further confirm the above analysis, sediment acoustic measurement data of the adjacent area of the SYS, mainly the southeastern SYS off the Korean Peninsula (Fig. 1a), were collected, including the sound speed and density data published by Kim et al. (2011) and the sound speed, mean grain size, density, and porosity data published by Bae et al. (2014). However, only the sound speed was given in these articles, and the sound speed ratio was not mentioned. In addition, the above studies converted the sound speed to that of standard laboratory conditions (23°C, 1 atmosphere, and 35 salinity) as proposed by Hamilton (1971). Therefore, the seawater sound speed of 1 529.6 m/s in such a standard condition is used to calculate the corresponding sound speed ratio. Since both Kim et al. (2011) and Bae et al. (2014) focused on the so-called Central South Sea Mud region, the sediment types were mainly clayey silt, as exhibited in Fig. 3 (red points), with physical properties of low density, high porosity and small mean grain size. These collected data are also plotted in Fig. 4. The data of both Kim et al. (2011) and Bae et al. (2014) match well to our model and the J&R model. Therefore, the general suitability of the J&R model in this sea area is further confirmed. However, the sound speed ratio data of Bae et al. (2014) match better to our model using the mean grain size than the J&R model (shown in Fig. 4a), which indicates that the regression of the sound speed ratio to the mean grain size of the J&R model is not applicable for the SYS and its adjacent region.
The porosity and mean grain size data from Bae et al. (2014) are also plotted in Fig. 5. These data agree well with the regression equation of the H&B model and our data but depart from the equation of the J&R model. The sediment in the SYS is mainly terrigenous materials transported by the surrounding large rivers, especially the Huanghe River (Yellow River) and the Changjiang River (Yangtze River). After long-distance delivery by the river, this sediment is deposited and then reworked by the strong hydrodynamic forces of the SYS, such as circulation currents and tidal currents (Fig. 1a), and sediment of different grain sizes deposits at the delivery path, which leads to the sediment being well sorted in different areas. The sorting of the sediment in the study area is supported by geological survey data, which show that the sediment sorting coefficient is below 2 as a whole and is even less than 1.5 in the clayey sediment area (Shi, 2012). The grain size, shape and packing are key parameters affecting porosity in unconsolidated sediment (Kamann et al., 2007). Well-sorted sediment has more pore spaces unfilled by finer-grained components than poorly sorted sediment. This may explain why the regressions of the sound speed ratio and mean grain size are inconsistent between our model and the J&R model. This also supports the view that the mean grain size may not be a good indicator for the prediction of the sound speed. Nevertheless, as a geologically general and readily available sediment parameter, the mean grain size is still useful for predicting the sound speed in a specific region with a relatively sedimentary environment in areas lacking porosity or density data.
4.2
Comparison of the index of acoustic impedance empirical regressions
Comparing our IOI equations with those of Jackson and Richardson (2007), we can see that the porosity, density and sound speed ratio equations are in good agreement (Fig. 6). This was as expected, considering the consistency of this study and the J&R model regarding the equations linking the sound speed ratio with the density and porosity. Furthermore, the relationship of the IOI with the mean grain size is different, just as that of the sound speed ratio and the mean grain size. The relationship between the IOI and the sand content and clay content is drawn in Fig. 6e. By comparison, the relationship of the IOI with the sand content has a similar trend to that of the J&R model, although they are not entirely consistent.
Figure
6.
Relationship between the IOI and the geoacoustical and physical properties and comparison with equations from Jackson and Richardson (2007). a. Sound speed ratio against the IOI, b. mean grain size against the IOI, c. density against the IOI, d. porosity against the IOI, and e. sand content and clay content against the IOI (the pink line represents the regression for IOI against sand and gravel content in J&R model).
These equations of the IOI are valuable in practical applications, such as sediment classification and sound speed prediction. Conventional methods of measuring the sound speed (sampling and laboratory measurements, in situ measurements and acoustic inversion) at fixed points are inefficient; it is costly to obtain a dense data set. Moreover, sound speed prediction using the relationship of this parameter with physical properties is also challenging because of the difficulty in measuring physical parameters. Underway measurements using a sub-bottom profiler or multibeam echosounder typically operate with high efficiency. With the wide application of these convenient and efficient survey techniques and application of IOI models as above, a large amount of densely distributed acoustic properties of the seafloor sediment can be easily obtained.
