the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Animal burrowing at cold seep ecotones boosts productivity by linking macromolecule turnover with chemosynthesis and nutrient cycling
Abstract. Hydrocarbon seepage at the deep seafloor fuels flourishing chemosynthetic communities. These seeps impact the functionality of the benthic ecosystem beyond hotspots of gas emission, altering the abundance, diversity and activity of microbiota and fauna, and affecting geochemical processes. Yet, these chemosynthetic ecotones (chemotones) are far less explored than the foci of seepage. To better understand the functionality of chemotones, we: i) mapped seabed morphology at the periphery of gas seeps in the deep Eastern Mediterranean Sea, using video analyses and synthetic aperture sonar; ii) sampled chemotone sediments and described burrowing using computerized tomography; iii) explored nutrient concentrations; iv) quantified microbial abundance, activity and N2 fixation rates in selected samples and v) extracted DNA and explored microbial diversity and function using amplicon sequencing and metagenomics. Our results indicate that the gas seepage yields gradients of burrowing intensity at the seep ecotones, especially by the ghost shrimp Calliax lobata. This burrowing alters nitrogen and sulfur cycling through the activity of diverse microbes. Burrow walls form a unique habitat, where macromolecules are degraded by Bacterioida, and their fermentation products fuel sulfate reduction by Desulfobacterota and Nitrospirota. These in turn support chemosynthetic Campylobacterota and giant sulfur bacteria Thiomargarita, which can aid C. lobata nutrition. These interactions may support enhanced productivity at seep ecotones.
- Preprint
(6360 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1764 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 26 Nov 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1285', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jun 2024
reply
Review of egusphere-2024-1285: Animal burrowing at cold seep ecotones boosts productivity by linking macromolecule turnover with chemosynthesis and nutrient cycling
General comment:
Firstly, it has to be acknowledged that reviewing this MS poses a significant challenge, requiring the reviewer to possess a substantial depth of knowledge encompassing various fields such as seabed geomorphology, geochemistry, microbiology, among others. This consideration was taken into account when I decided to accept the invitation to review the MS. Therefore, my comments can not be treated as a comprehensive assessment but rather focuses on: (1) acquiring relevant knowledge from the MS; and (2) evaluating certain aspects of the MS based on my professional expertise (geochemistry). For the assessment of geomorphology and microbiology, additional reviewers are required to finalize the evaluation.
Fortunately, I now finished the review of this MS. I believe this study provides a detailed description of the biogeochemical processes around the cold seep ecosystem (also referred to as "chemotones" by the author) to some extent. Therefore, it is highly suitable for publication in BG. The data is of good quality and the demonstrated geochemical trends as well as the suggested explanations are convincing. I recommend to accept the paper for publication after a minor revision.
An important observation regarding this MS is the extensive discussion presented in sections 3.1 to 3.8, which may potentially divert the attention of readers. It is recommended that the author consider consolidating the discussion content, but I have no clue to achieve this kind of integration to be honest.
Minor suggestions:
Line 92: There is no need to give ‘SAS’ again, since this abbreviation has been given in line 68.
Table 1: According to the information in the table, it seems that no 'metagenomics' investigation on any samples, why still keep '6. metagenomics' in caption?
Figure 1: The scale should be optimized. It can be arranged at equal intervals of 0, 5, 10, 15 and 20, and the unit (km) can be put at the end (behind '20').
Figure 2: The scale is given above the subgraph D, but the specific length represented by the scale is not specified in the caption. Subgraph E can be enlarged appropriately to make it highly consistent with subgraph D. At the same time, compared with other characters in this figure, the font size of the characters next to subgraph E is too small, which is not friendly to readers.
Figure 3: Inconsistencies in the spacing between subgraphs, affecting the overall aesthetic appeal. Specifically, (1) the distance between subgraph B and the adjacent subgraphs is irregular. (2) the proximity between subgraphs C and D is notably smaller compared to the distance among subgraphs A, E, and F, which is considerably larger. (3) the height of subgraph B exceeds that of the combined height of subgraphs A+E+F. (4) subgraph D have two "2 mm" around the scalebar in the lower left corner.
Figure 4: The ordinate of subgraph C is incorrect. Or the subgraph B covers a part of the ordinate of the subgraph C. In any case, it needs to be revised. The horizontal and vertical fonts of subgraph G are different from other subgraphs.
Figure 6: The correlation of subgraph C is relatively weak. Moreover, the data itself exhibits a considerable error bar, raising uncertainty regarding the appropriateness of discussing the correlation based on this data.
Figure 9: The figures in this MS display the utilization of various fonts. Specifically, "Times New Roman" is employed in Figure 9, but it seems that this font is not used in other figures. It is recommended that the author adhere to a consistent font style in accordance with the journal's guidelines.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1285-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
365 | 74 | 35 | 474 | 45 | 29 | 41 |
- HTML: 365
- PDF: 74
- XML: 35
- Total: 474
- Supplement: 45
- BibTeX: 29
- EndNote: 41
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1