the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The distribution and abundance of planktonic foraminifera under summer sea-ice in the Arctic Ocean
Abstract. Planktonic foraminifera are calcifying protists that represent a minor yet important part of the pelagic microzooplankton. They are found in all of Earth’s ocean basins and are widely studied in sediment records to reconstruct climatic and environmental changes throughout geological time. The Arctic Ocean is currently being transformed in response to modern climate change, yet the effect on planktonic foraminiferal populations is virtually unknown. Here we provide the first systematic sampling of planktonic foraminifera communities in the ‘high’ Arctic Ocean – here defined as areas north of 80° N – in a broad region located between northern Greenland (Lincoln Sea with adjoining fjords and the Morris Jesup Rise), the Yermak Plateau, and the North Pole. Stratified depth tows down to 1000 m using a multinet were performed to reveal the species composition and spatial variability of these communities below the summer sea-ice. The average abundance in the top 200 m ranged between 15–65 ind.m-3 in the central Arctic Ocean and was <0.3 ind.m-3 in the shelf area of the Lincoln Sea. At all stations, except one site at the Yermak Plateau, assemblages consisted solely of the polar specialist Neogloboquadrina pachyderma. It predominated in the top 100 m, where it was likely feeding on phytoplankton below the ice. Near the Yermak Plateau, at the outer edge of the pack ice, rare specimens of Turborotalita quinqueloba occurred that appeared to be associated with the inflowing Atlantic Water layer. Our results indicate that the anticipated turnover from polar to subpolar planktonic species in the Arctic Ocean has not yet occurred, in agreement with recent studies from the Fram Strait. The dataset will be a valuable reference for continued monitoring of the abundance and composition of planktonic foraminifera communities as they respond to the ongoing sea-ice decline and the ‘Atlantification’ of the Arctic Ocean basin. Additionally, the results can be used to assist paleoceanographic interpretations, based on sedimented foraminifera assemblages.
- Preprint
(17625 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1091', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Jun 2024
I reviewed the manuscript of Dr. Flor Vermassen et al. and think it is an important contribution to our scientific community. The data presented in the manuscript are rather rare and provide, as written by the authors themselves, an interesting baseline for assessing the speed of change in the abundance and composition of planktonic foraminifera assemblages in the region for the coming decades.
I therefore support the acceptance of this manuscript after some rather minor revisions.
While the study is interesting and provides unique data, it mostly confirms previous findings and I believe that the authors could go a bit deeper in some of their observations and discussion, especially about the distinction of “living” and “dead” specimens.
It is unclear if the authors systematically distinguished cytoplasm-bearing and empty specimens. This, however, is important as they refer to “living foraminifera” often in the manuscript and consider that all specimens sampled were “living” rather than transported there. A distinction was made (mentioned in the conclusion as well as images of specimens with cytoplasm) but it is not numerically discussed or displayed in the manuscript and thus, leaves a lot of unknown concerning what would (or not) support their conclusions.
Another point: The authors sampled relatively close to the coasts in or near fjords and in very shallow environments (several stations with a bathymetry <500 m depth). It has already been discussed that planktonic foraminifera do not leave/are not abundant in such environments (e.g., Schmuker 2000). I believe that this should appear somewhere in the discussion.
Specific comments:
Introduction:
L. 55-57, which month were the plankton tows sampled for these studies?
L. 60, and G. uvula, displaying similarities in their ecological preferences with T. quiqueloba.
L. 65, the species is not resident but it could still stay there for months and reproduce there – we do not know.
Figure 2: a) It is difficult to read the legend, written in white on a light grey background. Please write it in black and increase the text size. b) please provide the station location.
Methods:
L. 107, a multinet is generally equipped with 5 nets, why did the authors sample only 4 depths intervals, also, why sampling down to 1000 m depths and not with the classical 700 to 0 m?
L. 108, why stop the net between intervals?
L. 111, for samples picked in Sweden, was the pH measured beforehand?
2.2, were all specimens manually oriented the same way on slides? In other words, are the size measurements of each foraminifera comparable? If not, what is the error linked to particles/foraminifera orientation?
Overall, was a distinction made between living/cytoplasm-bearing and dead/empty specimens? If yes, please provide details.
Results:
L. 183 – 187, which water masses are present between 150 and 500m depth?
Figure 3: What is Figure X?
3.2.1. Are the concentrations presented here the ones of all foraminifera living and dead (cytoplasm bearing and empty shells)?
L. 262, Living in the top 100m or found/present in the top 100m?
L. 265, same comment.
L. 284, the authors found more (relative) T. quiqueloba in depth, from 200 to 1000m depth. Could they discuss/comment this finding in the manuscript?
L. 295, what does “predominant” mean? Could you give a relative percentage of cytoplasm-bearing specimens at the different depths?
Figure 8: Specimen c has a “decaying” cytoplasm suggesting the individual is probably dying. Based on the histogram (left) I do not think that there is (statistically) relatively more “red” specimens in the surface layer than deeper. Maybe the authors could comment on that and specify if it is significant or not. finally, for this figure, the cytoplasm color is not discussed in the manuscript, I am not sure it provides very relevant information.
Discussion:
L. 310, without a clear distinction of cytoplasm-bearing / empty test, it is difficult to be so adamant in the wording. Even if I agree, I would suggest the authors to slightly tone down.
L. 327-328, which “could” suggest that… I would add the could. Sampling, picking, storage, etc., usually break the spines, even in very healthy specimens.
L. 357, please also provide the p-value
L. 366 to 374, please provide seasons or month(s) for the number from the literature mentioned. It is indeed well-known that the species displays a highly seasonal pattern of abundances.
L. 378-379, planktonic foraminifera are also just very well-known to not inhabit such environments… Rather than food availability only, what could explain the low concentrations is just the sampling sites and the bathymetry.
L. 405, also cite Manno and Pavlov 2014
L. 405 – 408, the authors should here again stress the fact that no clear distinction between cytoplasm-bearing and empty shells was made. Are the bigger and/or thicker shells found more in depth systematically empty? Do they also observe thinner, smaller empty shells in the shallow samples (suggesting a reproductive event without gametogenesis…)?
Conclusions:
L. 431-435, the authors should discuss the bathymetry and the fact that some stations (from what I understood) are rather close to the shore.
L. 435-436, are cytoplasm individuals dominating the surface samples? No data in the manuscript show that. This is very likely true and I agree but, one should provide evidence (numerical) for that.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1091-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1091', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Jun 2024
The manuscript of Vermassen and coauthors on ‘The distribution and abundance of planktonic foraminifera under summer sea-ice in the Arctic Ocean’ presents a new and unique data set on the understanding of Neogloboquadrina pachyderma from so far uncharted regions between Greenland and the North Pole, and confirms earlier findings on the population dynamics, and which would need to be discussed in more depth.
However, I don’t concur with the major conclusion of the manuscript that ‘N. pachyderma is the only species present underneath the perennial ice cover in the region between the North Pole–Greenland, and that sub-polar species have not migrated into the central Arctic Ocean’, and which should be tuned down and changed to avoid overinterpretation. Plankton net samples from several sampling locations only document a snapshot of the population dynamics of a large region, and cannot conclude on missing elements (other planktic foraminifer species) and on the entire Arctic Ocean. Also, the rather complex current system of the Arctic Ocean would need to be analyzed and interpreted for the transport of Atlantic plankton elements to know when and where any of these may arrive. For example, in the Abstract it’s stated that the ‘… results indicate that the anticipated turnover from polar to subpolar planktonic species in the Arctic Ocean has not yet occurred, in agreement with recent studies from the Fram Strait’, and which is based on the misunderstanding of the Artic circulation pattern; the Fram Strait (as well as the sampling sites north of Greenland) are located at the ‘end’ of the Arctic circulation where Arctic waters are transported into the GIN seas and the North Atlantic. Therefore, it’s very unlikely to find Atlantic sourced plankton north of Greenland and in the Fram Strait.
New papers are accepted for publication and in print, which show the invasion of new species in polar waters from the North Atlantic Current entering the Arctic Ocean on the eastern (Norwegian and Russian) side, which has not been sampled here. Therefore, it may be wise not to make too general statements on this topic.
Overall, the paper reads good, but includes many little flaws, which need to be corrected before the paper can be accepted for publications. For example, salinity has no unit; all maps would need coordinates (N, E, and W) for orientation (e.g., Figs. 1 and 2); I guess I know what the Figure 7 should show, but the information is difficult to from the rather ‘special’ kind of design, and the authors may convey the information in a clearer kind of way. ‘Concentration’ of foraminifers is seawater needs to be changed to ‘standing stock’.
Page 2, lines 49-50: Please give references for the ‘knowledge of resident pelagic communities in the remote, perennially ice-covered regions is minimal.’ There are quite some papers available on planktic forams and other sea-ice related biota.
For N. pachyderma and T. quinqueloba, please also have a look at the paper of Simstich et al. (2003, ecology and isotopes).
Line 107: The 200-100 m water depth interval needs to be included.
Line 108: No ‘cod ends’ but ‘sampling cups’.
Line 164: Were the nutrients analyzed from filtered or unfiltered seawater?
Various lines: Change maximal to maximum
E.g., lines 237-240: change to past tense. In general, please be careful with past and present tense, etc.
In general, numbers without units (except of salinity) under 12 should be spelled out.
Figure 5: Please consider making all scales the same length to allow for comparability.
Lines 287-290, and line 315: Did you take the time of sampling and synodic lunar reproduction cycle into consideration, which may have affected the size distribution? See Schiebel et al. (2017). Information of the reproduction of N. pachyderma may be obtained from the test-size distribution of assemblage. Small and large tests may indicate a living population, i.e., reproduction and growth.
Line 295: How do you assess reproduction? Did you find any gametogenic calcite?
Lines 299-301: It would be interesting to analyze the contents of the food vacuoles to determine the different types of algae used as food source.
Line 379: Please see also the papers of Brunner and Biscaye (2003) and Retailleau et al. (2009, 2011, 2012) for neritic effects.
Figure 9: Some of the stations are the same in the left and right panel. Better combine the two panels and use different markers / colours for the different types of stations?
Figure 11: the legend is too small to be easily read, and should be presented in a different kind of way.
Table 1: Change ‘Depth net’ to ‘Sampling depth interval (m)’
Plates: Are all scale bars the same length?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1091-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
223 | 73 | 16 | 312 | 9 | 8 |
- HTML: 223
- PDF: 73
- XML: 16
- Total: 312
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1