5.
Summary
Based on the in situ measured sound speed and the historical seawater sound speed data in the SYS, this study calculated sound speed ratios at each in situ station of the YSSA09 and YSSA10 survey. This study also established new regression relationships between the sound speed ratio and three physical properties, including the mean grain size, density and porosity. In comparison to the previously built models, the new regressions of the sound speed ratio to the density and the sound speed ratio to the porosity show good agreement with those of Jackson and Richardson (2007), but there is some inconsistency in the equations coupling the sound speed ratio to the mean grain size between the two models. The sediment acoustic measurement data for the SYS published in other articles are consistent with these new equations and confirm the general applicability of the J&R model for sound speed ratio prediction based on density and porosity in the SYS. The mismatch of the equations coupling the sound speed ratio to the mean grain size may be related to the sediment itself due to the different sedimentary environments. Considering that the mean grain size is a geologically general and readily available sediment parameter, the equation coupling the sound speed versus the mean grain size is still useful for predicting the sound speed in a specific region where the porosity or density data are not available. In addition, regressions between the IOI and the acoustic and physical properties are also calculated, which may be applied for rapid sediment classification and sound speed prediction.
Acknowledgement
We thank the crew of R/V Dongfanghong 2 for assistance with the in situ acoustic measurements.
Aksenov Y, Bacon S, Coward A C, et al. 2010. The North Atlantic inflow to the Arctic Ocean: High-resolution model study. Journal of Marine Systems, 79(1−2): 1–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2009.05.003
[2]
Andreassen K, Laberg J S, Vorren T O. 2008. Seafloor geomorphology of the SW Barents Sea and its glaci-dynamic implications. Geomorphology, 97(1−2): 157–177. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.02.050
[3]
Ashley G M. 1978. Interpretation of polymodal sediments. The Journal of Geology, 86(4): 411–421. doi: 10.1086/649710
[4]
Austin W E N, Kroon D. 2001. Deep sea ventilation of the northeastern Atlantic during the last 15, 000 years. Global and Planetary Change, 30(1−2): 13–31. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8181(01)00074-1
[5]
Bauch H A, Erlenkeuser H, Spielhagen R F, et al. 2001. A multiproxy reconstruction of the evolution of deep and surface waters in the subarctic Nordic seas over the last 30, 000 yr. Quaternary Science Reviews, 20(4): 659–678. doi: 10.1016/S0277-3791(00)00098-6
[6]
Baumann K H, Lackschewitz K S, Mangerud J, et al. 1995. Reflection of scandinavian ice sheet fluctuations in norwegian sea sediments during the past 150, 000 years. Quaternary Research, 43(2): 185–197. doi: 10.1006/qres.1995.1019
[7]
Belt S T, Cabedo-Sanz P, Smik L, et al. 2015. Identification of paleo Arctic winter sea ice limits and the marginal ice zone: Optimised biomarker-based reconstructions of late Quaternary Arctic sea ice. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 431: 127–139. doi: 10.1016/j.jpgl.2015.09.020
[8]
Bond G, Showers W, Cheseby M, et al. 1997. A pervasive millennial-scale cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and glacial climates. Science, 278(5341): 1257–1266. doi: 10.1126/science.278.5341.1257
[9]
Broecker W S. 1991. The great ocean conveyor. Oceanography, 4(2): 79–89. doi: 10.5670/oceanog.1991.07
[10]
Clark P U, Dyke A S, Shakun J D, et al. 2009. The last glacial maximum. Science, 325(5941): 710–714. doi: 10.1126/science.1172873
[11]
Clark D L, Hanson A. 1983. Central Arctic Ocean sediment texture: a key to ice transport mechanisms. In: Molnia B F, ed. Glacial-Marine Sedimentation. Boston, MA,USA: Springer, 301–330, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4613-3793-5_7
[12]
Darby D A. 2003. Sources of sediment found in sea ice from the western Arctic Ocean, new insights into processes of entrainment and drift patterns. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 108(C8): 3257. doi: 10.1029/2002JC001350
[13]
Darby D A, Myers W B, Jakobsson M, et al. 2011. Modern dirty sea ice characteristics and sources: The role of anchor ice. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 116: C09008. doi: 10.1029/2010JC006675
[14]
Darby D A, Ortiz J, Polyak L, et al. 2009. The role of currents and sea ice in both slowly deposited central Arctic and rapidly deposited Chukchi–Alaskan margin sediments. Global and Planetary Change, 68(1−2): 58–72. doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2009.02.007
[15]
Darby D A, Polyak L, Bauch H A. 2006. Past glacial and interglacial conditions in the Arctic Ocean and marginal seas–a review. Progress in Oceanography, 71(2−4): 129–144. doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2006.09.009
[16]
Dethleff D. 2005. Entrainment and export of Laptev Sea ice sediments, Siberian Arctic. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 110(C7): C07009. doi: 10.1029/2004JC002740
[17]
Dickson R R, Brown J. 1994. The production of North Atlantic Deep Water: Sources, rates, and pathways. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 99(C6): 12319–12341. doi: 10.1029/94JC00530
[18]
Dokken T M, Jansen E. 1999. Rapid changes in the mechanism of ocean convection during the last glacial period. Nature, 401(6752): 458–461. doi: 10.1038/46753
[19]
Dokken T M, Nisancioglu K H, Li C, et al. 2013. Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles: Interactions between ocean and sea ice intrinsic to the Nordic seas. Paleoceanography, 28(3): 491–502. doi: 10.1002/palo.20042
[20]
Dowdeswell J A, Elverhøi A, Andrews J T, et al. 1999. Asynchronous deposition of ice-rafted layers in the Nordic seas and North Atlantic Ocean. Nature, 400(6742): 348–351. doi: 10.1038/22510
[21]
Eicken H, Gradinger R, Gaylord A, et al. 2005. Sediment transport by sea ice in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas: Increasing importance due to changing ice conditions?. Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 52(24–26): 3281–3302. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2005.10.006
[22]
Eldevik T, Risebrobakken B, Bjune A E, et al. 2014. A brief history of climate–the northern seas from the Last Glacial Maximum to global warming. Quaternary Science Reviews, 106: 225–246. doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.06.028
[23]
Elliot M, Labeyrie L, Dokken T, et al. 2001. Coherent patterns of ice-rafted debris deposits in the Nordic regions during the last glacial (10–60 ka). Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 194(1−2): 151–163. doi: 10.1016/S0012-821X(01)00561-1
[24]
Ezat M M, Rasmussen T L, Groeneveld J. 2014. Persistent intermediate water warming during cold stadials in the southeastern Nordic seas during the past 65 k.y. Geology, 42(8): 663–666. doi: 10.1130/G35579.1
[25]
Ezat M M, Rasmussen T L, Thornalley D J R, et al. 2017. Ventilation history of Nordic Seas overflows during the last (de)glacial period revealed by species-specific benthic foraminiferal 14C dates. Paleoceanography, 32(2): 172–181. doi: 10.1002/2016PA003053
[26]
Grootes P M, Stuiver M, White J W C, et al. 1993. Comparison of oxygen isotope records from the GISP2 and GRIP Greenland ice cores. Nature, 366(6455): 552–554. doi: 10.1038/366552a0
[27]
Hansen B, Østerhus S. 2000. North Atlantic–Nordic Seas exchanges. Progress in Oceanography, 45(2): 109–208. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6611(99)00052-X
[28]
Heaton T J, Köhler P, Butzin M, et al. 2020. Marine20—The Marine Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0–55, 000 cal BP). Radiocarbon, 62(4): 779–820. doi: 10.1017/RDC.2020.68
[29]
Hesse R, Khodabakhsh S, Klaucke I, et al. 1997. Asymmetrical turbid surface-plume deposition near ice-outlets of the Pleistocene Laurentide ice sheet in the Labrador Sea. Geo-Marine Letters, 17(3): 179–187. doi: 10.1007/s003670050024
