the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 02 Oct 2024
Structure of mesoscale eddies in the vicinity of Perth Submarine Canyon
Abstract. Mesoscale eddies represent discrete, rotating fluid particles that are different compared to their ambient aquatic environment. Understanding the dynamics of mesoscale eddies requires observations, not only of their horizontal structure, such as is available through satellite data, but also of their vertical structure. This study investigates the surface and subsurface characteristics of mesoscale eddies in the vicinity of Perth submarine canyon (30.5‒33.5º S, 112‒116º E) off the southwest coast of Western Australia. Satellite remote sensing (altimetry, temperature, and ocean color) observations were used to understand the surface characteristics while the vertical structure was investigated using ocean glider data collected between 2010 and 2017 through the Integrated Marine Observing Systems (IMOS). Eight Seaglider missions that intersected eddies revealed nine distinct vertical structures, comprising four cyclonic and five anti-cyclonic eddies. Isotherms and isohalines exhibited upwelling in cyclonic eddies, corresponding to mixed layer depth shoaling, and downwelling in anti-cyclonic eddies, aligning with mixed layer depth deepening. Anti-cyclonic eddies exhibited higher surface chlorophyll concentrations than cyclonic eddies, with coastal eddies, regardless of their sense of rotation, displaying elevated surface chlorophyll levels attributed to the entrainment of coastal waters. Offshore eddies featured lower surface chlorophyll concentrations and a distinct subsurface chlorophyll maximum.
- Preprint
(13981 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2901', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Nov 2024
This study aims to investigate the main surface and sub-surface characteristics of several mesoscale eddies observed during eight Seaglider missions in the vicinity of Perth submarine canyon.
Although the topics and the applied methodology are promising, the paper reports several unclear or incomplete reasoning (sometimes caused by English mistakes and/or confused phrasing). The results are intriguing but at times appear superficially presented, which may challenge the reader’s understanding. Additionally, I have concerns regarding the methodology used for eddy tracking, especially without further clarification from the authors on their rationale for this approach.
After a careful review of the paper, it presents as an interesting scientific work; however, it lacks the necessary attention to formal writing and presentation quality. Overall, it seems that different sections of the manuscript may have been written by various authors involved in the study, leading to inconsistencies in style. Despite this, the figures and statistical analyses are impressive, and their discussion is clear and well-articulated.
Therefore, I believe that this study will likely be a significant contribution after a careful (major) revision and clarification. I also suggest the grammar and the syntax to be better checked and verified to meet the high quality standards required for publication in Ocean Science. Specific comments/suggestions are listed in the attached document. Were a revised manuscript to be sent for another round of reviews, I would take part with pleasure.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sharani Kodithuwakku, 27 Jan 2025
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful feedback and constructive comments. We acknowledge the concerns regarding inconsistencies in writing style, unclear phrasing, and the methodology for eddy tracking. These have been rectified in the revised paper. The Nencioli et al. (2010) algorithm as it has been used by the UWA research group with good outcomes (Bitencourt et al., 2024; Cosoli, et al., 2020; Kodithuwakku 2024). It should also be noted that the emphasis of the paper is on the vertical structure of the eddies as sampled through ocean gliders. The eddy detection algorithm was used only demonstrate eddy activity within the Perth canyon, basically to construct Figure 1b. As it does not influence the results/discussion we have removed it from the revised version of the manuscript.
In the revised manuscript, we have improved the grammar, syntax, and overall presentation ensuring a more coherent and professional narrative. We appreciate the positive feedback on the figures and statistical analyses, and we will ensure consistency in style and tone throughout the manuscript. We are
grateful for the reviewer’s time, and we are confident that the revisions will strengthen the manuscript. A point-by-point response to the specific comments are provided with the revised manuscript. -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Sharani Kodithuwakku, 27 Jan 2025
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful feedback and constructive comments. We acknowledge the concerns regarding inconsistencies in writing style, unclear phrasing, and the methodology for eddy tracking. These have been rectified in the revised paper. The Nencioli et al. (2010) algorithm as it has been used by the UWA research group with good outcomes (Bitencourt et al., 2024; Cosoli, et al., 2020; Kodithuwakku 2024). It should also be noted that the emphasis of the paper is on the vertical structure of the eddies as sampled through ocean gliders. The eddy detection algorithm was used only demonstrate eddy activity within the Perth canyon, basically to construct Figure 1b. As it does not influence the results/discussion we have removed it from the revised version of the manuscript.
