the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Extraordinary bloom of toxin-producing phytoplankton enhanced by strong retention in offshore continental shelf waters
Abstract. The extensive Patagonian continental shelf in the Atlantic Ocean is renowned for its high productivity associated with nutrient-rich waters that fertilise massive phytoplankton blooms, especially along the shelf-break frontal system. Growing evidence reflects this ecosystem as a hotspot for harmful algal blooms (HABs). Whether these HABs reach coastal areas or are exported to the adjacent ocean basin by energetic edge currents remains unexplored. During two oceanographic cruises in spring 2021, a bloom of dinoflagellates of the Amphidomataceae family was sampled over the outer shelf with a ten-day interval, at stations 40 km apart. The bloom was first sampled on November 16, with 32 million cells L-1, and was still persistent on November 25, with 14 million cells L-1. The magnitude of this bloom is a global record for this group so far reported in the literature. The toxin azaspiracid-2 was detected in both stages of the bloom, with values up to 2122 pg L-1. The most likely source of AZA-2 was Azadinium spinosum ribotype B. The bloom developed in vertically stable waters (60 m mixed layer depth) with elevated chlorophyll concentration. Water retention and the presence of fronts induced by horizontal stirring controlled the persistence and trajectory of the bloom in a localised area over the continental shelf, as evidenced by analysis of geostrophic surface currents, Lyapunov coefficients, and particle advection modelling. These findings underscore the importance of monitoring HABs in offshore environments, and the need to understand bio-physical interactions that govern bloom taxa assemblages and transport pathways.
- Preprint
(3977 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 05 Jan 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3157', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Dec 2024
reply
Please refer to the PDF for more details regarding all the following comments.
-
Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data?
Partially. While the paper presents a bloom that has not been previously reported, the novelty and value of the dataset could be better emphasized. Highlighting the unique aspects of cruises strategy would underline the distinctiveness of the data collected.
-
Are substantial conclusions reached?
Yes, but the discussion section needs improvement to better articulate the connection with the physical seascape.
-
Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined?
No. The authors need to clearly state their hypotheses in the introduction and then outline the methods used to test them.
-
Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions?
Yes, I think they are, but reworking the manuscript will make this link clearer and more convincing. Particularly, by discussing more about the story tell by Lagrangian simulations.
-
Is the description of experiments and calculations sufficiently complete and precise to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)?
No. The methods section requires more detailed descriptions about the strategy of cruises and methods.
-
Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?
No. While I believe this work is original as mentioned earlier, reworking the manuscript would help clearly highlight that.
-
Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?
Yes, but the retention process should be described in more detail within the discussion to align fully with the title's focus.
-
Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?
Yes.
-
Is the overall presentation well structured and clear?
Not entirely. While the paper has valuable content, there are some spelling errors, inconsistencies (e.g., units, figures), and long sentences. Additionally, the structure could be improved to enhance clarity and coherence.
-
Is the language fluent and precise?
No. See pdf.
-
Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used?
No. See pdf.
-
Should any parts of the paper (text, formulae, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated?
No. See pdf.
-
Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
No. See pdf.
-
Is the amount and quality of supplementary material appropriate?
Yes.
-
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
192 | 41 | 9 | 242 | 5 | 7 |
- HTML: 192
- PDF: 41
- XML: 9
- Total: 242
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1