the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Riverine inputs and phytoplankton community composition control nitrate cycling in a coastal lagoon
Abstract. Estuarine systems, being situated at the interface between land and marine environments, are important sites for nitrate (NO3–) retention and processing due to large inputs, long retention time, and high biogeochemical activity. However, it remains uncertain how pelagic and benthic processes control NO3– cycling and how these differ between contrasting seasons. In this study, we measured pelagic and benthic assimilatory and dissimilatory NO3– processes in a large lagoon (Curonian Lagoon, SE Baltic Sea) to understand changes in NO3– cycling in relation to variation in riverine inputs and shifts in phytoplankton community composition. We show that in spring, benthic dissimilatory and assimilatory NO3– processes were important, while in summer, pelagic assimilatory processes dominated. During spring, diatom blooms promote greater delivery of nitrogen (N) and labile organic matter to the benthos resulting in greater denitrification in the sediments and a net flux of NO3– from the water column to the sediments. In summer, phytoplankton blooms dominated by buoyant cyanobacteria exhibited high rates of assimilatory uptake and greater particulate organic N export to the sea, but low rates of sediment–water exchange. Cyanobacteria blooms were associated with higher absolute rates of NO3– uptake, as well as higher mass-specific rates compared to spring. Given the low dissolved inorganic N in summer, high uptake indicates that the pelagic community possessed a nutritional strategy to efficiently utilize multiple N forms. Overall, our findings show that the seasonal succession from diatom to cyanobacteria-dominated communities is associated with a shift from strong benthic-pelagic coupling to predominantly pelagic-based N cycling.
- Preprint
(847 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(78 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3054', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Feb 2024
The Ms on "Riverine inputs and phytoplankton community composition control nitrate cycling in a coastal lagoon" by M. Zielius is a well written manuscript. It is presented in a concise manner, solid methods & results, and appropriate discussion and conclusion. I have some minor remarks in the text (attached pdf file) and two questions for the discussion.
The study focusses on the spring and summer situation. But what is known or is expected to happen during the rest of the year?
What are exchange processes to the Baltic Sea? Where is the connecting channel in Figure 1? and in relation to the river discharge how much water is leaving or entering the lagoon, and what would this mean for N-export....?
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mindaugas Zilius, 08 Apr 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3054', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Mar 2024
I can not recommend the publication of this work. The main interest of this manuscript is the simultaneous measurement of NO3- uptake in the water column, due in this system to assimilation by phytoplankton and heterotrophic bacteria, and benthic NO3- consumption, mainly due to dissimilatory processes, where NO3- is used as a final e- acceptor in denitrification and DNRA. However, the study consists in just two sampling sites in only the north section of a very large coastal lagoon, which has been sampled just one time in spring and in summer. Therefore, both the spatial and temporal replicability is very low or inexistent (temporal). This is in my opinion a very serious drawback for the publication of this study. Otherwise, the experimental work seems well done in general, although there are some specific issues that are unclear and that should be further explained (see my specific comments below). Another big issue is that in my opinion the discussion section is very difficult to follow in general and very frequently based in statements about processes which has not been measured here. I strongly suggest to the authors avoiding what can be put in their own words in line 316 “this estimation is rather speculative as it only considers …”. For instance, all explanations of your results based diatom and cyanobacteria settling are just speculations. You could have measured yourself this rates, if you consider this important in your system. It is part of your hypothesis!
Specific comments
Line 118. The uptake experiments with the pelagic samples were done in an outdoor tank and no information is provided about what irradiance was used, only it is mentioned that incubations were shaded to prevent high light exposure. Since N-demand in pelagic communities is closely connected with photosynthesis rate, information about irradiance should be more specific. Was this irradiance measured? Since they were outdoor incubations, irradiance during incubations was not constant.
Line 135. Benthic NO3- fluxes were measured in a temperature-controlled room instead of in outdoor tanks, why? The cores collected from the shallower site were incubated at a constant irradiance. Why this was not done for incubations with the pelagic samples?
L134 and L156. Potential readers would appreciate being more specific in these heading subsections. What processes measurements? What other methods?
L165. How did you calculate biomass from biovolume? This is not mention in the reference you cited. You should provide a brief description of the conversion of phytoplankton counts to biomass since this is not straightforward at all. Another matter is why there is not replicate analysis of these samples? You are making a lot of interpretations of your results based on the differences in the phytoplankton community from just two no replicated samples.
L182. You set a significance level in the statistical method section, why sometime you use it and other times you give the exact value of p? You must be consistent!
L205. I do not understand this: “… were averaged based on surface and bottom water measurements.”
L254. Please, make clear that you used the C:N ratio as well to calculate N-demand form C-fixation.
Figures and Tables
Fig. 1 and legend. There is no blue circle in my pdf copy
Fig. 6. You need to include legends on this figure.
Table 2. What are the differences between data presented in figure 6 and those of table 2?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3054-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mindaugas Zilius, 08 Apr 2024
Dear all,
Here, we submit our response to the reviewer's comments. We have tried to answer all comments and revised the discussion to improve its flow.
All responses and part of the reorganized discussion are provided in the supplement file.
on behalf of co-authors
Mindaugas Zilius
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mindaugas Zilius, 08 Apr 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3054', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Feb 2024
The Ms on "Riverine inputs and phytoplankton community composition control nitrate cycling in a coastal lagoon" by M. Zielius is a well written manuscript. It is presented in a concise manner, solid methods & results, and appropriate discussion and conclusion. I have some minor remarks in the text (attached pdf file) and two questions for the discussion.
The study focusses on the spring and summer situation. But what is known or is expected to happen during the rest of the year?
What are exchange processes to the Baltic Sea? Where is the connecting channel in Figure 1? and in relation to the river discharge how much water is leaving or entering the lagoon, and what would this mean for N-export....?
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mindaugas Zilius, 08 Apr 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-3054', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Mar 2024
I can not recommend the publication of this work. The main interest of this manuscript is the simultaneous measurement of NO3- uptake in the water column, due in this system to assimilation by phytoplankton and heterotrophic bacteria, and benthic NO3- consumption, mainly due to dissimilatory processes, where NO3- is used as a final e- acceptor in denitrification and DNRA. However, the study consists in just two sampling sites in only the north section of a very large coastal lagoon, which has been sampled just one time in spring and in summer. Therefore, both the spatial and temporal replicability is very low or inexistent (temporal). This is in my opinion a very serious drawback for the publication of this study. Otherwise, the experimental work seems well done in general, although there are some specific issues that are unclear and that should be further explained (see my specific comments below). Another big issue is that in my opinion the discussion section is very difficult to follow in general and very frequently based in statements about processes which has not been measured here. I strongly suggest to the authors avoiding what can be put in their own words in line 316 “this estimation is rather speculative as it only considers …”. For instance, all explanations of your results based diatom and cyanobacteria settling are just speculations. You could have measured yourself this rates, if you consider this important in your system. It is part of your hypothesis!
Specific comments
Line 118. The uptake experiments with the pelagic samples were done in an outdoor tank and no information is provided about what irradiance was used, only it is mentioned that incubations were shaded to prevent high light exposure. Since N-demand in pelagic communities is closely connected with photosynthesis rate, information about irradiance should be more specific. Was this irradiance measured? Since they were outdoor incubations, irradiance during incubations was not constant.
Line 135. Benthic NO3- fluxes were measured in a temperature-controlled room instead of in outdoor tanks, why? The cores collected from the shallower site were incubated at a constant irradiance. Why this was not done for incubations with the pelagic samples?
L134 and L156. Potential readers would appreciate being more specific in these heading subsections. What processes measurements? What other methods?
L165. How did you calculate biomass from biovolume? This is not mention in the reference you cited. You should provide a brief description of the conversion of phytoplankton counts to biomass since this is not straightforward at all. Another matter is why there is not replicate analysis of these samples? You are making a lot of interpretations of your results based on the differences in the phytoplankton community from just two no replicated samples.
L182. You set a significance level in the statistical method section, why sometime you use it and other times you give the exact value of p? You must be consistent!
L205. I do not understand this: “… were averaged based on surface and bottom water measurements.”
L254. Please, make clear that you used the C:N ratio as well to calculate N-demand form C-fixation.
Figures and Tables
Fig. 1 and legend. There is no blue circle in my pdf copy
Fig. 6. You need to include legends on this figure.
Table 2. What are the differences between data presented in figure 6 and those of table 2?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-3054-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mindaugas Zilius, 08 Apr 2024
Dear all,
Here, we submit our response to the reviewer's comments. We have tried to answer all comments and revised the discussion to improve its flow.
All responses and part of the reorganized discussion are provided in the supplement file.
on behalf of co-authors
Mindaugas Zilius
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mindaugas Zilius, 08 Apr 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
352 | 102 | 29 | 483 | 43 | 16 | 16 |
- HTML: 352
- PDF: 102
- XML: 29
- Total: 483
- Supplement: 43
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 16
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1