In the revised manuscript, we have improved the grammar, syntax, and overall presentation ensuring a more coherent and professional narrative. We appreciate the positive feedback on the figures and statistical analyses, and we will ensure consistency in style and tone throughout the manuscript. We are
grateful for the reviewer’s time, and we are confident that the revisions will strengthen the manuscript. A point-by-point response to the specific comments are provided with the revised manuscript.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sharani Kodithuwakku, 27 Jan 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2901', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Nov 2024
This study presents an analysis of the surface and subsurface characteristics of mesoscale eddies observed during eight Seaglider missions near the Perth submarine canyon. The authors combine in-situ measurements collected between 2010 and 2017 and remote sensing data to describe the interactions with nine mesoscale eddies. Detailed descriptions of the eddies' physical characteristics, such as temperature, salinity, chlorophyll concentration, and mixed layer depth are provided, highlighting differences between eddy types and their potential impact on local oceanography.
The dataset itself is compelling and valuable, revealing the potential for intriguing patterns such as the absence of anticyclonic eddies above the shelf. However, the current manuscript is limited by its mostly descriptive approach, with minimal scientific analysis beyond basic characterization of eddy features. While the observational data are rich and has the potential to yield substantial insights, the authors have not fully utilized this potential to extract significant scientific findings. Without new and significant findings, the paper reads more as an overall data report rather than a scientific study.
I recommend that the authors incorporate some statistical analysis of the data, moving the manuscript’s results beyond a descriptive focus and exploring the eddy dynamics and interactions quantitatively. Metrics on eddy intensity, variability (seasonal?), or nutrient entrainment would add a valuable quantitative dimension to the work. An analysis of the relationship between eddy characteristics (such as chlorophyll concentration and temperature profiles) and regional physical processes could provide new insights. Such analyses would allow for a clearer demonstration of the eddies' impact in the region, helping to elevate the manuscript from descriptive to analytical work. It is up to the authors to decide what processes they want to study, but new scientific findings are necessary to be included.
As such, I recommend the authors make major revisions to the paper, addressing these issues and with the expectation that the authors would focus their revision efforts on the inclusion of further scientific analysis. After the authors undertake these significant revisions, this study could become a noteworthy contribution to our understanding of mesoscale eddies in this unique region.
Some additional minor comments related to several grammar and syntax problems in the paper are provided below, along with some other specific suggestions in addition to the major comment above. The authors will need to have the text edited carefully, removing all grammatical/syntax errors, before it can be published. I would be happy to review an improved version of this paper if is submitted after editing.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Sharani Kodithuwakku, 27 Jan 2025
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the recognition of the value and potential of our dataset, as well as the acknowledgment of the findings it reveals. The importance of moving beyond a descriptive focus to provide a more analytical exploration of mesoscale eddy dynamics and their impacts is acknowledged. However, accessing only field measurements using gliders limits the ability to undertake additional analysis. A companion paper, which is currently under review, has included more detailed statistics on eddy variability. Minor comments regarding grammar and syntax have been acknowledged, and these issues have been carefully addressed in the revised manuscript. To ensure the writing meets the high standards required for publication, a thorough review of the text has been conducted. Confidence has been gained that the revisions have significantly enhanced the quality and impact of the work. The reviewer’s encouragement and willingness to review a revised version of the manuscript have been sincerely appreciated. A point-by-point response to all comments, including specific suggestions and minor corrections, has been provided with the revised submission.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Sharani Kodithuwakku, 27 Jan 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2901', Anonymous Referee #3, 12 Nov 2024
In this paper entitled «Structure of mesoscale eddies in the vicinity of Perth Submarine Canyon», Kodithuwakku et al. analyse data from eight Seaglider missions along with satellite products (altimetry, sea surface temperature and chlorophyll) in order to describe different cases of mesoscale eddies sampled by the gliders. Mission by mission, eddies encountered by the gliders are described. Finally, the authors attempt to draw more general conclusions in the discussion section.
The topic of the paper is relevant, as gliders have since long shown their potential to increase our knowledge of mesoscale structures in many regions of the world’s oceans. Unfortunately, the paper is presently not written as a scientific article, but more like a technical report with a succession of mesoscale structures described one after the other. Some technical aspects are overlooked and the eddy description could be pushed further. In my opinion, the paper has some good scientific materials and potential results worth to be published in Ocean Science, but it first needs deep revisions.
I encourage the authors to work in this direction and resubmit their work.
See attachement for more details.
