the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Chlorophyll shading reduces zooplankton diel migration depth in a high-resolution physical biogeochemical model
Abstract. Zooplankton diel vertical migration (DVM) is critical to ocean ecosystem dynamics and biogeochemical cycles, by supplying food and injecting carbon to the mesopelagic ocean (200–800 m). The deeper the zooplankton migrate, the longer the carbon is sequestered away from the atmosphere and the deeper the ecosystems they feed. Sparse observations show variations in migration depths over a wide range of temporal and spatial scales. A major challenge, however, is to understand the biological and physical mechanisms controlling this variability, which is critical to assess impacts on ecosystem and carbon dynamics. Here, we introduce a migrating zooplankton model for medium and large zooplankton that explicitly resolves diel migration trajectories and biogeochemical fluxes. This model is integrated into the MOM6-COBALTv2 ocean physical-biogeochemical model, and applied in an idealized high-resolution (9.4 km) configuration of the North Atlantic. The model skillfully reproduces observed North Atlantic migrating zooplankton biomass and DVM patterns. Evaluation of the mechanisms controlling zooplankton migration depth reveals that chlorophyll shading reduces by 60 meters zooplankton migration depth in the subpolar gyre compared with the subtropical gyre, with pronounced seasonal variations linked to the spring bloom. Fine-scale spatial effects (<100 km) linked to eddy and frontal dynamics can either offset or reinforce the large-scale effect by up to 100 meters. This could imply that for phytoplankton-rich regions and filaments, which represent a major source of exportable carbon for migrating zooplankton, their high-chlorophyll content contributes to reducing zooplankton migration depth and carbon sequestration time.
- Preprint
(8357 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3058', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Nov 2024
reply
General comments
Scientific significance
Poupon and co-workers use a migrating zooplankton model to resolve diel migration trajectories and biogeochemical fluxes. Their model successfully reproduces observed migration patterns. They also evaluate the mechanisms controlling migration depth. The study offers a valuable new perspective on the mechanisms driving this migration. Using an idealized double-gyre model that reproduces North Atlantic biophysical dynamics, coupled with biogeochemical processes and integrated zooplankton migration, the authors explore the mechanisms modulating migration and its variation across seasons, "biomes", and spatial scales. This study provides a realistic approach to modeling migration trajectories and the underlying processes, as the authors account for two zooplankton sizes, physiology, and interactions with the environment, all of which are critical factors. The authors demonstrate that chlorophyll shading is a dominant factor shaping migration depth at various temporal and spatial scales. Overall, the study is detailed and robust.
Scientific quality: yes, excellent.
Presentation quality: The manuscript is clearly written and well-structured. The number of figures, conceptual diagrams, and tables is appropriate, and they are of high quality. The supplemental material is warranted and adds value. The conclusions are well-supported and justified.
I am very positive towards the study, as the findings are important.
Specific comments:
- A key review study in the field that I think deserves mention is Nandara et al 2021, as it reviews sampling, observation and tracking simulation methods, while also emphasizing the importance of integrative approaches.
Kanchana, et al. "Two hundred years of zooplankton vertical migration research." Biological Reviews 96.4 (2021): 1547-1589.
- The model considers two zooplankton sizes, both of which fall within the mesozooplankton size fraction, with copepods being key representatives. However, could the model be applied to or used with microzooplankton ? I imagine the complexity of including both groups lies in the differences in egestion and assimilation of various elements, as well as other factors.
- N:P=1:16 did you try varying this across different biomes?
- I am curious about the difference in the dates for the datasets: migrating zooplankton data were collected between 2007 and 2019, while MODIS data span from 2002 to 2023. Given that 2023 was a particularly warm year, did including or excluding this year make a difference? Or was cleary not affecting the seasonal variations?
Detailed points:
Line 161: Nitrate and phosphate values?
There is some inconsistent formatting in the reference section.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3058-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
117 | 45 | 22 | 184 | 7 | 5 |
- HTML: 117
- PDF: 45
- XML: 22
- Total: 184
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1