It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Pelagic–benthic coupling describes the connection between surface-water production and seafloor habitats via energy, nutrient and mass exchange. Massive ice loss and warming in the poorly studied Arctic Chukchi Borderland are hypothesized to affect this coupling. The strength of pelagic–benthic coupling was compared between 2 years varying in climate settings, 2005 and 2016, based on δ13C and δ15N stable isotopes of food-web end-members and pelagic and deep-sea benthic consumers. Considerably higher isotopic niche overlap and generally shorter isotopic distance were found between pelagic and benthic food web components in 2005 than in 2016, suggesting weaker coupling in the latter, low-ice year. δ15N values indicated more refractory food consumed by benthos in 2016 and fresher food reaching the seafloor in 2005. Higher δ13C values of zooplankton indirectly suggested a higher contribution of ice algae in 2005 than 2016. The difference in pelagic–benthic coupling between these years is consistent with higher energy retention within the pelagic system, perhaps due to strong stratification in the Amerasian Basin in the recent decade. Weaker coupling to the benthos can be expected to continue with ice loss in the study area, perhaps reducing benthic biomass and remineralization capacity; monitoring of the area is needed to confirm this prediction.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Department of Arctic and Marine Biology, Faculty of Biosciences, Fisheries and Economics, Tromsø, Norway (GRID:grid.10919.30) (ISNI:0000000122595234)
2 University of Alaska Fairbanks, College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, Fairbanks, USA (GRID:grid.70738.3b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 981X)
3 Fram Centre for Climate and the Environment, Akvaplan-niva, Tromsø, Norway (GRID:grid.417991.3) (ISNI:0000 0004 7704 0318); University Centre in Svalbard, Department of Arctic Biology, Longyearbyen, Norway (GRID:grid.20898.3b) (ISNI:0000 0004 0428 2244)
4 Russian Academy of Sciences, Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Moscow, Russia (GRID:grid.4886.2) (ISNI:0000 0001 2192 9124)




