the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Significant role of physical transport in the marine carbon monoxide (CO) cycle – Observations in the East Sea (Sea of Japan), the Western North Pacific, and the Bering Sea in summer
Young Shin Kwon
Tae Siek Rhee
Hyun-Cheol Kim
Hyoun-Woo Kang
Abstract. The carbon monoxide (CO) in the marine boundary layer and in the surface waters and water column were measured along the Northwestern Pacific limb from Korean Peninsula to Alaska, U.S.A. in summer 2012. The observation allows us to estimate the CO budgets in the surface mixed layer of the three distinct regimes, the East Sea (ES), the Northwest Pacific (NP), and the Bering Sea (BS). Microbial consumption rates were 33(±22) μmol m-2 day-1, 23(±11) μmol m-2 day-1, and 77(±32) μmol m-2 day-1, and CO production rates were 70(±49) μmol m-2 day-1, 20(±11) μmol m-2 day-1, and 19(±7) μmol m-2 day-1 in ES, NP and BS, respectively, both of which are the dominant components of the CO budget in the ocean. The other two known components, air-sea gas exchange and downward mixing remain negligible (less than 2 μmol m-2 day-1) in all regimes. While the CO budget in the surface mixed layer of NP is in balance, the CO production surpassed the consumption in ES and vice versa in BS. The significant imbalances in the CO budget in ES and BS requires external physical transport such as lateral advection, subduction, or ventilation. Indeed, the first order increase of the CO column burden to the extent that the imbalance in the CO budget increases points to the significant play of the physical transport in the CO cycles. Our observation, for the first time, points to the potential importance of physical transport in the marine CO cycle.
- Preprint
(1866 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(442 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Young Shin Kwon et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2290', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Nov 2023
General comments:
The authors conducted an interesting marine CO cycle analysis in a latitudinal study area from the Korea Peninsula to Alaska, U.S.A.. This study has made a great effort in simulating the calculation of different processes of CO in the surface mix layer, including microbial oxidation, photoproduction and vertical diffusion. The manuscript is well presented and generally sound. However, I deeply worry about the results about the microbial oxidation, and hence the budget and advection transport of CO, since the in situ incubation was not well conducted, and the calculated kCO held large uncertainty.
I have some questions about the incubation experiment: 1) were duplicates or triplicates conducted for each sample? 2) the incubation experiment was conducted in glass jars, but how did the authors collect subsamples at each time point. I mean after collection, how did you fix the space of the subsample in the jar, leave it with atmosphere, seawater sample or others? 3) based on Figure 4, CO concentration fluctuated with time. The authors mentioned it might be related with dark production. So is there dark control with another sample poisoned to removal microbial consumption, but only dark production? 4) I could not obtain the microbial oxidation rate (M) of CO in each province presented in Table 2 based on Equation 9, and the air-sea fluxes presented here were not consistent with those in Table 1. 5) Equation 7, it should it be “1-A” instead of “A”? Also I(l,0-) and I0(l,0-) are without and with normalization using the observed Iobs, respectively. If you use this equation, I doubt the photoproduction rate of CO is also incorrect. So I strongly recommended the authors to recheck their original data and recalculate the photoproduction, microbial consumption and air-sea fluxes of CO in each province, and resubmit it.
Specific comments:
Line 395: For the CO budget, I would suggest placing this part in the “Discussion” section.
Since the real experiment on CO microbial oxidation hasn’t shown a reduction, and the author estimated the oxidation using a decay function. This estimation method carries risks, potentially leading to an overestimation of the “sink” role of CO microbial oxidation in the study areas. In this section the authors disregard the presence of dark production or a threshold [CO] for consumption. Thus, how about providing a schematic graph illustrating the budget estimation of different processes? By quantifying the sources (inputs) and sink (outputs) of other processes, it would be clearer to identify whether the central bulk is primarily involved to “oxidation”, “production” or a state of balance.
Line 400: I would suggest adding the vertical profiles of temperature, salinity, density and KCO for further discussion, thus it would be better to move this section forward.
Line 420–425: As mentioned before, the CO budget calculations need to be rigorous, as the results of the experiment exhibit high uncertainties.
Minor comments:
Line 9: “Northwestern Pacific Rim”?
Line 37: The unit of “0.003 to 1.11 h-1” used here should be understood as referring to rate constants, not consumption rates.
Line 43–50: Please rephrase this paragraph.
Line 129: “Zhang et al., 2006”? and this reference is not listed at the end of the manuscript. Also there are some incorrect citation, such as Li et al., 2015
Line 155–160: Please explain the calculation of photochemical production rate (J) in detail, providing the formula and parameters.
Table 1: I would prefer to use (N = xxx) in parentheses to avoid potential misunderstandings.
Figure 1: Misspell of “Tsugaru Strait”.
Figure 2: Please enlarge the front size here.
Line 284: “measurements were reliable”
Line 320–325: It should be “Microbial CO consumption rate constants”. Could you explain more about the first-order decay function that you used for the CO oxidation estimation?
Line 365: The unit “μmol m-2 d-1” refers to flux density.
Lines 296-297: why the author relate the low [CO] in the upper ocean to the lower productivity (i.e. Chl a)? CO is mainly produced by photoproduction from CDOM and POM, but not biological origin.