[30]
Hoff U, Rasmussen T L, Stein R, et al. 2016. Sea ice and millennial-scale climate variability in the Nordic seas 90 kyr ago to present. Nature Communications, 7(1): 12247. doi: 10.1038/ncomms12247
[31]
Hormes A, Gjermundsen E F, Rasmussen T L. 2013. From mountain top to the deep sea–Deglaciation in 4D of the northwestern Barents Sea ice sheet. Quaternary Science Reviews, 75: 78–99. doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.04.009
[32]
Kissel C. 2005. Magnetic signature of rapid climatic variations in glacial North Atlantic, a review. Comptes Rendus Geoscience, 337(10−11): 908–918. doi: 10.1016/j.crte.2005.04.009
[33]
Kissel C, Laj C, Labeyrie L, et al. 1999. Rapid climatic variations during marine isotopic stage 3: magnetic analysis of sediments from Nordic Seas and North Atlantic. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 171(3): 489–502. doi: 10.1016/S0012-821X(99)00162-4
[34]
Knies J, Köseoğlu D, Rise L, et al. 2018. Nordic Seas polynyas and their role in preconditioning marine productivity during the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature Communications, 9(1): 3959. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06252-8
[35]
Kuhlemann J, Lange H, Paetsch H. 1993. Implications of a connection between clay mineral variations and coarse grained debris and lithology in the central Norwegian-Greenland Sea. Marine Geology, 114(1−2): 1–11. doi: 10.1016/0025-3227(93)90036-U
[36]
Latarius K, Quadfasel D. 2016. Water mass transformation in the deep basins of the Nordic Seas: Analyses of heat and freshwater budgets. Deep-Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 114: 23–42. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr.2016.04.012
[37]
Lekens W A H, Sejrup H P, Haflidason H, et al. 2005. Laminated sediments preceding Heinrich event 1 in the Northern North Sea and Southern Norwegian Sea: Origin, processes and regional linkage. Marine Geology, 216(1−2): 27–50. doi: 10.1016/j.margeo.2004.12.007
[38]
Lekens W A H, Sejrup H P, Haflidason H, et al. 2006. Meltwater and ice rafting in the southern Norwegian Sea between 20 and 40 calendar kyr B.P.: Implications for Fennoscandian Heinrich events. Paleoceanography, 21(3): PA3013. doi: 10.1029/2005PA001228
[39]
Lisitzin A P. 2010. Marine ice-rafting as a new type of sedimentogenesis in the Arctic and novel approaches to studying sedimentary processes. Russian Geology and Geophysics, 51(1): 12–47. doi: 10.1016/j.rgg.2009.12.002
[40]
Meland M Y, Dokken T M, Jansen E, et al. 2008. Water mass properties and exchange between the Nordic seas and the northern North Atlantic during the period 23–6 ka: Benthic oxygen isotopic evidence. Paleoceanography, 23(1): PA1210. doi: 10.1029/2007PA001416
[41]
Middleton G V. 1976. Hydraulic interpretation of sand size distributions. The Journal of Geology, 84(4): 405–426. doi: 10.1086/628208
[42]
Muschitiello F, D’Andrea W J, Schmittner A, et al. 2019. Deep-water circulation changes lead North Atlantic climate during deglaciation. Nature Communications, 10(1): 1272. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-09237-3
[43]
Nagashima K, Asahara Y, Takeuchi F, et al. 2012. Contribution of detrital materials from the Yukon River to the continental shelf sediments of the Bering Sea based on the electron spin resonance signal intensity and crystallinity of quartz. Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 61-64: 145–154. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2011.12.001
[44]
Nürnberg D, Wollenburg I, Dethleff D, et al. 1994. Sediments in Arctic sea ice: Implications for entrainment, transport and release. Marine Geology, 119(3−4): 185–214. doi: 10.1016/0025-3227(94)90181-3
[45]
Park C S, Hwang S, Yoon S O, et al. 2014. Grain size partitioning in loess–paleosol sequence on the west coast of South Korea using the Weibull function. CATENA, 121: 307–320. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2014.05.018
[46]
Patton H, Hubbard A, Andreassen K, et al. 2017. Deglaciation of the Eurasian ice sheet complex. Quaternary Science Reviews, 169: 148–172. doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2017.05.019
[47]
Phillips R L, Grantz A. 2001. Regional variations in provenance and abundance of ice-rafted clasts in Arctic Ocean sediments: implications for the configuration of late Quaternary oceanic and atmospheric circulation in the Arctic. Marine Geology, 172(1−2): 91–115. doi: 10.1016/S0025-3227(00)00101-8
[48]
Polyak L, Alley R B, Andrews J T, et al. 2010. History of sea ice in the Arctic. Quaternary Science Reviews, 29(15−16): 1757–1778. doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.02.010
[49]
Pope E L, Talling P J, Hunt J E, et al. 2016. Long-term record of Barents Sea Ice Sheet advance to the shelf edge from a 140, 000 year record. Quaternary Science Reviews, 150: 55–66. doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.08.014
[50]
Qin Xiaoguang, Cai Binggui, Liu T. 2005. Loess record of the aerodynamic environment in the east Asia monsoon area since 60, 000 years before present. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 110(B1): B01204. doi: 10.1029/2004JB003131
[51]
Rasmussen T L, Thomsen E. 2008. Warm Atlantic surface water inflow to the Nordic seas 34–10 calibrated ka B.P. Paleoceanography, 23: PA1201. doi: 10.1029/2007PA001453
[52]
Rasmussen T L, Thomsen E. 2009. Ventilation changes in intermediate water on millennial time scales in the SE Nordic seas, 65–14 kyr BP. Geophysical Research Letters, 36(1): L01601. doi: 10.1029/2008GL036563
[53]
Rasmussen T L, Thomsen E, Moros M. 2016. North Atlantic warming during Dansgaard-Oeschger events synchronous with Antarctic warming and out-of-phase with Greenland climate. Scientific Reports, 6: 20535. doi: 10.1038/srep20535
[54]
Rasmussen T L, Thomsen E, van Weering T C E, et al. 1996. Rapid changes in surface and deep water conditions at the Faeroe Margin during the last 58, 000 years. Paleoceanography, 11(6): 757–771. doi: 10.1029/96PA02618
[55]
Ruddiman W F. 1977. Late Quaternary deposition of ice-rafted sand in the subpolar North Atlantic (lat 40° to 65°N). Geological Society of America Bulletin, 88(12): 1813–1827. doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1977)88<1813:LQDOIS>2.0.CO;2
[56]
Sadatzki H, Dokken T M, Berben S M P, et al. 2019. Sea ice variability in the southern Norwegian Sea during glacial Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycles. Science Advances, 5(3): eaau6174. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aau6174
[57]
Sarnthein M, Pflaumann U, Weinelt M. 2003. Past extent of sea ice in the northern North Atlantic inferred from foraminiferal paleotemperature estimates. Paleoceanography, 18(2): 1047. doi: 10.1029/2002PA000771
[58]
Simstich J, Lorenz S J, Bauch H A. 2013. Reprint of: Evaluation of past stratification changes in the Nordic Seas by comparing planktonic foraminiferal δ18O with a solar-forced model. Marine Micropaleontology, 99: 45–50. doi: 10.1016/j.marmicro.2013.03.009
[59]
Spielhagen R F, Baumann K H, Erlenkeuser H, et al. 2004. Arctic Ocean deep-sea record of northern Eurasian ice sheet history. Quaternary Science Reviews, 23(11−13): 1455–1483. doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2003.12.015
[60]
Struve T, Roberts N L, Frank M, et al. 2019. Ice-sheet driven weathering input and water mass mixing in the Nordic Seas during the last 25, 000 years. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 514: 108–118. doi: 10.1016/j.jpgl.2019.02.030
[61]
Sun Donghuai, Bloemendal J, Rea D K, et al. 2002. Grain-size distribution function of polymodal sediments in hydraulic and aeolian environments, and numerical partitioning of the sedimentary components. Sedimentary Geology, 152(3−4): 263–277. doi: 10.1016/S0037-0738(02)00082-9
[62]
Telesiński M M, Bauch H A, Spielhagen R F, et al. 2015. Evolution of the central Nordic Seas over the last 20 thousand years. Quaternary Science Reviews, 121: 98–109. doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2015.05.013
[63]
