the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 30 Nov 2023
Kelp Forest model development in the Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere-Wave-Sediment-Transport model (COAWST V3.4)
Abstract. Kelp forests are essential ecosystems in coastal regions around the world. They have large effects on flow structure, biogeochemical processes, and ecological dynamics. However, studies have yet to simulate these ecosystems in either regional ocean or global climate models. Here we describe and validate a model that simulates kelp forests in the water column for the ocean component of the Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere-Wave-Sediment-Transport model (COAWST V3.3) using a simple yet efficient linear regression approach to simulate kelp canopies. An in-situ dataset of 2-1/2 years, with and without kelp forest coverage around Isla Natividad (Baja CA, MX), allowed model validation for the main tidal constituents. We tested different vegetation drag coefficients and compared simulations with our canopy model against the standard vegetation module in COAWST. Results show that while both models simulate the velocities observed in the in situ dataset reasonably well, our model better represents turbulence kinetic energy through the water column as observed in laboratory experiments. This new kelp model can be helpful in ecology, physics, and biogeochemistry studies.
- Preprint
(1610 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(883 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2330', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Jan 2024
There are generally several typos and the paper is full of figures that can be massively improved. The figures could be cut to half their number and try to summarize the most important physics that the new model changes have achieved. Figure quality is generally poor in the paper and the manuscript can be better organized to only highlight key results. Noted down few of these changes:ÂLine 44 typo 2011
line 76 why is equation number in bold
line 83 use greek symbols to distinguish between pd, PD, and ptÂ
Line 102: If if depth > = 12 m
Line 104: Is this true ? Explain what you mean by a virtual solid boundayrÂ
Figure 5: What is point of showing these velocities in the context of this paper ?Â
Figure 6 What is the domain based off? Â Is this a real location then you can use a better method to plot the figureÂ
figure 7 can you make y axis as 0.001 for better reading ? What does inside kelp mean ?Â
Figure 10: WS should be replaced with "Skill", WS could be confused with WSE or water surface elevation ?Â
Line 208: Mentin that the vegetation was considered rigidÂ
Lines 228-231 : No need to write 3.6 sectionÂ
Line 221 : Why mention horizontal viscosity coefficient ? Not sure if the vegetation model uses it anyhere
Are you taking the data at a certain height ?Â
Line 315: What is standard ?Â
Figure 9 be consistent with subscripts for Cd ?
Line 381 Standard deviation (figure title)
Line 418 what is canopy 50Â
Line 420 Figure 14->
Lines 363-365 Can you extrapolate on that ? This should be a discussion pointÂCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2330-RC1 - RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2330', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Jan 2024
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2330', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Jan 2024
There are generally several typos and the paper is full of figures that can be massively improved. The figures could be cut to half their number and try to summarize the most important physics that the new model changes have achieved. Figure quality is generally poor in the paper and the manuscript can be better organized to only highlight key results. Noted down few of these changes:ÂLine 44 typo 2011
line 76 why is equation number in bold
line 83 use greek symbols to distinguish between pd, PD, and ptÂ
Line 102: If if depth > = 12 m
Line 104: Is this true ? Explain what you mean by a virtual solid boundayrÂ
Figure 5: What is point of showing these velocities in the context of this paper ?Â
Figure 6 What is the domain based off? Â Is this a real location then you can use a better method to plot the figureÂ
figure 7 can you make y axis as 0.001 for better reading ? What does inside kelp mean ?Â
Figure 10: WS should be replaced with "Skill", WS could be confused with WSE or water surface elevation ?Â
Line 208: Mentin that the vegetation was considered rigidÂ
Lines 228-231 : No need to write 3.6 sectionÂ
Line 221 : Why mention horizontal viscosity coefficient ? Not sure if the vegetation model uses it anyhere
Are you taking the data at a certain height ?Â
Line 315: What is standard ?Â
Figure 9 be consistent with subscripts for Cd ?
Line 381 Standard deviation (figure title)
Line 418 what is canopy 50Â
Line 420 Figure 14->
Lines 363-365 Can you extrapolate on that ? This should be a discussion pointÂCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2330-RC1 - RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2330', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Jan 2024
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 241 | 98 | 29 | 368 | 37 | 19 | 24 |
- HTML: 241
- PDF: 98
- XML: 29
- Total: 368
- Supplement: 37
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 24
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1