Lines 305-306: In many cases, the absorption coefficient is negatively correlated with its spectral slope. So, here you could not conclude the similar biogeochemical process between Pacific and Atlantic.
Line 328: the microbial CO consumption rate constants here were not consistent with those presented in Table 1 (the values and the unit)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2290-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2290', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Nov 2023
The manuscript by Kown et al. quantified the budget of carbon monoxide (CO) in the mixed layer of the East Sea (ES, Sea of Japan), the Western North Pacific (NP), and the Bering Sea (BS). Kown et al. also examined the factors contributing to uncertainties in the CO budget and highlighted the potential importance of physical transport in the oceanic CO cycle. This study aims to enhance our understanding of the CO cycles in these regions. However, there are many defects throughout the manuscript, including the language, logic, figures, tables, references, etc. So, this paper is not suitable to be published in this journal.
Major comments:
- Grammar: There are lots of grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. It would've been better to send this paper to a professional English editor before submission to a journal for publishing consideration.
- Figures: Some figures show incomplete information. Mark the corresponding information (e.g., concentration, etc.) for discrete samples in Figure 2 to observe whether there is a significant difference in the determination of sample concentration between the two sampling methods. Show the results of the fitted curves (e.g., R2, P-value) in Figure 3b. What does the right Y-axis in Figure 5 represent? What are the units? What do the blue, orange, green, and magenta columns represent? Display the results of the linear fit in Figure 7b.
- Introduction: There is a lack of connection between the third and fourth paragraphs. Add a paragraph summarizing the budget for CO in the oceans.
- Materials and Methods: Two sampling methods were used to determine the concentration of CO in seawater. The data in Figures 2b and 6a-c appear to be inconsistent. Please conduct a statistical analysis on the data obtained by the two methods. If there is a significant difference, explain why. What is the concentration of the standard gas? What was the analytical accuracy of the standard gas used for calibration of CO analyzer? What is the detection limit of the CO analyzer? Discuss in the manuscript.
- Statistical analysis: In the Materials and Methods section, please specify the type of software and methodology employed for statistical analysis in the paper.
- Please list the units for each parameter in all formulas.
Specific comments:
- Line 29: Kitidis et al. (2006) reported variability of CDOM in surface waters of the Atlantic Ocean. This is not related to the photoproduction of CO. Please delete citation of Kitidis et al.’s (2006) paper from this line.
- Line 84: What is “Schuetze reagent”? Please complete the information about "Schuetze reagent" (e.g., manufacturer, specifications, etc.).
- Line 90-92: Give a specific value for the gas constant. Explain the Benson solubility coefficient and cite Wiesenburg and Guinasso, 1979.
- Line 170: List the formula for Ostwald coefficient.
- Line 192-193: “…its physical properties…” to “… the physical properties of WC…”.
- Line 284: Give the web address of NOAA/ESRL global network.
- Line 285-287: “…varied by about 30% with respect to mean value of 118 nmol mol-1…” what do you mean? Is COair 30% higher or lower than the average? 118 nmol mol-1 is the mean value of what? Why does this statement reveal that the large variability of CO in the Northern hemisphere is related to anthropogenic emissions?
- Line 296-297: “…lower than the values observed in other areas due probably to lower productivity evidenced by low Chl-a concentration…” List the average concentrations of CO and Chl-a in other papers.
- Line 304-306: “This inverse relationship is consistent with the observations in the Atlantic Ocean…” This inverse relationship is universal and does not indicate that the biogeochemical properties of CDOM in the two sea areas are similar.
- Line 324: The paper reported by Li et al. (2015) is not related to the dark production of CO. Please delete citation of Li et al.’s (2015) paper from this line.
- Line 328: It is stated here that the mean kco value in the NP is 0.17 ± 0.35 hr−1. It is not consistent with the Table 1. Please check.
- Line 330: “…high Chl-a or active primary productivity can serve as an indicator of the activity of CO-oxidizing microbes.” Xie et al. (2005) reported that the kco in the Beaufort Sea was positively correlated with the concentration of Chl-a. However, it can be seen from the data in Table 1 that the manuscript is inconsistent with the findings of Xie et al. (2005). Please give a figure for the relationship between kco and Chl-a.
- Line 339-340: “…while there was little difference between NP and BS due to the high CDOM content in BS.” What do you mean?
- Line 353-354: “highest” to “higher”. In addition, the mean dissolved [CO] in the BS was approximately 3 times higher than that in the ES (Table 1), and they were not similar.
- Line 393: “although” to “therefore” Please check the mean value of CB200 in the ES.
- Line 408: “Figure 6b” to “Figure 6a-c”
- Line 433-434: “…the CBMLD values for the three provinces do not show any clear differences…” Please use statistical analysis to show whether there are significant differences among them.
- Line 477: “Conte et al (2021)” to “Conte et al. (2019)”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2290-RC2
Young Shin Kwon et al.
Young Shin Kwon et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
117 | 30 | 19 | 166 | 17 | 8 | 10 |
- HTML: 117
- PDF: 30
- XML: 19
- Total: 166
- Supplement: 17
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1