Wang Dong, Hesse R. 1996. Continental slope sedimentation adjacent to an ice-margin. II. Glaciomarine depositional facies on labrador slope and glacial cycles. Marine Geology, 135(1−4): 65–96. doi: 10.1016/S0025-3227(96)00012-6
[64]
Wang Qiang, Wekerle C, Wang Xuezhu, et al. 2020a. Intensification of the Atlantic water supply to the Arctic Ocean through fram strait induced by Arctic sea ice decline. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(3): e2019GL086682. doi: 10.1029/2019GL086682
[65]
Wang Weiguo, Yang Jichao, Zhao Mengwei, et al. 2020b. Spatial variation in grain-size population of surface sediments from northern Bering Sea and western Arctic Ocean: implications for provenance and depositional mechanisms. Advances in Polar Science, 31(3): 192–204. doi: 10.13679/j.advps.2020.0015
[66]
Wary M, Eynaud F, Rossignol L, et al. 2016. Norwegian Sea warm pulses during Dansgaard-Oeschger stadials: Zooming in on these anomalies over the 35–41 ka cal BP interval and their impacts on proximal European ice-sheet dynamics. Quaternary Science Reviews, 151: 255–272. doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.09.011
[67]
Xiao Jule, Chang Zhigang, Fan Jiawei, et al. 2012. The link between grain-size components and depositional processes in a modern clastic lake. Sedimentology, 59(3): 1050–1062. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3091.2011.01294.x
[68]
Xiao Xiaotong, Zhao Meixun, Knudsen K L, et al. 2017. Deglacial and Holocene sea–ice variability north of Iceland and response to ocean circulation changes. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 472: 14–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jpgl.2017.05.006
Figure 1. Oceanography setting and location of core ARC5-BB01. Red solid arrow indicates Norwegian Atlantic Current; yellow and blue solid arrows indicate surface and bottom East Greenland Current, respectively; blue dashed arrow indicates Nordic overflow; purple dashed line indicates Jan Mayen Fracture Zone; orange dashed line indicates Iceland-Shetland Ridge; BIT, Bear Island Trough; BTMF, Bear Island Trough Mouth Fan; DS, Denmark Strait; FS, Fram Strait; JMR, Jan Mayen Ridge; LB, Lofoten Basin; NB, Norwegian Basin; VP, Vøring Plateau
Figure 2. Age-depth model for core BB01. a. Calibrated 14C age versus depth. b. Magnetic susceptibility of core BB01 versus 14C time scale. c. Magnetic susceptibility of core BB01 on GISP2 time scale. d. Oxygen isotope of GISP2 ice core versus age (Grootes et al., 1993).
Figure 3. The down core variations of clay, silt and sand content in sediments and their grain size parameters of core BB01.
Figure 4. Representative grain size distribution (red line) and their populations (blue line) of sediments in core BB01. P1, P2, P3, P4 are abbreviations of populations in grain size distribution in the order of mode size from fine to coarse.
Figure 5. Down core variation of mode size and content of each population in sediments of core BB01.
Figure 6. IRD grains (>154 μm) in population 4 at 13 ka BP (left) and 33.4 ka BP (right) in core BB01.
Figure 7. Smear photomicrographs of sediment grains with different sizes in core BB01. Photos on the left panel are under plane-polarized light, and on the right panel are the same photos under cross-polarized light. a–d. Grains in P2 and P3 at 40 cm (after 13 ka BP); e and f. grains in P3 at 355 cm; g and h. grains in P4 at 355 cm, in which most of the grains are grey minerals (quartz) under cross-polarized light.
Figure 8. Correlations between grain size populations in sediments of core BB01. P1–P4: population 1 to population 4.
Figure 9. Correlations between magnetic susceptibility and grain size population content in sediments of core BB01.
Figure 10. Schematic showing North Atlantic Current (NAC) in water column during glacial (a) and interglacial periods (b).
Figure 11. Correlation of sand and silt content and P2+P3 and P4 content in sediments of BB01 core. Numbers over the GISP2 curve mark the position of the Dangaard-Oeschger interstadials; B/A- Bølling-Allerød warm period; H- Heinrich Event; YD- Younger Dryas.
DownLoad:
DownLoad:
DownLoad:
