Global variability of high nutrient low chlorophyll regions using neural networks and wavelet coherence analysis

Basterretxea, Gotzon; Font-Muñoz, Joan S.; Hernández-Carrasco, Ismael; Sañudo-Wilhelmy, Sergio

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-827

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-827

Preprints

05 Sep 2022

| 05 Sep 2022

Global variability of high nutrient low chlorophyll regions using neural networks and wavelet coherence analysis

Gotzon Basterretxea, Joan S. Font-Muñoz, Ismael Hernández-Carrasco, and Sergio Sañudo-Wilhelmy

Abstract. We examine 20-years of monthly global ocean color data and modelling outputs of nutrients using self-organizing map analysis (SOM) to identify characteristic spatial and temporal patterns of High Nutrient Low Chlorophyll (HNLC) regions and their association with different climate modes. Analyzing the properties of the probability distribution function of the global nitrate to chlorophyll ratio (NO3:Chl), we estimate that NO3:Chl>17 (mmol NO3/mg Chl) is a good indicator of the distribution limit of this unproductive biome that extends over ~25 % of the ocean. Trends in satellite-derived surface chlorophyll (0.6±0.4 to 2±0.4 % yr^-1) suggest that HNLC regions in polar and subpolar areas have experienced an increase in phytoplankton biomass over the last decades. However, much of this variation is produced by a foremost climate-driven transition occurring after the year 2010, which resulted in a reduction in the extension of polar HNLC regions and an increase in their productivity. Chlorophyll variations at HNLC regions respond to all three major climate variability signals (Sea Surface Temperature, SST; El Niño Southern Oscillation, ENSO; and Meridional Overturning Circulation, MOC) and their annual and semiannual variabilities are coherent with seasonal temperature variations. At larger scales, ENSO driven variability (2–4 yr) and decadal-scale processes of heat uptake and redistribution by ocean circulation influence the HNLC extension. Our results are indicative of the long-term changes in phytoplankton biomass and productivity in the ocean and suggest global coupling in the functioning of distant biogeochemical regions.

Received: 24 Aug 2022 – Discussion started: 05 Sep 2022

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 1710 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (1710 KB)

Supplement (811 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

06 Jul 2023

Global variability of high-nutrient low-chlorophyll regions using neural networks and wavelet coherence analysis

Gotzon Basterretxea, Joan S. Font-Muñoz, Ismael Hernández-Carrasco, and Sergio A. Sañudo-Wilhelmy

Ocean Sci., 19, 973–990, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-19-973-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/os-19-973-2023, 2023

Short summary

Gotzon Basterretxea et al.

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

CC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-827', Yonggang Liu, 21 Sep 2022

Comments on “Global variability of high nutrient low chlorophyll regions using neural networks and wavelet coherence analysis” by Basterretxea et al.

It is encouraging to see the growing number of innovative Self-Organizing Map (SOM) applications in the ocean science community since its early applications in oceanography more than a decade ago (e.g., Liu and Weisberg, 2005; Liu et al., 2006). The SOM is a powerful machine learning technique that can be widely used in oceanographic research in the future. In order for readers to better understand this, it would be good to provide a brief literature review of SOM applications in oceanography, at least in Supplement part of the paper.

In the main text, it is important to put your SOM application in the context of similar or relevant SOM applications that have already been published in peer-reviewed journals. For example, the SOM has been used to identify the regions of sea level variability, and the characteristic time series further analyzed using a joint wavelet power spectral analysis (Liu et al., 2016). The current work extended in that direction by using coherent wavelet analysis to reveal relationship between the nitrate/chlorophyll and the climate indices. It is important to properly accredit previous relevant work.

Line 166, “For typical satellite datasets, the SOM can be applied to both space and time domains”. It would be good to add the following sentences to properly put the current analysis in the proper context of relevant research of SOM applications:
“By applying the SOM in the spatial domain, one can extract characteristic spatial patterns of the input data. If transposing the input data matrix and applying the SOM in the time domain, one can extract characteristic temporal patterns, i.e., the characteristic time series. Since each of these time series represents the temporal variability of a particular region, this method can be used to identify regions of differentiated variability on a map. The SOM, when applied to both space and time domains of the same data, provides a powerful tool for diagnosing ocean processes from such different perspectives. Thus, it was called "dual SOM" analysis by Liu et al. (2016). In this study, we only focus on the second type.”

Line 172, “patterns R1 to R5” should be changed to “regions R1 to R5”.

Line 198, it would be good to add a sentence as follows:
“Joint SOM-wavelet power spectral analysis was demonstrated by Liu et al. (2016) in the study of characteristic time series of sea level variations in different regions of Gulf of Mexico. Here in this study, we expand it further to joint SOM-wavelet coherence analysis.”

Wavelet power spectrum may be biased towards low frequency. The bias issue has been rectified by Liu et al. (2007). This bias rectification has been taken care of in some wavelet coherence analysis software packages, but it is not clear whether it is rectified in the version of software that was used in this analysis. It is important to clarify this in the main text (Line 210).

References are cited in the text (Dong et al., 2006, Dong and Sutton, 2007, Timmermann et al., 2007) but are not seen in the reference list.

References:
Liu, Y., X.S. Liang, and R.H. Weisberg (2007), Rectification of the bias in the wavelet power spectrum,Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 24(12), 2093-2102, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JTECHO511.1
Liu, Y., and R.H. Weisberg (2005), Patterns of ocean current variability on the West Florida Shelf using the self-organizing map, Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, C06003, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004JC002786.
Liu, Y., R.H. Weisberg, and C.N.K. Mooers (2006), Performance evaluation of the self-organizing map for feature extraction. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, C05018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005jc003117.
Liu, Y., R.H., Weisberg, S. Vignudelli, and G.T. Mitchum (2016), Patterns of the Loop Current system and regions of sea surface height variability in the eastern Gulf of Mexico revealed by the self-organizing maps, Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans, 121, 2347-2366, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015JC011493.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-827-CC1
- AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Gotzon Basterretxea, 16 Jan 2023
  
