the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 07 Oct 2024
Effects of Submarine Groundwater on Nutrient Concentration and Primary Production in a Deep Bay of the Japan Sea
Abstract. We constructed a coupled physical-ecosystem model with a tracking module to evaluate the influence of submarine groundwater discharge (SGD) and river water on nutrient distribution and phytoplankton growth in Toyama Bay, a deep bay in the Japan Sea. The tracking technique allows us to distinguish SGD- and river-derived nutrients in the bay and evaluate their contributions to the nutrient inventory and phytoplankton growth. Horizontally, SGD-derived nutrients were primarily distributed within a narrow band from the coastline (< 3 km), and vertically, they were abundant in the middle and bottom layers. Because of the buoyancy of SGD, SGD-derived nutrients were transported upward to the surface layer and used by the phytoplankton growth. On the other hand, river water exerted a greater effect on phytoplankton growth than SGD did, on both the spatial range and the amount of phytoplankton biomass. Due to the different distributions of river- and SGD-derived nutrients, their proportions used by phytoplankton differed from coastal to offshore areas. These findings enhance our understanding of the coastal ecosystems affected by land water.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(9308 KB)
-
Supplement
(13048 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(9308 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(13048 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2581', Chen-Tung Arthur Chen, 17 Oct 2024
I struggled with the manuscript for many hours trying to figure out what the authors are saying, mainly because the presentation is very poor and very reader-unfriendly. My comments are divided into two categories:
Science:
1.I have followed Profs. Guo's and Zhang's work for years and have no doubt about Guo's modeling ability and the high quality data from Zhang's lab. The NPZD model, however, is a very simple one so ground-truthing is important. I failed to notice the comparison of field data and model results although clearly large discrepancies exist. It should also be said whether sea grasses or other plants on the bottom are important.
2.It is not clear why 70m was chosen as the lower limit of the SGD input. How the SGD discharge distributes within this 70m range was also not given.
3. For coastal modeling work frequently moving boundary is applied. I assume that the land boundary is not moving in this case because the tidal range is very small in the Japan Sea. It should be stated so.
4. Should explain the huge residual in Fig. 10.
5. Figures 8,9,11,12: not clear whether they are simply comparisons of SGD vs. rivers, or the ocean-side input is considered.
Presentation:
1. It is not even clear how much SGD contributes to the study area. It is said at several places that the SGD contributes slightly more nutrients than all rivers combined to the study area. Yet, line 169 says that ...the SGD mean value of DIN loading of 26.7 g/s ...is approximately 20% of total riverine nutrient loading. Only two lines above it is said that the SGD nutrient loading is the same as rivers.
2. Figure 10. There are many symbols to use. It is not possible to differentiate red circles from pink ones.
3. Line 433, Should use positive tone. Instead of saying that "we paid little attention to..." should say that seasonal and short term variations will be the focus of future work.
4. It would help the readers if the currents are plotted when horizontal distributions of parameters are provided.
Minor points:
1.Line 37 quotes Santos et al., 2021 as summarizing the SGD-related nutrient inputs. Wilson et al.(L&O Letters, 9,4,411,2024) gave a much more comprehensive summary.
2. Figure 1, state that the depth contours are in "m", and put "A, B, C, D" at the proper places.
3. Figures 4,7 and 8. The X-axis is distance, but from where?
4.Figure 6 is about phytoplankton but the color bar gives N.
5. Figures 7, 8, what is the unit for the color bar?
6. Figure 13, areas 1,2,3,4 should be A,B,C,D.
7. Line 586, "T"oyama "B"ay; should state (in Japanese).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2581-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', X.Y. Guo, 02 Dec 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-2581/egusphere-2024-2581-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', X.Y. Guo, 02 Dec 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2581', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Nov 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', X.Y. Guo, 02 Dec 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-2581/egusphere-2024-2581-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', X.Y. Guo, 02 Dec 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2581', Chen-Tung Arthur Chen, 17 Oct 2024
I struggled with the manuscript for many hours trying to figure out what the authors are saying, mainly because the presentation is very poor and very reader-unfriendly. My comments are divided into two categories:
Science:
1.I have followed Profs. Guo's and Zhang's work for years and have no doubt about Guo's modeling ability and the high quality data from Zhang's lab. The NPZD model, however, is a very simple one so ground-truthing is important. I failed to notice the comparison of field data and model results although clearly large discrepancies exist. It should also be said whether sea grasses or other plants on the bottom are important.
2.It is not clear why 70m was chosen as the lower limit of the SGD input. How the SGD discharge distributes within this 70m range was also not given.
3. For coastal modeling work frequently moving boundary is applied. I assume that the land boundary is not moving in this case because the tidal range is very small in the Japan Sea. It should be stated so.
4. Should explain the huge residual in Fig. 10.
5. Figures 8,9,11,12: not clear whether they are simply comparisons of SGD vs. rivers, or the ocean-side input is considered.
Presentation:
1. It is not even clear how much SGD contributes to the study area. It is said at several places that the SGD contributes slightly more nutrients than all rivers combined to the study area. Yet, line 169 says that ...the SGD mean value of DIN loading of 26.7 g/s ...is approximately 20% of total riverine nutrient loading. Only two lines above it is said that the SGD nutrient loading is the same as rivers.
2. Figure 10. There are many symbols to use. It is not possible to differentiate red circles from pink ones.
3. Line 433, Should use positive tone. Instead of saying that "we paid little attention to..." should say that seasonal and short term variations will be the focus of future work.
4. It would help the readers if the currents are plotted when horizontal distributions of parameters are provided.
Minor points:
1.Line 37 quotes Santos et al., 2021 as summarizing the SGD-related nutrient inputs. Wilson et al.(L&O Letters, 9,4,411,2024) gave a much more comprehensive summary.
2. Figure 1, state that the depth contours are in "m", and put "A, B, C, D" at the proper places.
3. Figures 4,7 and 8. The X-axis is distance, but from where?
4.Figure 6 is about phytoplankton but the color bar gives N.
5. Figures 7, 8, what is the unit for the color bar?
6. Figure 13, areas 1,2,3,4 should be A,B,C,D.
7. Line 586, "T"oyama "B"ay; should state (in Japanese).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2581-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', X.Y. Guo, 02 Dec 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-2581/egusphere-2024-2581-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', X.Y. Guo, 02 Dec 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2581', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Nov 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', X.Y. Guo, 02 Dec 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-2581/egusphere-2024-2581-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', X.Y. Guo, 02 Dec 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 378 | 117 | 322 | 817 | 47 | 32 | 19 |
- HTML: 378
- PDF: 117
- XML: 322
- Total: 817
- Supplement: 47
- BibTeX: 32
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Menghong Dong
Takuya Matsuura
Taichi Tebakari
Jing Zhang
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(9308 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(13048 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper