Biogeochemical Layering and Transformation of Particulate Organic Carbon in the Tropical Northwestern Pacific Ocean Inferred from &delta;<sup>13</sup>C

Tian, Detong; Li, Xuegang; Song, Jinming; Ma, Jun; Yuan, Huamao; Duan, Liqin

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3467

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3467

Preprints

05 Dec 2024

| 05 Dec 2024

Biogeochemical Layering and Transformation of Particulate Organic Carbon in the Tropical Northwestern Pacific Ocean Inferred from δ¹³C

Detong Tian, Xuegang Li, Jinming Song, Jun Ma, Huamao Yuan, and Liqin Duan

Abstract. Particulate organic carbon (POC) serves as the main carrier of the biological pump and determines its transmission efficiency, yet the transformation processes of POC remain incompletely understood. This study reports the vertical distribution of POC, dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), δ¹³C-POC, and δ¹³C-DIC in the tropical Northwestern Pacific Ocean (TNPO). The research identified three distinct biogeochemical layers governing POC transformation: the POC rapid synthesis-degradation layer (RSDL, 0–300 m), the net degradation layer (NDL, 300–1,000 m), and the stable layer (SL, 1,000–2,000 m). From the top to the bottom of the RSDL, δ¹³C-POC decreased by an average of 2.23 ‰, while the carbon-to-nitrogen ratios (C:N) increased by an average of 2.3:1, indicating the selective degradation of POC. In the NDL, δ¹³C-POC and δ¹³C-DIC exhibited a significant negative correlation (r = 0.43, p < 0.05), indicating a net transformation of POC to DIC. In the SL, POC proved to be resistant to degradation, with POC exhibiting the highest C:N (15:1 on average) and the lowest δ¹³C-POC (average -27.71 ‰).

Received: 07 Nov 2024 – Discussion started: 05 Dec 2024

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 2720 KB)

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 (2720 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

31 Jul 2025

Biogeochemical layering and transformation of particulate organic carbon in the Tropical Northwestern Pacific Ocean inferred from δ¹³C

Detong Tian, Xuegang Li, Jinming Song, Jun Ma, Huamao Yuan, and Liqin Duan

Ocean Sci., 21, 1627–1639, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-21-1627-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/os-21-1627-2025, 2025

Short summary

Detong Tian, Xuegang Li, Jinming Song, Jun Ma, Huamao Yuan, and Liqin Duan

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3467', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Jan 2025

While this paper represents new data on POM elemental and stable isotope composition (which is always welcome) and the interpretation given appears fairly senseful, though largely speculative. But because the data set is limited to ‘classical’ parameters of POM and does not provide more specific data about POM composition (e.g. isotopic composition of specific components) the paper falls short in substantially improving our insights in the fate of POM in the oceanic water column with regard to existing literature.
A further major shortcoming of this paper is the one-dimensional (surface to deep) approach used when interpreting the data, despite the apparent complexity of ocean currents and counter currents in the studied area. No use is made of T-S, nutrient data to inform on mixed layer depth, DCM position and to identify major water masses and possible impacts of advection processes on observed profiles.
The method section should be more detailed, since no information on sample preservation, standards, references used, corrections applied .. is given.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3467-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Xuegang Li, 16 Jan 2025
  
  We sincerely thank you for your valuable time and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of the issues raised and made corresponding revisions to the manuscript. Detailed responses to all comments are provided in the attached document titled "Response to RC1". Your feedback has been instrumental in improving the clarity and scientific rigor of our study, and we greatly appreciate your constructive suggestions.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3467-AC1
  - RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Jan 2025
    
    I appreciate the fact that a T-S diagram has been provided. The depth scale in color gradient is not really necessary as it renders the reading of the graph more difficult and since in any case isopycnals are shown. So, either remove the depth scale or consider plotting another parameter instead of depth (DIC, d13C, or may be try plotting nitrate or phosphate, for which you have data).
    You mention NPSSW, which does not appear in the T-S plot; do you mean NTPSSW?
    In order to address my concern about absence of discussion how water masses might possibly affect the vertical distributions of studied parameters, I wonder whether you could indicate the position of the different water masses present at each of the stations (vertical profiles in Figs 2 and 4).
    In Fig. 1 you show an arrow marked ‘NGCUC’ along the PNG coast. It was not identified and discussed.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3467-RC2
    
    AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Xuegang Li, 18 Jan 2025
    
    We would like to thank you for your quick and valuable feedback on our manuscript.
    In response to your second round of comments, we have carefully considered each point raised and made the necessary revisions to the manuscript. For detailed information regarding the specific changes, please refer to the attached document titled "Response to RC2."
    Your insights have significantly contributed to refining our study, and we are grateful for your thoughtful recommendations.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3467-AC2
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3467', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Feb 2025

General comments:
This manuscript provides valuable data on the isotopic and elemental composition of particulate organic matter in the tropical Pacific Ocean and utilizes comparisons with the dissolved inorganic pool and dissolved oxygen to infer transformation and degradation of organic matter over depth. However, the authors mainly discuss the POM data in terms of its vertical distribution, despite the data spanning almost 2000 m and there likely being influences of water masses on all the parameters measured. The authors discuss some differences in the water column structure and characteristics of the different stations due to the currents in the study area, but no data is presented demonstrating these differences. I see that water mass information has been added to some figures based on a previous comment, however without reading an updated manuscript version I cannot confirm if discussion has been added about this. Additionally, there is no mention of the possibility of variations in d¹³C-POC values due to photosynthetic variations within the upper water column. As POM is mainly produced by phytoplankton in the upper ocean, this is one other potential explanation for some of the variations observed. Further, many statements are made without evidence and should either be bolstered with evidence/data or altered to clarify that these are inferences from the data available; please see the examples listed in the “specific comments” section below. Lastly, the methods section needs more detail throughout, though I am aware that a previous comment also mentioned this and it has likely been addressed already -- please disregard my comments below where appropriate. Overall, the manuscript presents valuable data, but the discussion of the data and the interpretation (at least in the manuscript version that I have seen) could be improved.

Specific comments:
Methods section: More detail is needed on the dissolved oxygen methods in Lines 105-106. Since the method is very common, just a brief description would be fine. The POC/d13C-POC/PN section should mention blank corrections for POC and d13C-POC values. All sections on chemical measurements (DO, POC/PN, DIC, isotopes, chl-a) should include some mention of instrument calibration and types and sizes of standards used.
Line 112: I believe the per mil should be a percent sign for the POC/PN concentration accuracy (±0.8)
Section 3.1: This section includes important information on the differences in water column characteristics between the five stations. However, more information would be helpful for the reader to follow the authors’ interpretation of the data. Namely, the euphotic depth and mixed layer depth should be reported for each station, if possible. If photosynthetically available radiation (PAR) was not measured via a CTD sensor, some other metric would still be helpful (like the primary productivity zone based on chlorophyll concentrations, if possible; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1918114117) . A figure including the chlorophyll concentration profiles would also help the reader envision the differences/similarities between the different sites.
Section 3.2: All interpretation of the d13C values of POC within this section is related to degradation of POC. However, there is potential for the magnitude of photosynthetic carbon isotope fractionation to vary over depth within the euphotic zone (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2304613121), and thus production (as well as degradation) can affect the d13C values of POC. Separating out Figure 3A by station for just the RSDL (0-300m) would be one way of investigating this possibility – selective degradation of amino acids and carbohydrates, as described by the authors, should present itself as a positive relationship between POC concentration and d13C-POC values, whereas a different relationship or lack of a relationship may be an indicator that something else is driving the variations – potentially something relating to production of POC or different patterns of degradation than what is being described.
Line 150 mentions the POC concentration averaged over “the surface to the deep chlorophyll maximum layer (DCM, 0-150 m)” – this makes it sound like the DCM at all stations is 150 m, which is not true based on the associated dataset. Clarification of why 150 m was chosen would be helpful
Line 191: are there any studies from this region with biochemical measurements that could be used for comparison?
Sections 3.2 and 3.3: As mentioned in the general comments section above, there is a lot of discussion of the data in terms of variation over depth but little consideration of water masses affecting the observations. For example, Lines 200-202 mention a small increase in DIC over depth due to a small amount of POC degradation, but DIC concentrations are also impacted by the temperature of those waters and where in the surface ocean they originated from.
Lines 223-225: smaller variation in DIC vs POC d13C values is also due to the much larger size of the DIC pool in comparison to POC, as the authors previously note in Lines 75-77. This should be added here as well.
Lines 239-240: degradation of POC, regardless of which portions of the POC pool are degraded, should decrease DIC d13C values because of the large difference in the d13C values of POC and DIC due to photosynthetic carbon isotope fractionation during the production of POC (i.e., POC d13C values <<< DIC d13C values, so even degradation of isotopically heavy POC is going to lower the d13C value of the DIC pool). Discussion within this section should be altered to reinterpret the data within this context.
Some examples of statements made without evidence:
Line 159-161: change “which enhanced” to “which likely enhanced” as heterotrophic microbial activity is not reported here, unless another study (one of the citations?) has shown this in this region. If so, please make this clear in the way the references are presented
Lines 200-202: the wording of this sentence is not accurate to what was measured – there is no evidence that DIC concentration increased “slowly” because no rates were measured
Line 233-234: is there evidence that the synthesis rate of POM is greater than the degradation rate above the DCM? Rates of NPP would be evidence of this but otherwise I would change the wording here.
Lines 246-247: “the photosynthesis rate to slow”, “the respiration rate … was still very fast”; no rate measurements are reported here
Lines 249-250: “the rate of chemosynthesis of organic carbon was lower than the degradation rate of POC” -- again no measurements of POC degradation rates or chemoautotrophic fixation of OC were made
Line 268: no evidence is presented about the proportion of refractory lipids in POC. This is an inference due to suggestions from the presented data, not an observation

Technical corrections:
Throughout the manuscript: d13C values should always be referred to as “d13C values of…” not just “d13C of…”
Line 44: change “the generally accepted…” to “one generally accepted…”
Line 69: change “molecules” to “concentration”
Line 84: change “respiration of heterotrophic organisms” to “respiration by…”
Line 100: change “was” to “were”
Line 150: use nonbreaking space between “150” and “m” so the unit does not separate from the number

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3467-RC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Xuegang Li, 03 Mar 2025
  
  We deeply appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript and providing thoughtful and constructive feedback. Your comments have been invaluable in helping us refine our work and strengthen its scientific rigor. We have carefully addressed each of your concerns and made the necessary revisions to the manuscript. A detailed point-by-point response to your comments is provided in the attached document titled "Response to RC3." Thank you once again for your expertise and guidance, which have significantly improved the quality of our study.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3467-AC3

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3467', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Jan 2025

While this paper represents new data on POM elemental and stable isotope composition (which is always welcome) and the interpretation given appears fairly senseful, though largely speculative. But because the data set is limited to ‘classical’ parameters of POM and does not provide more specific data about POM composition (e.g. isotopic composition of specific components) the paper falls short in substantially improving our insights in the fate of POM in the oceanic water column with regard to existing literature.
A further major shortcoming of this paper is the one-dimensional (surface to deep) approach used when interpreting the data, despite the apparent complexity of ocean currents and counter currents in the studied area. No use is made of T-S, nutrient data to inform on mixed layer depth, DCM position and to identify major water masses and possible impacts of advection processes on observed profiles.
The method section should be more detailed, since no information on sample preservation, standards, references used, corrections applied .. is given.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3467-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Xuegang Li, 16 Jan 2025
  
  We sincerely thank you for your valuable time and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of the issues raised and made corresponding revisions to the manuscript. Detailed responses to all comments are provided in the attached document titled "Response to RC1". Your feedback has been instrumental in improving the clarity and scientific rigor of our study, and we greatly appreciate your constructive suggestions.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3467-AC1
  - RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Jan 2025
    
    I appreciate the fact that a T-S diagram has been provided. The depth scale in color gradient is not really necessary as it renders the reading of the graph more difficult and since in any case isopycnals are shown. So, either remove the depth scale or consider plotting another parameter instead of depth (DIC, d13C, or may be try plotting nitrate or phosphate, for which you have data).
    You mention NPSSW, which does not appear in the T-S plot; do you mean NTPSSW?
    In order to address my concern about absence of discussion how water masses might possibly affect the vertical distributions of studied parameters, I wonder whether you could indicate the position of the different water masses present at each of the stations (vertical profiles in Figs 2 and 4).
    In Fig. 1 you show an arrow marked ‘NGCUC’ along the PNG coast. It was not identified and discussed.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3467-RC2
    
    AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Xuegang Li, 18 Jan 2025
    
    We would like to thank you for your quick and valuable feedback on our manuscript.
    In response to your second round of comments, we have carefully considered each point raised and made the necessary revisions to the manuscript. For detailed information regarding the specific changes, please refer to the attached document titled "Response to RC2."
    Your insights have significantly contributed to refining our study, and we are grateful for your thoughtful recommendations.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3467-AC2
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3467', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Feb 2025

General comments:
This manuscript provides valuable data on the isotopic and elemental composition of particulate organic matter in the tropical Pacific Ocean and utilizes comparisons with the dissolved inorganic pool and dissolved oxygen to infer transformation and degradation of organic matter over depth. However, the authors mainly discuss the POM data in terms of its vertical distribution, despite the data spanning almost 2000 m and there likely being influences of water masses on all the parameters measured. The authors discuss some differences in the water column structure and characteristics of the different stations due to the currents in the study area, but no data is presented demonstrating these differences. I see that water mass information has been added to some figures based on a previous comment, however without reading an updated manuscript version I cannot confirm if discussion has been added about this. Additionally, there is no mention of the possibility of variations in d¹³C-POC values due to photosynthetic variations within the upper water column. As POM is mainly produced by phytoplankton in the upper ocean, this is one other potential explanation for some of the variations observed. Further, many statements are made without evidence and should either be bolstered with evidence/data or altered to clarify that these are inferences from the data available; please see the examples listed in the “specific comments” section below. Lastly, the methods section needs more detail throughout, though I am aware that a previous comment also mentioned this and it has likely been addressed already -- please disregard my comments below where appropriate. Overall, the manuscript presents valuable data, but the discussion of the data and the interpretation (at least in the manuscript version that I have seen) could be improved.

Specific comments:
Methods section: More detail is needed on the dissolved oxygen methods in Lines 105-106. Since the method is very common, just a brief description would be fine. The POC/d13C-POC/PN section should mention blank corrections for POC and d13C-POC values. All sections on chemical measurements (DO, POC/PN, DIC, isotopes, chl-a) should include some mention of instrument calibration and types and sizes of standards used.
Line 112: I believe the per mil should be a percent sign for the POC/PN concentration accuracy (±0.8)
Section 3.1: This section includes important information on the differences in water column characteristics between the five stations. However, more information would be helpful for the reader to follow the authors’ interpretation of the data. Namely, the euphotic depth and mixed layer depth should be reported for each station, if possible. If photosynthetically available radiation (PAR) was not measured via a CTD sensor, some other metric would still be helpful (like the primary productivity zone based on chlorophyll concentrations, if possible; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1918114117) . A figure including the chlorophyll concentration profiles would also help the reader envision the differences/similarities between the different sites.
Section 3.2: All interpretation of the d13C values of POC within this section is related to degradation of POC. However, there is potential for the magnitude of photosynthetic carbon isotope fractionation to vary over depth within the euphotic zone (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2304613121), and thus production (as well as degradation) can affect the d13C values of POC. Separating out Figure 3A by station for just the RSDL (0-300m) would be one way of investigating this possibility – selective degradation of amino acids and carbohydrates, as described by the authors, should present itself as a positive relationship between POC concentration and d13C-POC values, whereas a different relationship or lack of a relationship may be an indicator that something else is driving the variations – potentially something relating to production of POC or different patterns of degradation than what is being described.
Line 150 mentions the POC concentration averaged over “the surface to the deep chlorophyll maximum layer (DCM, 0-150 m)” – this makes it sound like the DCM at all stations is 150 m, which is not true based on the associated dataset. Clarification of why 150 m was chosen would be helpful
Line 191: are there any studies from this region with biochemical measurements that could be used for comparison?
Sections 3.2 and 3.3: As mentioned in the general comments section above, there is a lot of discussion of the data in terms of variation over depth but little consideration of water masses affecting the observations. For example, Lines 200-202 mention a small increase in DIC over depth due to a small amount of POC degradation, but DIC concentrations are also impacted by the temperature of those waters and where in the surface ocean they originated from.
Lines 223-225: smaller variation in DIC vs POC d13C values is also due to the much larger size of the DIC pool in comparison to POC, as the authors previously note in Lines 75-77. This should be added here as well.
Lines 239-240: degradation of POC, regardless of which portions of the POC pool are degraded, should decrease DIC d13C values because of the large difference in the d13C values of POC and DIC due to photosynthetic carbon isotope fractionation during the production of POC (i.e., POC d13C values <<< DIC d13C values, so even degradation of isotopically heavy POC is going to lower the d13C value of the DIC pool). Discussion within this section should be altered to reinterpret the data within this context.
Some examples of statements made without evidence:
Line 159-161: change “which enhanced” to “which likely enhanced” as heterotrophic microbial activity is not reported here, unless another study (one of the citations?) has shown this in this region. If so, please make this clear in the way the references are presented
Lines 200-202: the wording of this sentence is not accurate to what was measured – there is no evidence that DIC concentration increased “slowly” because no rates were measured
Line 233-234: is there evidence that the synthesis rate of POM is greater than the degradation rate above the DCM? Rates of NPP would be evidence of this but otherwise I would change the wording here.
Lines 246-247: “the photosynthesis rate to slow”, “the respiration rate … was still very fast”; no rate measurements are reported here
Lines 249-250: “the rate of chemosynthesis of organic carbon was lower than the degradation rate of POC” -- again no measurements of POC degradation rates or chemoautotrophic fixation of OC were made
Line 268: no evidence is presented about the proportion of refractory lipids in POC. This is an inference due to suggestions from the presented data, not an observation

Technical corrections:
Throughout the manuscript: d13C values should always be referred to as “d13C values of…” not just “d13C of…”
Line 44: change “the generally accepted…” to “one generally accepted…”
Line 69: change “molecules” to “concentration”
Line 84: change “respiration of heterotrophic organisms” to “respiration by…”
Line 100: change “was” to “were”
Line 150: use nonbreaking space between “150” and “m” so the unit does not separate from the number

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3467-RC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Xuegang Li, 03 Mar 2025
  
  We deeply appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript and providing thoughtful and constructive feedback. Your comments have been invaluable in helping us refine our work and strengthen its scientific rigor. We have carefully addressed each of your concerns and made the necessary revisions to the manuscript. A detailed point-by-point response to your comments is provided in the attached document titled "Response to RC3." Thank you once again for your expertise and guidance, which have significantly improved the quality of our study.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3467-AC3

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Xuegang Li on behalf of the Authors (05 Mar 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (05 Mar 2025) by Mario Hoppema

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (15 Apr 2025)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

This is a study with valuable data of POC, DIC and their isotopes for an important region around the equator. This is a review of the revised version of the manuscript. I think most of the comments by the two referees of the first version of the manuscript were satisfactorily accounted for. The vertical profiles of POC and DIC are now more connected to the horizontal currents, which was a major critique. What could be more emphasized and discussed is the changes between the different stations. In their analysis, often all stations are taken together, for example in Figures 4 and 6. There might be interesting differences between the stations, as they are also influenced by different water masses.
Something that was not always corrected as a response to the previous review is the mentioning of rates of change by the authors. The present study did not measure any rates, but still at some places in the manuscript rates are suggested. I have the impression that in some cases the authors mean the general processes that occur and are well-known. In that case they should not use the past tense as this would suggest that they measured it. If it is general knowledge, one should use the present tense. I have touched upon that in the below comments.

There are too many abbreviations of currents, regions, etc. in the text. Please use less of those for enhancing the readability. Only generally accepted and well-known abbreviations such as SST, POC, CTD are useful. Even when not using those abbreviations increases the length of the text, this is not an issue in online publishing.

List of comments:
L34 Define POC here, as it is used for the first time. Even when it has been defined in the abstract, this must be done in the main text, because abstract and main text are considered separate.

L34 delete: Despite being in minimal quantities (Because this has no relation with the following part of the sentence)

L38 in instead of: from
L39 add “may”: … microorganisms MAY rapidly utilize it …

L50-52 I think the beginning of the sentence with “Although” is confusing. Both parts of the sentence are equivalent.

L53 change to: There is compelling evidence that …
L54 oxygen minimum zone (as the abbreviation already indicates)

L58 delete primarily (there are only those four forms)
L66 δ13C value

L67 delete significantly
L94 delete at the end of the sentence: process

L96 Please be more specific about the dates of the expedition. Is there a cruise report that can be cited?

L104 Please give precision and/or accuracy of temperature and salinity
L106-107 The precision for the DO determination is given as 0.0022 µmol/L. I do not know any method of DO determination with such a precision. This must be a mistake. Please explain and correct.

L106 and further: Is this an automated Winkler method or titration by hand?
L115-117 Three variables are given at the beginning of the sentence, but at the end only two accuracies are given. Please correct

L11 and further: In the response to reviewers the authors described how blank corrections were treated. As these blanks may play a large role, in particular at low concentrations for example for samples below the euphotic zone, this is information that should also occur here in the methods section. Please add this.

L145-148 Please give the full names of the currents as shown in the figure in the caption. All these different current names are confusing to the reader.

L164 Please add the full names of the abbreviations used in the table in the caption
L166 As to the water masses of the region, please add a reference.

L175 “The representative water mass in the middle ocean” change to: “The representative water mass at intermediate water depths …”

L178 variations instead of changes

Figure 2: In the response to reviewers, in the caption of this figure, Tian et al 2025 manuscript under review is shown. Please discuss in the main text what the theme of that manuscript is and where it differs from the present manuscript.

L190-192 Please refer to Fig. 1 here.
L218 leads instead of: led

L219 and further: Which change and acceleration do you mean? You did not measure changes, right? Please reformulate if you mean something different.

L222 cannot instead of: could not
L223 exists instead of: emerges

L232 Referring to Fig. 2 is not correct here and Fig. 3 does not have 3a.

Figure 4: At the bottom left a correlation coefficient is given and a probability. In both panels p < 0.001. However, at the bottom right another p is shown, bigger or smaller than 0.05. Please explain how the statistics work here and how the significance was calculated.

L279 intermediate instead of middle
L280 intermediate -depth instead of: mid-layer
L283 again: intermediate

L285-286 “Affected by photosynthesis, DIC increases gradually in the upper ocean.” This is not correct. Photosynthesis utilizes CO2 and thus reduce DIC in the surface layer. In the deeper layers the DIC values are thus higher. Please change to wording so that more detail for this contention is conveyed.

L286 intermediate depths
L286, 287 delete rapid, unless you give a reference that this process is rapid

L286-287 Change to: … the decomposition of POC releases inorganic carbon, causing elevated DIC throughout the intermediate water column …

L288 Change to: … a small amount of POC may still degrade …
L293 delete: as atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased
L295 delete: among the six stations

L303, 304, 306 A rapid decrease and a rapid decline is mentioned. What decreases and decline is meant here (how were these determined) and how can you know it is rapid without having measured the rates?

L305 Figures 4 and 5d are referred to. Is that correct? There are no subpanels a,b,c,d in Figure 5.

L326 “POC was rapidly degraded while being synthesized” How do you know? You did not measure that, did you? Is this a contention based on the literature? If yes, then the present tense should be used.

L330 Again rapid decrease. How was that determined?
L331 … and by photosynthesis (add: by, because as it is now it may be ambiguous)

L337 tend instead of tended
L338 … of the near surface ocean … (because the layer concerned is more than the just the surface)

L341 I think you mean declined with depth, right? If yes, then this should be mentioned.
L352 … activity may explain the observed … (add: may, because you did not measure it)

Figure 6: How was the significance of the relationships determined? Please explain.

L530 Please delete strange symbols

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (15 Apr 2025) by Mario Hoppema

AR by Xuegang Li on behalf of the Authors (18 Apr 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (22 Apr 2025) by Mario Hoppema

AR by Xuegang Li on behalf of the Authors (22 Apr 2025) Author's response Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

31 Jul 2025

Biogeochemical layering and transformation of particulate organic carbon in the Tropical Northwestern Pacific Ocean inferred from δ¹³C

Detong Tian, Xuegang Li, Jinming Song, Jun Ma, Huamao Yuan, and Liqin Duan

Ocean Sci., 21, 1627–1639, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-21-1627-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/os-21-1627-2025, 2025

Short summary

Detong Tian, Xuegang Li, Jinming Song, Jun Ma, Huamao Yuan, and Liqin Duan

Data sets

Vertical layering and transformation of particulate organic carbon in the tropical Northwestern Pacific Ocean waters based on δ13C Detong Tian, Xuegang Li, Jinming Song, Jun Ma, Huamao Yuan, and Liqin Duan https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26197808

Detong Tian, Xuegang Li, Jinming Song, Jun Ma, Huamao Yuan, and Liqin Duan

Viewed

Total article views: 369 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
274	71	24	369	14	31

HTML: 274
PDF: 71
XML: 24
Total: 369
BibTeX: 14
EndNote: 31

Views and downloads (calculated since 05 Dec 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Dec 2024	64	10	4	78
Jan 2025	52	14	5	71
Feb 2025	29	7	0	36
Mar 2025	28	10	1	39
Apr 2025	31	11	3	45
May 2025	18	8	2	28
Jun 2025	24	6	7	37
Jul 2025	28	5	2	35

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 05 Dec 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Dec 2024	64	10	4	78
Jan 2025	52	14	5	71
Feb 2025	29	7	0	36
Mar 2025	28	10	1	39
Apr 2025	31	11	3	45
May 2025	18	8	2	28
Jun 2025	24	6	7	37
Jul 2025	28	5	2	35

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 356 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 356 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 31 Jul 2025

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (2720 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Particulate organic carbon plays a vital role in the ocean carbon cycle, yet its transformation involves complex processes that are not fully understood. This study examines the vertical distribution the stable carbon isotopes in the tropical Northwestern Pacific, identifying three distinct biogeochemical layers of POC transformation, which contribute to a deeper understanding of the ocean carbon cycle.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0

Biogeochemical Layering and Transformation of Particulate Organic Carbon in the Tropical Northwestern Pacific Ocean Inferred from δ13C

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Interactive discussion

Interactive discussion

Peer review completion

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Data sets

Viewed

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Biogeochemical Layering and Transformation of Particulate Organic Carbon in the Tropical Northwestern Pacific Ocean Inferred from δ¹³C