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Sharani Kodithuwakku, 27 Jan 2025
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the recognition of the relevance of our topic and the potential value of our findings in advancing the understanding of mesoscale structures. In response to the reviewer’s comments, significant revisions have been undertaken to enhance the manuscript's scientific depth, including the exploration of broader implications. Overlooked technical aspects have been addressed, the description of methodologies has been refined, and the manuscript has been improved. The reviewer’s valuable suggestions have been greatly appreciated, as they have guided us in preparing a substantially improved manuscript.
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Sharani Kodithuwakku, 27 Jan 2025
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2901', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Nov 2024
This study aims to investigate the main surface and sub-surface characteristics of several mesoscale eddies observed during eight Seaglider missions in the vicinity of Perth submarine canyon.
Although the topics and the applied methodology are promising, the paper reports several unclear or incomplete reasoning (sometimes caused by English mistakes and/or confused phrasing). The results are intriguing but at times appear superficially presented, which may challenge the reader’s understanding. Additionally, I have concerns regarding the methodology used for eddy tracking, especially without further clarification from the authors on their rationale for this approach.
After a careful review of the paper, it presents as an interesting scientific work; however, it lacks the necessary attention to formal writing and presentation quality. Overall, it seems that different sections of the manuscript may have been written by various authors involved in the study, leading to inconsistencies in style. Despite this, the figures and statistical analyses are impressive, and their discussion is clear and well-articulated.
Therefore, I believe that this study will likely be a significant contribution after a careful (major) revision and clarification. I also suggest the grammar and the syntax to be better checked and verified to meet the high quality standards required for publication in Ocean Science. Specific comments/suggestions are listed in the attached document. Were a revised manuscript to be sent for another round of reviews, I would take part with pleasure.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sharani Kodithuwakku, 27 Jan 2025
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful feedback and constructive comments. We acknowledge the concerns regarding inconsistencies in writing style, unclear phrasing, and the methodology for eddy tracking. These have been rectified in the revised paper. The Nencioli et al. (2010) algorithm as it has been used by the UWA research group with good outcomes (Bitencourt et al., 2024; Cosoli, et al., 2020; Kodithuwakku 2024). It should also be noted that the emphasis of the paper is on the vertical structure of the eddies as sampled through ocean gliders. The eddy detection algorithm was used only demonstrate eddy activity within the Perth canyon, basically to construct Figure 1b. As it does not influence the results/discussion we have removed it from the revised version of the manuscript.
In the revised manuscript, we have improved the grammar, syntax, and overall presentation ensuring a more coherent and professional narrative. We appreciate the positive feedback on the figures and statistical analyses, and we will ensure consistency in style and tone throughout the manuscript. We are
grateful for the reviewer’s time, and we are confident that the revisions will strengthen the manuscript. A point-by-point response to the specific comments are provided with the revised manuscript. -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Sharani Kodithuwakku, 27 Jan 2025
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful feedback and constructive comments. We acknowledge the concerns regarding inconsistencies in writing style, unclear phrasing, and the methodology for eddy tracking. These have been rectified in the revised paper. The Nencioli et al. (2010) algorithm as it has been used by the UWA research group with good outcomes (Bitencourt et al., 2024; Cosoli, et al., 2020; Kodithuwakku 2024). It should also be noted that the emphasis of the paper is on the vertical structure of the eddies as sampled through ocean gliders. The eddy detection algorithm was used only demonstrate eddy activity within the Perth canyon, basically to construct Figure 1b. As it does not influence the results/discussion we have removed it from the revised version of the manuscript.
In the revised manuscript, we have improved the grammar, syntax, and overall presentation ensuring a more coherent and professional narrative. We appreciate the positive feedback on the figures and statistical analyses, and we will ensure consistency in style and tone throughout the manuscript. We are
grateful for the reviewer’s time, and we are confident that the revisions will strengthen the manuscript. A point-by-point response to the specific comments are provided with the revised manuscript.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sharani Kodithuwakku, 27 Jan 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2901', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Nov 2024
This study presents an analysis of the surface and subsurface characteristics of mesoscale eddies observed during eight Seaglider missions near the Perth submarine canyon. The authors combine in-situ measurements collected between 2010 and 2017 and remote sensing data to describe the interactions with nine mesoscale eddies. Detailed descriptions of the eddies' physical characteristics, such as temperature, salinity, chlorophyll concentration, and mixed layer depth are provided, highlighting differences between eddy types and their potential impact on local oceanography.