  It is encouraging to see the growing number of innovative Self-Organizing Map (SOM) applications in the ocean science community since its early applications in oceanography more than a decade ago (e.g., Liu and Weisberg, 2005; Liu et al., 2006). The SOM is a powerful machine learning technique that can be widely used in oceanographic research in the future. In order for readers to better understand this, it would be good to provide a brief literature review of SOM applications in oceanography, at least in Supplement part of the paper.
  >SOM methods have been used in the field of oceanography for some time. Although we have not strictly carried out a literature review, following the reviewer's recommendations, we have extended the technical aspects of the SOM both in the text and in the supplementary material.
  In the main text, it is important to put your SOM application in the context of similar or relevant SOM applications that have already been published in peer-reviewed journals. For example, the SOM has been used to identify the regions of sea level variability, and the characteristic time series was further analyzed using a joint wavelet power spectral analysis (Liu et al., 2016). The current work extended in that direction by using coherent wavelet analysis to reveal the relationship between the nitrate/chlorophyll and the climate indices. It is important to properly accredit previous relevant work.
  >We appreciate this suggestion. We have incorporated a reference to Liu et al. 2016 in the M&M section. In any case, these studies are also referenced in the supplementary material.
  Line 166, “For typical satellite datasets, the SOM can be applied to both space and time domains”. It would be good to add the following sentences to properly put the current analysis in the proper context of relevant research of SOM applications: “By applying the SOM in the spatial domain, one can extract characteristic spatial patterns of the input data. If transposing the input data matrix and applying the SOM in the time domain, one can extract characteristic temporal patterns, i.e., the characteristic time series. Since each of these time series represents the temporal variability of a particular region, this method can be used to identify regions of differentiated variability on a map. The SOM, when applied to both space and time domains of the same data, provides a powerful tool for diagnosing ocean processes from such different perspectives. Thus, it was called "dual SOM" analysis by Liu et al. (2016). In this study, we only focus on the second type.”
  > Changed following the reviewers’ suggestion
  Line 172, “patterns R1 to R5” should be changed to “regions R1 to R5”.
  > Thank you. It has been corrected.
  Line 198, it would be good to add a sentence as follows: “Joint SOM-wavelet power spectral analysis was demonstrated by Liu et al. (2016) in the study of characteristic time series of sea level variations in different regions of Gulf of Mexico. Here in this study, we expand it further to joint SOM-wavelet coherence analysis.”
  >The proposed sentence has been added.
  Wavelet power spectrum may be biased towards low frequency. The bias issue has been rectified by Liu et al. (2007). This bias rectification has been taken care of in some wavelet coherence analysis software packages, but it is not clear whether it is rectified in the version of software that was used in this analysis. It is important to clarify this in the main text (Line 210).
  >We use the matlab algorithm by Grinsted et. al (2004). However, we have introduced a comment on the low frequency bias reported by Liu et al. (2007).
  References are cited in the text (Dong et al., 2006, Dong and Sutton, 2007, Timmermann et al., 2007) but are not seen in the reference list.
  > All references have been reviewed
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-827-AC1
RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-827', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Oct 2022

This paper applies several novel statistical methods to assess the extent and variability of the ocean's three major "high-nutrient / low-chlorophyll" (HNLC) regions. Its novel contributions include articulating a new definition of HNLC in terms of the ratio NO3/Chl, and identifying new linkages between HNLC extent and some climate variability indices.

I think this is a good paper that is publishable with revisions. The English is mostly good although there are some quirks. However, I lean toward major rather than minor revision for this reason: some papers that combine Results and Discussion cry out for separation of the two, and this is one of them. I think it would be much stronger if it were rewritten in the standard I-M-R-D format. Start with: What did we learn and what is the evidence? (Results) and then: What does it mean in the context of the existing literature and potential future research? (Discussion). At present, results of this research are mixed up with speculation and literature review in a way that detracts from the paper's core messages and makes it difficult for the reader to identify what exactly the research conducted actually demonstrates. There are also passages in the Methods that I think more properly belong in the Discussion (e.g., 124-129).

I also do not think that the statistical methods are adequately explained. On 182 we have "Statistically significant trends were considered those exceeding the 95% confidence level." This would seem to be a straightforward significance test of simple linear regression. But even here some more detail is needed, e.g., what is the decorrelation time scale and therefore the effective sample size? (see e.g., www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012387782600003X) When we get to the CWT (which term appears only twice and is defined differently each time), we are simply told that "The thick black contour designates the 95% confidence level" (Figure 6 caption). The text says nothing about how the confidence level is calculated (see also Figure 7). It is stated in the Supplement that "Monte Carlo simulations based on two uniform white noise time series are used to determine the significance level", but more detail is required and this should be at least mentioned in the main text. Ultimately, the variation in the total HNLC extent is found to be on the order of 5% (446). How do we know this is significant and not just noise? The coherence across regions and with the climate indices suggests that it is, but the lack of clarity regarding methods, and the sometimes too-good-to-be true correlations (see next paragraph) detract from the presentation.

In 3.3 we have "The relationship observed in interannual variations in HNLC areas suggest a global scale coupling between the equator and the poles. Good inverse correlation (r=-0.99, n=20) is observed between the interannual variations in the extension of EEP and the SO, and a weaker thought significant relationship exists between the SNP and the EEP (325 r= -0.75, n=20). Therefore, as the extension of HNLC in polar regions contracts (biomass increases), the equatorial region expands and vice versa. All three regions exhibit a shift in their extension after 2010 (Fig. 5)." I find a correlation of -0.99 difficult to credit. But when I look at Figure 5 the SO and EEP interannual time-series do indeed look like mirror images of one another. But how is this possible? What physical process could account for it? This is the kind of result that readers will dismiss without more attention to detail. But the discussion following this result is vague and speculative. I think the authors need to work harder at explaining how such a tight coupling could exist and convincing the reader that it is not just an artifact of their analysis method.

In Figure 7 we see an abrupt decline in the MOC around 2010 and then recovery to a level around 17 Sv that is both lower and more stable than before 2010. The authors seem to attribute a great deal of influence on oceanographic processes in all of the HNLC regions to this apparent "regime shift" (e.g., 404-406, 412-414). But given all of the higher frequency variability that is present in both periods, are the means for before and after 2010 even significantly different? This seems like a question one would wish to ask before attributing far-reaching effects to this rather modest decline. Here again the mixing up of presentation of the results with discussion and speculation undermines the credibility of some of the claims made. I am particularly skeptical regarding claims that the MOC affects the extent of the SNP HNLC (406), and to a lesser degree the EEP one, and find the discussion of the underlying mechanisms to be quite speculative.

The "three major climate variability signals" (20) or "three main forcings" (95) of SST, ENSO, and MOC seems like a list that combines apples and oranges. In global mean SST, the biggest component of variability beyond the annual cycle is ENSO. So why does SST need to be included in this list? Anyway it appears that mean SST as an independent variable controlling HNLC extent is never actually discussed in the paper anyway; the cross-wavelet coherence results in Figure 7 are for ENSO and MOC. So why is it given such a prominent place in the Abstract and Introduction? This could confuse the reader about what their overall purpose is. (It is also probably an exaggeration to state that they "quantify the ... dynamic relationship between the observed Chl variability and three main forcings" (95). They do quantify the cross-wavelet coherence of NO3/Chl with the climate indices, but the discussion of the underlying physical processes is quite speculative.)

The model-data comparison for NO3 could be expanded on a bit, e.g., "we found good agreement between nitrate data and model results (r2=0.98)" (123). I think there should be Supplemental figures or tables that show the space/time domain of these comparisons, and break them down a bit more by region. To reproduce the gross spatial pattern of surface NO3, or especially the surface-to-deep gradient, is a very weak test of model skill. If one throws together data from all depths and from HNLC and nutrient-depleted subtropical waters, of course you will get a strong correlation. If one looked only at e.g., surface concentrations in the SNP, one would get a very different result. How about including a Supplemental table that shows the correlation coefficients for the three major HNLC regions, for surface concentrations only?

Some details (Note that I have not listed here the numerous passages of Discussion that are vague or excessively speculative, but the authors should take note that there are many of these and try to trim them down (or shore them up with detail) as they restructure the paper overall.)

32 "and, therefore, of the withdrawal of atmospheric CO2" Withdrawal by what process on what time scale? HNLC regions per se do not affect atmospheric CO2, unless their extent is altered by changes in external supply of iron as suggested by Martin 1990 (see also 329)

53 "oligoelements" unnecessary jargon

60 "coarsely known aspects" not clear what this means

73 "it is arguable if these ephemeral systems share structural and functioning similitudes with the large HNLC regions" it is uncertain whether these ephemeral systems share structural and functional similarities with the large HNLC regions

82 "reporting a positive North Pacific Gyre Oscillation (NPGO) and nutrient correlation" reporting that surface nutrient concentration was correlated with the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation (NPGO)

89 change "nutrient outputs" to "nutrient concentrations"

112 "a good indicator to describe the value overall phytoplankton trend" a good indicator of the magnitude of the overall phytoplankton trend?

131 change "climatological indices" to "climate indices"

218 change "the pauperized subtropical gyres" to "low-latitude oceanic waters"

220-224 I think this discussion neglects Eastern Boundary Currents, which represent one of the largest areas of consistently high Chl + high NO3

225 delete "i.e."

231 delete "values"

243 "has remained elusive since ... requires coherent information" something missing here

245 I actually think Figure S2 could be in the main text. It would help the reader to understand what the authors are doing

246 change "corresponding" to "correspond"

252 change "therein" to "there"

260 add a comma after "ratios"

262 change "ice sheet" to "sea ice"

265 "exhibits a differentiated dynamic" I can't tell what this means.

268 "phenological variations" I don't think this term is useful or necessary here

269 "This region is also subjected to zonal variations" How about "This region has distinctive eastern and western regions"?

275 "in which ocean productivity ... importance of advection of Fe" something missing here

286 "trend robustness is provided by the coherence in the time series obtained using SOM" I can't tell what this means

290 "not exclusive of oceanic Fe-limited waters, since it has been also observed in the highly productive Patagonian shelf" Not clear what they are trying to say here. The Patagonian shelf is not oceanic and is not Fe-limited.

313 add ", respectively" after "100% in April and 70% in July"

321 "The extension of the HNLC region in the boreal winter is the boreal winter is 25%" ???

325 change "thought" to "though"

343 " As shown in Figures 6 a and b, the temporal variability of both the characteristic NO3:Chl ratios and SST at each region peaks at 12-month periodicity, being this seasonal modulation more intense and temporally consistent in the case of temperature at high latitudes and weaker in the equator." This is very poor scientific writing. The result being presented is rather mundane: the most obvious detectable periodicity is the annual cycle, and seasonality is stronger at higher latitudes. Please rewrite.

346 "transference from annual to semiannual periods since 2010" Not sure what the right word is here but I am fairly sure "transference" is not it. How about "display a semiannual mode, which accounts for a larger fraction of variance after 2010"?

349 change "in" to "on"

353 delete "value"

353 change "phytoplankton uptake" to "phytoplankton biomass"

354 "Semiannual cycles" I try to avoid referring to variability at periods other than annual as "cycles" (excepting Milankovitch frequencies of course, but this paper is concerned with subannual to decadal scales) (see also 355, 433)

368 change "Contrastingly" to "Conversely" or "By contrast"

396 change "phase out" to "out of phase"

396 "suggesting a meridional propagation of the MOC effect" vague

415 add a comma after "AMOC"

416 change "more unclear" to "less clear"

417 sea ice or glacier ice?

419 delete ", also based on remotely sensed Chl,"

424 change "this effect is unlikely" to "this effect is unlikely to be important at the time scales considered here"

442 "retrieved from the increasingly improved and longer and longer time series of remote sensing observations" retrieved from time series of remote sensing observations of increasing duration and quality

445 delete "through complex processes"

Figure 1 - the white contour lines are difficult to see in some places

Figure 2 - the red lines that indicate linear trends don't look like straight lines to me, but it's hard to tell

Figure 5 - what exactly the y axis represents is not clearly explained; the meaning of the different colored bars is fairly obvious but should still be stated

English/formatting

One quirk of English usage that appears over and over is using the word "extension" instead of "extent". There are 27 in total and I think "extent" is more appropriate in virtually every case. Another is using "at" in place of "in" a region, e.g., "at SO", "at the EEP". I would write "in the XXX" in all cases. (Interestingly, it used to be fairly common to use "at" wrt cities, as in "I attended the AGU meeting at San Francisco". But this fell out of common use a long time ago.)

There are numerous references missing from the reference list, e.g., Garnesson/Grarnesson et al., 2019 (spelling varies); Green et al., 2017; Ibanhez et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 1995; Martínez-García et al., 2009; Qui, 2002 (probably Qiu). This is NOT an exhaustive list. I have doubts about whether Takeda 2011 is a traceable reference (searching on the doi turned up only stale links).

The reference format is inconsistent in the sense that multiple references within a parenthesis are sometimes arranged alphabetically, sometimes chronologically.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-827-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Gotzon Basterretxea, 16 Jan 2023
  
  We would like to sincerely acknowledge RC1 for the outstanding review of this manuscript. It is rare these days to receive such detailed and appropriate feedback. His/her comments have undoubtedly contributed to a significant improvement of the manuscript. We highly appreciate his/her dedication. In the attached document, we include detailed answers to the comments.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-827-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-827', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Nov 2022

This paper relies on the spatio-temporal variability of the HNLC regions identified by SOM over the three major ocean areas using satellite-derived chlorophyll-a and modeling outputs of nutrients. The authors have performed the NO3:Chl as an indicator of the distribution limit of HNLC. They have demonstrated the linkages between HNLC extent and some climate-driven factors and teleconnections.

As a first very general comment, I would say that this is a valuable case study that can be published with some major corrections. The authors presented a lot of data and analysis procedures that need accurate processing schemas and precise interpretation, which they handled well.

The introduction section is well written and presents an adequate understanding of the presented work. The methodologies are adequate, but need some improvements. Some supplementary materials may be inserted into the main text because of their essential investigations and frequent references to them (e.g., Fig. S2).

The spatio-temporal variability of HNCL/NO3:Chl should be presented more precisely and quantitatively. For example, maps of monthly climatology, charts and maps of inter-annual cycles, and spatial-temporal cross section such as Hovemoler chart may present valuable results.

Some of the findings of the results section have not been well demonstrated in this study (e.g., section 3.4.1 Influence of SST variations – the global power spectra of CWT are needed to explain the intra-annual and inter-annual cycles). Some contents of Figures need to be better framed/explained. Some words would be expressed in accurate form. e.g., it is not clear in many places in the text that the “wind” word is mean wind speed, or wind vectors, or wind stress, or wind components (zonal and meridional).

I think a discussion section is required to explain the performance and limitations of the presented methodologies and results, which are not seen in this manuscript.

Bioregionalization analysis was used in previous studies to classify the global oceans (e.g., Longhurst, A. (2007), Ecological Geography of the Sea, Academic Press, London). Could the author highlight the need to new ocean’s regionalization which are not accessible from available global regionalization? And why SOM and not the other classification methods such as k-means?

I think the findings of nutrient model are not presented well. Some additional information is required.

The Mixed Layer Depth (MLD) is one of the main oceanographic indicators that can be used for interpretation of nutrients and phytoplankton variabilities. Does the nutrient model consider the MLD? If yes, please indicate in the text. And if not, I think it is required to consider the global ocean MLD in your work.

Looking to be constructive, in addition to the overall comments above, which should be taken into account in a possible review, I would like to point out the following Remarks.

1- In the 2.1 Ocean color data:

The GlobColour data are presented in 25 km spatial resolution globally. The authors have mentioned that the composites have a 0.25º spatial resolution. We know that the spatial resolution of 25 km and 0.25° are not the same specially at higher latitudes. If the 0.25° is true, please explain the spatial interpolation methods. If not, please correct.

2- In the section: 2.2 Nitrate data

The authors have made some essential assumptions that need to be approved precisely. May be explain more in the Results.

3- Please provide more information about the setup of the SOM algorithm (which are available not in the text nor supplementary material), in particular about the initial configuration: linear or random initialization, sheet or toroidal network, etc. Which neighbor function (Gaussian, Ep, et) is used to update the neighbors of the excited neuron (BMU) after each iteration during the training process.? Did the authors check the sensitivity of the SOM pattern to linear and random initialization?

4- The output of the SOM is also not well defined beyond being a map or topology; for example, how are the errors computed? The number of neurons is chosen not only depending on the topological errors (or topographic errors), but also on quantization errors. How different are the patterns when the number of neurons is, for example, 9?

5- Figure 6 and 7. The arrows are too small.

6- I recommend to show the time-series anomaly of HNLC and teleconnections at the top of the Fig. 6 and indicate the significant inter-annual cycles.

7- It is hard for readers to infer the shift after 2010 (Fig. 5). I think more visualization/explanations of data are required.

8- There are some abruptions in the significant annual cycles (1.5 year, from year 2006 to 2010) in the Fig. 7 which need to be explained. I suggest perform the global spectral cycles graphs.

9- The authors have considered SST and the teleconnections as a factor controlling HNLC variability. Are there any environmental factors such as precipitation and wind stress that may affect HNLC variability? Please discuss.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-827-RC2
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Gotzon Basterretxea, 16 Jan 2023
  
  We are grateful for the generally positive review of RC2. We include detailed responses to his/her comments in the attached file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-827-AC3

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

CC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-827', Yonggang Liu, 21 Sep 2022

Comments on “Global variability of high nutrient low chlorophyll regions using neural networks and wavelet coherence analysis” by Basterretxea et al.

It is encouraging to see the growing number of innovative Self-Organizing Map (SOM) applications in the ocean science community since its early applications in oceanography more than a decade ago (e.g., Liu and Weisberg, 2005; Liu et al., 2006). The SOM is a powerful machine learning technique that can be widely used in oceanographic research in the future. In order for readers to better understand this, it would be good to provide a brief literature review of SOM applications in oceanography, at least in Supplement part of the paper.

In the main text, it is important to put your SOM application in the context of similar or relevant SOM applications that have already been published in peer-reviewed journals. For example, the SOM has been used to identify the regions of sea level variability, and the characteristic time series further analyzed using a joint wavelet power spectral analysis (Liu et al., 2016). The current work extended in that direction by using coherent wavelet analysis to reveal relationship between the nitrate/chlorophyll and the climate indices. It is important to properly accredit previous relevant work.

Line 166, “For typical satellite datasets, the SOM can be applied to both space and time domains”. It would be good to add the following sentences to properly put the current analysis in the proper context of relevant research of SOM applications:
“By applying the SOM in the spatial domain, one can extract characteristic spatial patterns of the input data. If transposing the input data matrix and applying the SOM in the time domain, one can extract characteristic temporal patterns, i.e., the characteristic time series. Since each of these time series represents the temporal variability of a particular region, this method can be used to identify regions of differentiated variability on a map. The SOM, when applied to both space and time domains of the same data, provides a powerful tool for diagnosing ocean processes from such different perspectives. Thus, it was called "dual SOM" analysis by Liu et al. (2016). In this study, we only focus on the second type.”

Line 172, “patterns R1 to R5” should be changed to “regions R1 to R5”.

Line 198, it would be good to add a sentence as follows:
“Joint SOM-wavelet power spectral analysis was demonstrated by Liu et al. (2016) in the study of characteristic time series of sea level variations in different regions of Gulf of Mexico. Here in this study, we expand it further to joint SOM-wavelet coherence analysis.”

Wavelet power spectrum may be biased towards low frequency. The bias issue has been rectified by Liu et al. (2007). This bias rectification has been taken care of in some wavelet coherence analysis software packages, but it is not clear whether it is rectified in the version of software that was used in this analysis. It is important to clarify this in the main text (Line 210).

References are cited in the text (Dong et al., 2006, Dong and Sutton, 2007, Timmermann et al., 2007) but are not seen in the reference list.

References:
Liu, Y., X.S. Liang, and R.H. Weisberg (2007), Rectification of the bias in the wavelet power spectrum,Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 24(12), 2093-2102, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JTECHO511.1
Liu, Y., and R.H. Weisberg (2005), Patterns of ocean current variability on the West Florida Shelf using the self-organizing map, Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, C06003, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004JC002786.
Liu, Y., R.H. Weisberg, and C.N.K. Mooers (2006), Performance evaluation of the self-organizing map for feature extraction. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, C05018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005jc003117.
Liu, Y., R.H., Weisberg, S. Vignudelli, and G.T. Mitchum (2016), Patterns of the Loop Current system and regions of sea surface height variability in the eastern Gulf of Mexico revealed by the self-organizing maps, Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans, 121, 2347-2366, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015JC011493.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-827-CC1
- AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Gotzon Basterretxea, 16 Jan 2023
  
  It is encouraging to see the growing number of innovative Self-Organizing Map (SOM) applications in the ocean science community since its early applications in oceanography more than a decade ago (e.g., Liu and Weisberg, 2005; Liu et al., 2006). The SOM is a powerful machine learning technique that can be widely used in oceanographic research in the future. In order for readers to better understand this, it would be good to provide a brief literature review of SOM applications in oceanography, at least in Supplement part of the paper.
  >SOM methods have been used in the field of oceanography for some time. Although we have not strictly carried out a literature review, following the reviewer's recommendations, we have extended the technical aspects of the SOM both in the text and in the supplementary material.
  In the main text, it is important to put your SOM application in the context of similar or relevant SOM applications that have already been published in peer-reviewed journals. For example, the SOM has been used to identify the regions of sea level variability, and the characteristic time series was further analyzed using a joint wavelet power spectral analysis (Liu et al., 2016). The current work extended in that direction by using coherent wavelet analysis to reveal the relationship between the nitrate/chlorophyll and the climate indices. It is important to properly accredit previous relevant work.
  >We appreciate this suggestion. We have incorporated a reference to Liu et al. 2016 in the M&M section. In any case, these studies are also referenced in the supplementary material.
  Line 166, “For typical satellite datasets, the SOM can be applied to both space and time domains”. It would be good to add the following sentences to properly put the current analysis in the proper context of relevant research of SOM applications: “By applying the SOM in the spatial domain, one can extract characteristic spatial patterns of the input data. If transposing the input data matrix and applying the SOM in the time domain, one can extract characteristic temporal patterns, i.e., the characteristic time series. Since each of these time series represents the temporal variability of a particular region, this method can be used to identify regions of differentiated variability on a map. The SOM, when applied to both space and time domains of the same data, provides a powerful tool for diagnosing ocean processes from such different perspectives. Thus, it was called "dual SOM" analysis by Liu et al. (2016). In this study, we only focus on the second type.”
  > Changed following the reviewers’ suggestion
  Line 172, “patterns R1 to R5” should be changed to “regions R1 to R5”.
  > Thank you. It has been corrected.
  Line 198, it would be good to add a sentence as follows: “Joint SOM-wavelet power spectral analysis was demonstrated by Liu et al. (2016) in the study of characteristic time series of sea level variations in different regions of Gulf of Mexico. Here in this study, we expand it further to joint SOM-wavelet coherence analysis.”
  >The proposed sentence has been added.
  Wavelet power spectrum may be biased towards low frequency. The bias issue has been rectified by Liu et al. (2007). This bias rectification has been taken care of in some wavelet coherence analysis software packages, but it is not clear whether it is rectified in the version of software that was used in this analysis. It is important to clarify this in the main text (Line 210).
  >We use the matlab algorithm by Grinsted et. al (2004). However, we have introduced a comment on the low frequency bias reported by Liu et al. (2007).
  References are cited in the text (Dong et al., 2006, Dong and Sutton, 2007, Timmermann et al., 2007) but are not seen in the reference list.
  > All references have been reviewed
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-827-AC1
RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-827', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Oct 2022

