Acta Geochimica

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 405–409 | Cite as

Concentration–discharge patterns of weathering products from global rivers

  • Daniel E. Ibarra
  • Seulgi Moon
  • Jeremy K. Caves
  • C. Page Chamberlain
  • Kate Maher
Original Article

Abstract

Quantifying the functional relationships relating river discharge and weathering products places key constraints on the negative feedback between the silicate weathering and climate. In this study we analyze the concentration–discharge relationships of weathering products from global rivers using previously compiled time-series datasets for concentrations and discharge from global rivers. To analyze the nature of the covariation between specific discharge and concentrations, we use both a power law equation and a recently developed solute production equation. The solute production equation allows us to quantify weathering efficiency, or the resistance to dilution at high runoff, via the Damköhler coefficient. These results are also compared to those derived using average concentration–discharge pairs. Both the power law exponent and the Damköhler coefficient increase and asymptote as catchments exhibit increasingly chemostatic behavior, resulting in an inverse relationship between the two parameters. We also show that using the distribution of average concentration–discharge pairs from global rivers, rather than fitting concentration–discharge relationships for each individual river, underestimates global median weathering efficiency by up to a factor of ~10. This study demonstrates the utility of long time-series sampling of global rivers to elucidate controlling processes needed to quantify patterns in global silicate weathering rates.

Keywords

Concentration–discharge Rivers Silicate weathering Solutes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Daniel E. Ibarra is partially supported by a Stanford EDGE-STEM Fellowship. This work was initiated under NSF EAR-1254156 to Kate Maher and was also supported by the California Alliance Research Exchange NSF HRD-1306595 to C. Page Chamberlain.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11631_2017_177_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (74 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 75 kb)

References

  1. Bluth GJS, Kump LR (1994) Lithologic and climatologic controls of river chemistry. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 58:2341–2359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caves JK, Jost AB, Lau KV, Maher K (2016) Cenozoic carbon cycle imbalances and a variable weathering feedback. Earth Planet Sci Lett 450:152–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. François LM, Walker JC (1992) Modelling the Phanerozoic carbon cycle and climate: constraints from the 87Sr/86Sr isotopic ratio of seawater. Am J Sci 292:81–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gaillardet J, Dupré B, Louvat P, Allegre CJ (1999) Global silicate weathering and CO2 consumption rates deduced from the chemistry of large rivers. Chem Geol 159:3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Godsey SE, Kirchner JW, Clow DW (2009) Concentration–discharge relationships reflect chemostatic characteristics of US catchments. Hydrol Process 23:1844–1864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grothendieck G (2013) nls2: non-linear regression with brute force. R package version 0.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nls2
  7. Ibarra DE, Caves JK, Moon S et al (2016) Differential weathering of basaltic and granitic catchments from concentration–discharge relationships. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 190:265–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kump LR, Arthur MA (1997) Global chemical erosion during the cenozoic: weatherability balances the budgets. Tectonic uplift and climate change. Springer, Boston, pp 399–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kump LR, Brantley SL, Arthur MA (2000) Chemical weathering, atmospheric CO2, and climate. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 28:611–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Maher K (2010) The dependence of chemical weathering rates on fluid residence time. Earth Planet Sci Lett 294:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Maher K (2011) The role of fluid residence time and topographic scales in determining chemical fluxes from landscapes. Earth Planet Sci Lett 312:48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maher K, Chamberlain CP (2014) Hydrologic regulation of chemical weathering and the geologic. Science 343:1502–1504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moon S, Chamberlain CP, Hilley GE (2014) New estimates of silicate weathering rates and their uncertainties in global rivers. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 134:257–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Torres MA, West AJ, Clark KE (2015) Geomorphic regime modulates hydrologic control of chemical weathering in the Andes–Amazon. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 166:105–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Torres MA, Baronas JJ, Clarke KE, Feakins SJ, West AJ (2017) Mixing as a driver of temporal variations in river hydrochemistry. Part 1: insights from conservative traces in the Andes–Amazon transition. Water Resour Res. doi: 10.1001/2016WR019733 Google Scholar
  16. von Blanckenburg F, Bouchez J, Ibarra DE, Maher K (2015) Stable runoff and weathering fluxes into the oceans over Quaternary climate cycles. Nat Geosci 8:538–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Geochemistry, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel E. Ibarra
    • 1
  • Seulgi Moon
    • 2
  • Jeremy K. Caves
    • 3
  • C. Page Chamberlain
    • 1
  • Kate Maher
    • 4
  1. 1.Earth System ScienceStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Earth, Planetary, and Space SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Earth ScienceETH ZürichZurichSwitzerland
  4. 4.Geological SciencesStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations