the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Cold-water coral mounds are effective carbon sinks in the western Mediterranean Sea
Abstract. Cold-water corals (CWC) build biogenic structures, so-called CWC mounds, that can store large amounts of carbon(ate). However, there is a lack of quantification studies on both recent as well as geological timescales, and knowledge is limited to the accumulation of carbonate (i.e., the inorganic carbon fraction), ignoring the organic carbon fraction. This hinders the calculation of total carbon accumulation rates and a wider understanding of the role CWC mounds play in the long-term carbon cycle. Here, we investigated two cores retrieved from CWC mounds in the Alborán Sea, Western Mediterranean Sea, comprising a ~400 kyr record of carbon accumulation. We calculated the accumulation of both inorganic and organic carbon within the CWC mounds. Further, we analysed the same parameters in two cores from the adjacent seafloor (~120 kyr record) to compare the mound records with the surrounding sedimentary deposits. Our results show that the studied CWC mounds accumulate up to 15 g C cm−2 kyr−1, of which 6–9 % is derived from the organic carbon fraction. Moreover, during enhanced mound formation phases, the mounds store up to 14–19 times more carbon than the adjacent seafloor deposits. We suggest that there is a selective enrichment of organic carbon on the mounds, with about an order of magnitude higher organic carbon accumulation rates than on the adjacent seafloor. Consequently, in phases of active mound formation, CWC mounds can be effective local sinks of both inorganic and organic carbon on geological timescales.
- Preprint
(1760 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(6986 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2532', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Oct 2024
reply
Dear authors, dear editor,
In this paper, Greiffenhagen et al. calculated the amount of inorganic and organic carbon accumulation at two CWC mounds in the Mediterranean Sea using two sediment cores. They compared the results to two cores from the adjacent seafloor and showed that CWC mounds store much more carbon than the adjacent seafloor.
General comments
The manuscript is very well written and structured and I only have some minor suggestions for improvement (see below). Some more background information about CWCs and CWC reefs should be provided in the introduction, an explanation should be given why both off-mound sediment cores were collected in the same location and it should be clarified in the methods section which new information was added by this study and which data were taken from previous studies.
Specific comments
Abstract
The abstract provides a very nice summary of the study.
Introduction
The introduction provides background information on the carbon cycles and CWC mound formation. However, it lacks general information about CWCs (e.g. distribution, depth, biology etc.) and CWC reefs (e.g. reef structure, information about reef-forming species), which should also be included in the introduction in my opinion.
You state that previous studies have only focused on the accumulation of inorganic carbon on CWC mounds and state which information is still missing. However, can you also include some results of these previous studies to provide some more context?
Methods
Why were both off-mound cores collected so close to each other? Would it not be a better representation of the carbon accumulation rates in the region if they were chosen from different locations?
It is stated in the introduction that the new information provided in this study is the calculation of carbon accumulation on CWC mounds by taking into account both the inorganic and organic carbon content. However, it is stated in Table 1 that Wang et al. (2021) have already determined TIC and TOC values for two of the four cores. What is the new information provided by this study, except combining all information for all four cores in one manuscript and including some more data for some of the cores?
Please also provide some information here how the cores were prepared for CT scanning.
You cite a lot of previous studies that have been working on the same sediment cores. What exactly is the new information that is provided by this manuscript? This should be made more clear in the introduction and methods section.
Results
This section seems to be fine and the results are supported by nice figures.
Discussion
Line 519: However, the two off-mound cores were collected at the same location. Therefore, they do not provide a good range of “background” carbon accumulation rates. Therefore, how comparable are the coral-mound to off-mound carbon accumulation rates really?
Conclusion
This section provides a good summary of the main findings of this study.
Technical corrections
Consider including some of the more general information about the study region from section “study site” in the general introduction and not as a separate section and including the more specific information about the sampling locations in the methods.
Lines 73-75: Consider only citing some of these studies as examples.
Figure 1: Delete “Overview map”. A) is missing in figure legend (and describe location of red box in A, not in B). Can you change the orientation of the mound in C to be the same in both pictures (as it is the case in D)? That would make it easier for the reader to understand where on the mound the sediment core was taken. Consider using stars of different colours for sediment cores from coral mounds and off-mounds. A scale bar in B would help to better understand how far away both coral mounds are located.
What is the time period covered by core MD13-3457? This is only stated in Table 1 but not in the text.
As the methods section is rather long, consider moving some of it to the supplementary methods, e.g. methods that describe data collected by previous studies. This would also make it more clear which data were collected for this specific study and which data were used from previous studies.
Figure 3: Grey shaded area in the background that show the timepoint in the record for bars of carbon(ate) accumulation data is difficult to see, use darker colour or contours to make this more clear. The same is the case for light blue bares for glacial periods in top graph. Unclear which Y axis the bars and line in the top graph correspond to. I would suggest using two different colours for both to make the difference more clear.
Figure 5: Define acronym CWC in figure legend.
Isn’t section “5.4 Cold-water coral mounds as carbon sinks” the main finding of this paper and should therefore be stated at the beginning of the discussion?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2532-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
129 | 28 | 60 | 217 | 11 | 4 | 5 |
- HTML: 129
- PDF: 28
- XML: 60
- Total: 217
- Supplement: 11
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1