This paper applies several novel statistical methods to assess the extent and variability of the ocean's three major "high-nutrient / low-chlorophyll" (HNLC) regions. Its novel contributions include articulating a new definition of HNLC in terms of the ratio NO3/Chl, and identifying new linkages between HNLC extent and some climate variability indices.

I think this is a good paper that is publishable with revisions. The English is mostly good although there are some quirks. However, I lean toward major rather than minor revision for this reason: some papers that combine Results and Discussion cry out for separation of the two, and this is one of them. I think it would be much stronger if it were rewritten in the standard I-M-R-D format. Start with: What did we learn and what is the evidence? (Results) and then: What does it mean in the context of the existing literature and potential future research? (Discussion). At present, results of this research are mixed up with speculation and literature review in a way that detracts from the paper's core messages and makes it difficult for the reader to identify what exactly the research conducted actually demonstrates. There are also passages in the Methods that I think more properly belong in the Discussion (e.g., 124-129).

I also do not think that the statistical methods are adequately explained. On 182 we have "Statistically significant trends were considered those exceeding the 95% confidence level." This would seem to be a straightforward significance test of simple linear regression. But even here some more detail is needed, e.g., what is the decorrelation time scale and therefore the effective sample size? (see e.g., www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012387782600003X) When we get to the CWT (which term appears only twice and is defined differently each time), we are simply told that "The thick black contour designates the 95% confidence level" (Figure 6 caption). The text says nothing about how the confidence level is calculated (see also Figure 7). It is stated in the Supplement that "Monte Carlo simulations based on two uniform white noise time series are used to determine the significance level", but more detail is required and this should be at least mentioned in the main text. Ultimately, the variation in the total HNLC extent is found to be on the order of 5% (446). How do we know this is significant and not just noise? The coherence across regions and with the climate indices suggests that it is, but the lack of clarity regarding methods, and the sometimes too-good-to-be true correlations (see next paragraph) detract from the presentation.

In 3.3 we have "The relationship observed in interannual variations in HNLC areas suggest a global scale coupling between the equator and the poles. Good inverse correlation (r=-0.99, n=20) is observed between the interannual variations in the extension of EEP and the SO, and a weaker thought significant relationship exists between the SNP and the EEP (325 r= -0.75, n=20). Therefore, as the extension of HNLC in polar regions contracts (biomass increases), the equatorial region expands and vice versa. All three regions exhibit a shift in their extension after 2010 (Fig. 5)." I find a correlation of -0.99 difficult to credit. But when I look at Figure 5 the SO and EEP interannual time-series do indeed look like mirror images of one another. But how is this possible? What physical process could account for it? This is the kind of result that readers will dismiss without more attention to detail. But the discussion following this result is vague and speculative. I think the authors need to work harder at explaining how such a tight coupling could exist and convincing the reader that it is not just an artifact of their analysis method.

In Figure 7 we see an abrupt decline in the MOC around 2010 and then recovery to a level around 17 Sv that is both lower and more stable than before 2010. The authors seem to attribute a great deal of influence on oceanographic processes in all of the HNLC regions to this apparent "regime shift" (e.g., 404-406, 412-414). But given all of the higher frequency variability that is present in both periods, are the means for before and after 2010 even significantly different? This seems like a question one would wish to ask before attributing far-reaching effects to this rather modest decline. Here again the mixing up of presentation of the results with discussion and speculation undermines the credibility of some of the claims made. I am particularly skeptical regarding claims that the MOC affects the extent of the SNP HNLC (406), and to a lesser degree the EEP one, and find the discussion of the underlying mechanisms to be quite speculative.

The "three major climate variability signals" (20) or "three main forcings" (95) of SST, ENSO, and MOC seems like a list that combines apples and oranges. In global mean SST, the biggest component of variability beyond the annual cycle is ENSO. So why does SST need to be included in this list? Anyway it appears that mean SST as an independent variable controlling HNLC extent is never actually discussed in the paper anyway; the cross-wavelet coherence results in Figure 7 are for ENSO and MOC. So why is it given such a prominent place in the Abstract and Introduction? This could confuse the reader about what their overall purpose is. (It is also probably an exaggeration to state that they "quantify the ... dynamic relationship between the observed Chl variability and three main forcings" (95). They do quantify the cross-wavelet coherence of NO3/Chl with the climate indices, but the discussion of the underlying physical processes is quite speculative.)

The model-data comparison for NO3 could be expanded on a bit, e.g., "we found good agreement between nitrate data and model results (r2=0.98)" (123). I think there should be Supplemental figures or tables that show the space/time domain of these comparisons, and break them down a bit more by region. To reproduce the gross spatial pattern of surface NO3, or especially the surface-to-deep gradient, is a very weak test of model skill. If one throws together data from all depths and from HNLC and nutrient-depleted subtropical waters, of course you will get a strong correlation. If one looked only at e.g., surface concentrations in the SNP, one would get a very different result. How about including a Supplemental table that shows the correlation coefficients for the three major HNLC regions, for surface concentrations only?

Some details (Note that I have not listed here the numerous passages of Discussion that are vague or excessively speculative, but the authors should take note that there are many of these and try to trim them down (or shore them up with detail) as they restructure the paper overall.)

32 "and, therefore, of the withdrawal of atmospheric CO2" Withdrawal by what process on what time scale? HNLC regions per se do not affect atmospheric CO2, unless their extent is altered by changes in external supply of iron as suggested by Martin 1990 (see also 329)

53 "oligoelements" unnecessary jargon

60 "coarsely known aspects" not clear what this means

73 "it is arguable if these ephemeral systems share structural and functioning similitudes with the large HNLC regions" it is uncertain whether these ephemeral systems share structural and functional similarities with the large HNLC regions

82 "reporting a positive North Pacific Gyre Oscillation (NPGO) and nutrient correlation" reporting that surface nutrient concentration was correlated with the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation (NPGO)

89 change "nutrient outputs" to "nutrient concentrations"

112 "a good indicator to describe the value overall phytoplankton trend" a good indicator of the magnitude of the overall phytoplankton trend?

131 change "climatological indices" to "climate indices"

218 change "the pauperized subtropical gyres" to "low-latitude oceanic waters"

220-224 I think this discussion neglects Eastern Boundary Currents, which represent one of the largest areas of consistently high Chl + high NO3

225 delete "i.e."