The dataset itself is compelling and valuable, revealing the potential for intriguing patterns such as the absence of anticyclonic eddies above the shelf. However, the current manuscript is limited by its mostly descriptive approach, with minimal scientific analysis beyond basic characterization of eddy features. While the observational data are rich and has the potential to yield substantial insights, the authors have not fully utilized this potential to extract significant scientific findings. Without new and significant findings, the paper reads more as an overall data report rather than a scientific study.
I recommend that the authors incorporate some statistical analysis of the data, moving the manuscript’s results beyond a descriptive focus and exploring the eddy dynamics and interactions quantitatively. Metrics on eddy intensity, variability (seasonal?), or nutrient entrainment would add a valuable quantitative dimension to the work. An analysis of the relationship between eddy characteristics (such as chlorophyll concentration and temperature profiles) and regional physical processes could provide new insights. Such analyses would allow for a clearer demonstration of the eddies' impact in the region, helping to elevate the manuscript from descriptive to analytical work. It is up to the authors to decide what processes they want to study, but new scientific findings are necessary to be included.
As such, I recommend the authors make major revisions to the paper, addressing these issues and with the expectation that the authors would focus their revision efforts on the inclusion of further scientific analysis. After the authors undertake these significant revisions, this study could become a noteworthy contribution to our understanding of mesoscale eddies in this unique region.
Some additional minor comments related to several grammar and syntax problems in the paper are provided below, along with some other specific suggestions in addition to the major comment above. The authors will need to have the text edited carefully, removing all grammatical/syntax errors, before it can be published. I would be happy to review an improved version of this paper if is submitted after editing.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Sharani Kodithuwakku, 27 Jan 2025
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the recognition of the value and potential of our dataset, as well as the acknowledgment of the findings it reveals. The importance of moving beyond a descriptive focus to provide a more analytical exploration of mesoscale eddy dynamics and their impacts is acknowledged. However, accessing only field measurements using gliders limits the ability to undertake additional analysis. A companion paper, which is currently under review, has included more detailed statistics on eddy variability. Minor comments regarding grammar and syntax have been acknowledged, and these issues have been carefully addressed in the revised manuscript. To ensure the writing meets the high standards required for publication, a thorough review of the text has been conducted. Confidence has been gained that the revisions have significantly enhanced the quality and impact of the work. The reviewer’s encouragement and willingness to review a revised version of the manuscript have been sincerely appreciated. A point-by-point response to all comments, including specific suggestions and minor corrections, has been provided with the revised submission.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Sharani Kodithuwakku, 27 Jan 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2901', Anonymous Referee #3, 12 Nov 2024
In this paper entitled «Structure of mesoscale eddies in the vicinity of Perth Submarine Canyon», Kodithuwakku et al. analyse data from eight Seaglider missions along with satellite products (altimetry, sea surface temperature and chlorophyll) in order to describe different cases of mesoscale eddies sampled by the gliders. Mission by mission, eddies encountered by the gliders are described. Finally, the authors attempt to draw more general conclusions in the discussion section.
The topic of the paper is relevant, as gliders have since long shown their potential to increase our knowledge of mesoscale structures in many regions of the world’s oceans. Unfortunately, the paper is presently not written as a scientific article, but more like a technical report with a succession of mesoscale structures described one after the other. Some technical aspects are overlooked and the eddy description could be pushed further. In my opinion, the paper has some good scientific materials and potential results worth to be published in Ocean Science, but it first needs deep revisions.
I encourage the authors to work in this direction and resubmit their work.
See attachement for more details.
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Sharani Kodithuwakku, 27 Jan 2025
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the recognition of the relevance of our topic and the potential value of our findings in advancing the understanding of mesoscale structures. In response to the reviewer’s comments, significant revisions have been undertaken to enhance the manuscript's scientific depth, including the exploration of broader implications. Overlooked technical aspects have been addressed, the description of methodologies has been refined, and the manuscript has been improved. The reviewer’s valuable suggestions have been greatly appreciated, as they have guided us in preparing a substantially improved manuscript.
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Sharani Kodithuwakku, 27 Jan 2025
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 275 | 90 | 133 | 498 | 14 | 20 |
- HTML: 275
- PDF: 90
- XML: 133
- Total: 498
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 140 | 27 |
| Australia | 2 | 79 | 15 |
| Italy | 3 | 25 | 4 |
| China | 4 | 22 | 4 |
| India | 5 | 21 | 4 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 140