231 delete "values"

243 "has remained elusive since ... requires coherent information" something missing here

245 I actually think Figure S2 could be in the main text. It would help the reader to understand what the authors are doing

246 change "corresponding" to "correspond"

252 change "therein" to "there"

260 add a comma after "ratios"

262 change "ice sheet" to "sea ice"

265 "exhibits a differentiated dynamic" I can't tell what this means.

268 "phenological variations" I don't think this term is useful or necessary here

269 "This region is also subjected to zonal variations" How about "This region has distinctive eastern and western regions"?

275 "in which ocean productivity ... importance of advection of Fe" something missing here

286 "trend robustness is provided by the coherence in the time series obtained using SOM" I can't tell what this means

290 "not exclusive of oceanic Fe-limited waters, since it has been also observed in the highly productive Patagonian shelf" Not clear what they are trying to say here. The Patagonian shelf is not oceanic and is not Fe-limited.

313 add ", respectively" after "100% in April and 70% in July"

321 "The extension of the HNLC region in the boreal winter is the boreal winter is 25%" ???

325 change "thought" to "though"

343 " As shown in Figures 6 a and b, the temporal variability of both the characteristic NO3:Chl ratios and SST at each region peaks at 12-month periodicity, being this seasonal modulation more intense and temporally consistent in the case of temperature at high latitudes and weaker in the equator." This is very poor scientific writing. The result being presented is rather mundane: the most obvious detectable periodicity is the annual cycle, and seasonality is stronger at higher latitudes. Please rewrite.

346 "transference from annual to semiannual periods since 2010" Not sure what the right word is here but I am fairly sure "transference" is not it. How about "display a semiannual mode, which accounts for a larger fraction of variance after 2010"?

349 change "in" to "on"

353 delete "value"

353 change "phytoplankton uptake" to "phytoplankton biomass"

354 "Semiannual cycles" I try to avoid referring to variability at periods other than annual as "cycles" (excepting Milankovitch frequencies of course, but this paper is concerned with subannual to decadal scales) (see also 355, 433)

368 change "Contrastingly" to "Conversely" or "By contrast"

396 change "phase out" to "out of phase"

396 "suggesting a meridional propagation of the MOC effect" vague

415 add a comma after "AMOC"

416 change "more unclear" to "less clear"

417 sea ice or glacier ice?

419 delete ", also based on remotely sensed Chl,"

424 change "this effect is unlikely" to "this effect is unlikely to be important at the time scales considered here"

442 "retrieved from the increasingly improved and longer and longer time series of remote sensing observations" retrieved from time series of remote sensing observations of increasing duration and quality

445 delete "through complex processes"

Figure 1 - the white contour lines are difficult to see in some places

Figure 2 - the red lines that indicate linear trends don't look like straight lines to me, but it's hard to tell

Figure 5 - what exactly the y axis represents is not clearly explained; the meaning of the different colored bars is fairly obvious but should still be stated

English/formatting

One quirk of English usage that appears over and over is using the word "extension" instead of "extent". There are 27 in total and I think "extent" is more appropriate in virtually every case. Another is using "at" in place of "in" a region, e.g., "at SO", "at the EEP". I would write "in the XXX" in all cases. (Interestingly, it used to be fairly common to use "at" wrt cities, as in "I attended the AGU meeting at San Francisco". But this fell out of common use a long time ago.)

There are numerous references missing from the reference list, e.g., Garnesson/Grarnesson et al., 2019 (spelling varies); Green et al., 2017; Ibanhez et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 1995; Martínez-García et al., 2009; Qui, 2002 (probably Qiu). This is NOT an exhaustive list. I have doubts about whether Takeda 2011 is a traceable reference (searching on the doi turned up only stale links).

The reference format is inconsistent in the sense that multiple references within a parenthesis are sometimes arranged alphabetically, sometimes chronologically.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-827-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Gotzon Basterretxea, 16 Jan 2023
  
  We would like to sincerely acknowledge RC1 for the outstanding review of this manuscript. It is rare these days to receive such detailed and appropriate feedback. His/her comments have undoubtedly contributed to a significant improvement of the manuscript. We highly appreciate his/her dedication. In the attached document, we include detailed answers to the comments.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-827-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-827', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Nov 2022

This paper relies on the spatio-temporal variability of the HNLC regions identified by SOM over the three major ocean areas using satellite-derived chlorophyll-a and modeling outputs of nutrients. The authors have performed the NO3:Chl as an indicator of the distribution limit of HNLC. They have demonstrated the linkages between HNLC extent and some climate-driven factors and teleconnections.

As a first very general comment, I would say that this is a valuable case study that can be published with some major corrections. The authors presented a lot of data and analysis procedures that need accurate processing schemas and precise interpretation, which they handled well.

The introduction section is well written and presents an adequate understanding of the presented work. The methodologies are adequate, but need some improvements. Some supplementary materials may be inserted into the main text because of their essential investigations and frequent references to them (e.g., Fig. S2).

The spatio-temporal variability of HNCL/NO3:Chl should be presented more precisely and quantitatively. For example, maps of monthly climatology, charts and maps of inter-annual cycles, and spatial-temporal cross section such as Hovemoler chart may present valuable results.

Some of the findings of the results section have not been well demonstrated in this study (e.g., section 3.4.1 Influence of SST variations – the global power spectra of CWT are needed to explain the intra-annual and inter-annual cycles). Some contents of Figures need to be better framed/explained. Some words would be expressed in accurate form. e.g., it is not clear in many places in the text that the “wind” word is mean wind speed, or wind vectors, or wind stress, or wind components (zonal and meridional).

I think a discussion section is required to explain the performance and limitations of the presented methodologies and results, which are not seen in this manuscript.

Bioregionalization analysis was used in previous studies to classify the global oceans (e.g., Longhurst, A. (2007), Ecological Geography of the Sea, Academic Press, London). Could the author highlight the need to new ocean’s regionalization which are not accessible from available global regionalization? And why SOM and not the other classification methods such as k-means?

I think the findings of nutrient model are not presented well. Some additional information is required.

The Mixed Layer Depth (MLD) is one of the main oceanographic indicators that can be used for interpretation of nutrients and phytoplankton variabilities. Does the nutrient model consider the MLD? If yes, please indicate in the text. And if not, I think it is required to consider the global ocean MLD in your work.

Looking to be constructive, in addition to the overall comments above, which should be taken into account in a possible review, I would like to point out the following Remarks.

1- In the 2.1 Ocean color data:

The GlobColour data are presented in 25 km spatial resolution globally. The authors have mentioned that the composites have a 0.25º spatial resolution. We know that the spatial resolution of 25 km and 0.25° are not the same specially at higher latitudes. If the 0.25° is true, please explain the spatial interpolation methods. If not, please correct.

2- In the section: 2.2 Nitrate data

The authors have made some essential assumptions that need to be approved precisely. May be explain more in the Results.

3- Please provide more information about the setup of the SOM algorithm (which are available not in the text nor supplementary material), in particular about the initial configuration: linear or random initialization, sheet or toroidal network, etc. Which neighbor function (Gaussian, Ep, et) is used to update the neighbors of the excited neuron (BMU) after each iteration during the training process.? Did the authors check the sensitivity of the SOM pattern to linear and random initialization?

4- The output of the SOM is also not well defined beyond being a map or topology; for example, how are the errors computed? The number of neurons is chosen not only depending on the topological errors (or topographic errors), but also on quantization errors. How different are the patterns when the number of neurons is, for example, 9?

5- Figure 6 and 7. The arrows are too small.

6- I recommend to show the time-series anomaly of HNLC and teleconnections at the top of the Fig. 6 and indicate the significant inter-annual cycles.

7- It is hard for readers to infer the shift after 2010 (Fig. 5). I think more visualization/explanations of data are required.

8- There are some abruptions in the significant annual cycles (1.5 year, from year 2006 to 2010) in the Fig. 7 which need to be explained. I suggest perform the global spectral cycles graphs.

9- The authors have considered SST and the teleconnections as a factor controlling HNLC variability. Are there any environmental factors such as precipitation and wind stress that may affect HNLC variability? Please discuss.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-827-RC2
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Gotzon Basterretxea, 16 Jan 2023
  
  We are grateful for the generally positive review of RC2. We include detailed responses to his/her comments in the attached file.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-827-AC3

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Gotzon Basterretxea on behalf of the Authors (15 Feb 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (16 Feb 2023) by Aida Alvera-Azcárate

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (05 Mar 2023)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (24 Mar 2023)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

This paper has improved markedly in the revision. I congratulate the authors on having made a serious effort to address the previous critiques. I have a few further (mostly minor) comments below. (Note that the page numbering scheme is odd: it is not sequential but it doesn't reset to 1 on each page either; possibly it is sequential but the first digit got cut off for #'s >100. In any case, when I refer to X/Y I mean page # / line # and there should be no ambiguity.)

Major points:

(1) I think these authors have done a very good job of separating the Discussion from the Results. There are one or two passages of what I would call Discussion in the Results (e.g., 10/00-02, 11/45-48), and some parts of the Discussion are vague or too speculative. But generally they did an excellent job.

(2) There are a few places where "facts not in evidence" are referenced, or prematurely introduced before the data are shown. For example, the step change after 2010 shown in Figure 6: I think it would be better to just say "see next section" when this topic is introduced on 11/33, rather than referring the reader to Figure 3, because this step function is difficult to discern in Figure 3.
This topic is discussed again on 11/54-55, and another ambiguous data reference is introduced, "i.e., P3 substitutes P1". This may be true but it's hard to tell from the plot: it is obvious that P1 disappears but less obvious that P3 becomes dominant in the months when P1 previously had been. It might be better to just say "P1 is no longer observed".

(3) Parts of the Discussion are excessively speculative, or appear to contradict the previous text, and I have doubts about whether some of the literature cited is interpreted correctly.

I commend the authors for their thoroughness; they cite quite a few references I had not heard of. But some that I am familiar with, including classics like Gargett 1991, are not necessarily interpreted correctly. Boyce et al 2010 drew some rather vigorous criticism (www.nature.com/articles/nature09953). Boyce et al (2014, 10.1016/j.pocean.2014.01.004) address some of these criticisms and could be cited here. They claim that the basic conclusion that a long term secular (downward) trend is detectable remains sound, but this conclusion remains controversial and I think that the authors of the current contribution should treat it skeptically. The results of Polovina et al (2008) represent too short a time series to be inferred to represent a long-term secular trend or anthropogenic warming signal. The assertion that "Upwelling is triggered by severe winter cyclones that generate enough Ekman pumping to maintain high nutrient concentrations in the near-surface waters (Gargett, 1991; Harrison et al., 2004)" is questionable and likely to be misinterpreted. The Alaska Gyre IS a cyclone (whereas the NPSG is an anticyclone). The large-scale net Ekman transport is upward, albeit sluggish. I'm not saying localized upwelling associated with either atmospheric or oceanic cyclones is unimportant, but that's not what Gargett (1991) is about. In the case of Cullen (1991) (14/47) I also have difficulty connecting the assertion made to the contents of the cited reference.

The entire paragraph on 14/53-60 contains a number of questionable assertions. The source of dissolved Fe in the northwestern Pacific is primarily from shelf and slope sediments, not river discharge, and the primary source of vertical mixing is from tidal currents (cf. Nishioka).

The section on 16/97-03 is also confusing. I agree that the extent of the EEP HNLC is primarily a function of ocean upwelling rather than aeolian dust deposition. But what is stated here ("we observe a reduction of the extent of the HNLC region in the EEP during an enhanced wind intensity period") is actually the opposite of what is expected, and what is shown in Figure 6. In the EEP the period of strongest upwelling is in the boreal summer (e.g., Philander and Chao, 1991, JPO 21: 1399), which is associated with an expansion of the HNLC in Figure 6. The same should be true on interannual time scales: a period of increased trade wind intensity should be associated with an expanded HNLC, not a reduction (see also 17/44-45).

The reference to a "meridional propagation of the MOC effect" on 17/33 also seems backwards to me: if the fluctuations in HNLC area arise from fluctuations in the strength of the MOC, should they not appear first in the SO and last in SNP? And then on 17/42 we have "weaker MOC is related to increases in the extent of the EEP and contraction of the SNP and the SO HNLC regions". This appears to contradict what was said above about stronger MOC implying stronger SO upwelling (17/29). Maybe that's just me making a simplistic assumption that stronger upwelling leads to an expanded HNLC. But maybe this is not the case in the SO, and the data do seem to show that the SO HNLC contracts after 2010. Possibly these things are related: the reason there is a lag between the EEP and the SO is that the changes in the SO HNLC extent are only affected by the declining phase of MOC fluctuations, not the strengthening phase. Why this would be I do not know, but it may have something to do with nutrient stoichiometries in the upwelled waters (e.g., 10.1038/nature02127; 10.1038/nature04883).

(4) The assertions regarding model-data agreement for NO3 (e.g., 5/50) are still unconvincing. Again, if you look at concentrations over depths where a strong vertical gradient exists, you are always going to get a strong correlation. My previous suggestion to look at surface concentrations only was not followed.

(5) On p. 10 it is stated that "It is noteworthy that nutrient concentrations are generally lower in the SNP (i.e. <17 mmol m-3) than in the SO while biomass is comparatively higher (see Table 1)." This is true, but when I look at the Table, the near-constant value of [NO3] within each Rx cluster is quite remarkable. I interpret this as evidence for the robustness of the method, and I think this is something that could be commented on in the Discussion.

(6) Is there any evidence for a "regime shift" in 2009-2010? I am wondering if any of the cited references discuss this.

Some details:

1/32 change "budgets" to "inventory"

2/35 Brindley misspelled (see also 25/26); Tyrrell misspelled

2/48-49 change "iron is required in largest amounts than any of the trace metals" to "iron requirements are the largest among the trace metals"

2/53 change "nutrient" to "macronutrient"; delete "often"

3/70 change "biological structure" to "ecosystem structure"

3/73-82 could add some additional literature citations here e.g., 10.1038/s41598-018-37436-3 (note that the method appears to detect two patterns that are seasonally HNLC: see Figure 3)

3/81-82 change "structural and functioning similitudes" to "structural and functional similarities"

3/97 change "in" to "on" and "response" to "responses"

4/21 delete "that varies with the latitude"

4/35-5/40 Something is wrong here: the text takes an abrupt zag from model description to climate indices and back again. Some text was accidentally spliced in the middle of another paragraph.

9/81 "is not more exceptional" I can't really tell what this means

9/84 I would consider also citing 10.1038/nature07716 here

9/94 change "distribution" to "mode"

10/15 delete "coupled"

10/16-17 I would replace "since" with a ; or a : and change "duplicates" to "doubles"

10/19 change "biomass" to "chlorophyll"

10/22 I would consider also citing Harrison et al 2004 here

11/38 "Most differentiated patterns, also displaying the highest probability of occurrence (the probability to find a pattern similar to the input data)" The most differentiated patterns, also displaying the highest probability of occurrence (the probability of finding a pattern similar to the input data)

11/41 "scenarios" seems like an odd choice of terms here

11/52 "winter" should be spring (April)?

11/64 the positive anomaly appears larger in April than in March

12/65-66 "boreal winter" should be "austral winter"? 25% exceeds the limits of the graph which shows max deviation as <20%

12/78 delete "the year"

12/78-79 "when ENSO variability intensified" Is there a data or literature reference for this? I have not heard of this before.

12/92 delete "the analysis of"

13/98 change "discriminate" to "delineate"

13/04-05 mention the physical ocean as well here (e.g., upwelling)?

13/10 delete "fields"

13/12 change "complex" to "diverse"

13/17 delete "unproductive"

13/17-18 "the SO is the largest region presenting clear latitudinal variation in the characteristic Chl patterns" This seems to conflate two separate points: the SO is the largest HNLC region and it is the ONLY one that shows clear latitudinal variation in the characteristic Chl patterns (Figure 3).

13/21-22 change "Both the SNP and the EEP respectively constitute 8% of the total HNLC" to "The SNP and the EEP each constitute ~8% of the total HNLC"

14/30 2019 should be 2009?

14/31-33 "This non-linear enhancement in phytoplankton, which is not exclusive to oceanic Fe-limited waters (see for example Marrari et al., 2017), positively biases the Chl increase rate in these subregions." Meaning is not clear, and the entire sentence is probably expendable.

14/61-62 "where seasonality is marginal" This does not appear to be the case in Figure 6.

15/63 "subregions with 6-month out-phased seasonal variations (north and south of the equator)" data reference? where is this shown?

15/71 "the seaways in the Pacific" circulation pathways?

15/78-79 "corresponds to a rather independently functioning intermediate water cell" rather corresponds to an independently functioning intermediate water cell

15/79-82 references to MOC here are ambiguous: if they are talking about the global MOC rather than PMOC it might be a good idea to put "global" before "MOC" for clarity (see also 15/87 "meridional circulation")

15/88 change "variations" to "variability"

16/06 "in this region" unclear antecedent; if still talking about the EEP here, please specify

16/08 "the ENSO index" which index? there are many ENSO indices to choose from

16/12 delete "events"

16/12-14 I think this whole sentence is expendable.

16/20 change "ENSO-related equator-originated sea surface height anomalies" to "ENSO-related sea surface height anomalies originating in the tropics"

16/23 change "which nicely explains the fluctuations of salinity, nutrients, and chlorophyll" to "which explains strongly correlated fluctuations of salinity, nutrients, and chlorophyll"

17/34 "Figure 8b also reveals a decline of the MOC until 2010". This Figure does not appear to exist. (and change "until" to "around")

17/46 "the slowing down of the overturning circulation in the Pacific Ocean since the 1970s" This statement seems incongruous given that the cited reference is > 20 years old. Do we know that this trend continued or consolidated? Or is this a case of interdecadal variability that manifests as a slowdown over the period studied but has since reversed?

17/52 "an atmosphere's energy balance indicator" I don't think this is necessary.

17/58 change "reduce" to "reduced"

18/63 change "is considered" to "occurs"

18/63 change "Paleoceanographical records reveal a strong correlation between proxies of aeolian Fe flux and productivity has been reported" to "Paleoceanographical records showing a strong correlation between proxies of aeolian Fe flux and productivity have been reported"

18/65 "in present times, dust deposition in this area has notably varied" Is there a literature reference for this (e.g., 10.1073/pnas.0607657104)?

18/76 "further evidence of the global scale coupling and feedback between the atmosphere, the ocean, and global productivity variations" Possibly this is true, but nothing shown in this paper necessarily depends on ocean-atmosphere feedbacks. Similarly with "anomalies in global forcing intensity". It's not clear what is meant by "forcing intensity" here, but I do not think anything shown here requires a change in e.g., global net forcing of climate by GHGs, or a change in the global mean surface ocean wind stress.

191/4 URL for CARINA is outdated (should be ncei.noaa.gov)

19/22 Aumont reference cites Discussion paper; should cite final published version

20/50 Nojiri misspelled

Reference format is still inconsistent in that journal titles are sometimes abbreviated, sometimes not; sometimes all words capitalized, sometimes not; author names sometimes spelled out, sometimes not;

Table 2 caption should define "Max variation" and state monthly or annual mean data

Figure 1 caption "SOM time-domain analysis at global and regional means" meaning not clear; means of what?

Figure 2 caption "isolines are drawn at 4 mmol m-3 intervals" are they?

Figure 4 caption state monthly or annual mean data

Figure 6 caption "extent" is still spelled as "extension"

Figure 7 - the numbering scheme is unusual. I see the logic of it but it may violate journal standard.

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (30 Mar 2023) by Aida Alvera-Azcárate

AR by Gotzon Basterretxea on behalf of the Authors (03 May 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (07 May 2023) by Aida Alvera-Azcárate

ED: Publish as is (17 May 2023) by Aida Alvera-Azcárate

AR by Gotzon Basterretxea on behalf of the Authors (18 May 2023)

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

06 Jul 2023

Global variability of high-nutrient low-chlorophyll regions using neural networks and wavelet coherence analysis

Gotzon Basterretxea, Joan S. Font-Muñoz, Ismael Hernández-Carrasco, and Sergio A. Sañudo-Wilhelmy

Ocean Sci., 19, 973–990, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-19-973-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/os-19-973-2023, 2023

Short summary

Gotzon Basterretxea et al.

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-827-supplement

Gotzon Basterretxea et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 651 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
439	189	23	651	47	5	6

HTML: 439
PDF: 189
XML: 23
Total: 651
Supplement: 47
BibTeX: 5
EndNote: 6

Views and downloads (calculated since 05 Sep 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2022	108	40	9	157
Oct 2022	61	22	2	85
Nov 2022	47	17	3	67
Dec 2022	26	7	0	33
Jan 2023	58	25	6	89
Feb 2023	39	15	0	54
Mar 2023	37	16	0	53
Apr 2023	19	12	1	32
May 2023	25	18	0	43
Jun 2023	16	16	2	34
Jul 2023	3	1	0	4

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 05 Sep 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2022	108	40	9	157
Oct 2022	61	22	2	85
Nov 2022	47	17	3	67
Dec 2022	26	7	0	33
Jan 2023	58	25	6	89
Feb 2023	39	15	0	54
Mar 2023	37	16	0	53
Apr 2023	19	12	1	32
May 2023	25	18	0	43
Jun 2023	16	16	2	34
Jul 2023	3	1	0	4

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 644 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 644 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 06 Jul 2023

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (1710 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

We examines the patterns of variability of high nutrient low chlorophyll regions (HNLC) identifies their response to major climate drivers of ocean variability. HNLC areas are ocean regions where primary production should be potentially high but phytoplankton biomass remains relatively low and constant despite the perennial nutrient availability for growth.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0