the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Simulating vertical phytoplankton dynamics in a stratified ocean using a two-layered ecosystem model
Abstract. Phytoplankton account for around half of planetary primary production and are instrumental in regulating ocean biogeochemical cycles. Around 70 % of our ocean is characterised by either seasonal or permanent stratification. In such regions, it has been postulated that two distinct planktonic ecosystems exist, one that occupies the nutrient-limited surface mixed layer, and the other that resides below the mixed-layer in a low-light, nutrient-rich environment. Owing to challenges observing the planktonic ecosystem below the mixed layer, less is known about it. Consequently, it is rarely characterised explicitly in marine ecosystem models. Here, we develop a simple, two-layered box model comprising of an ecosystem (Nutrient, Phytoplankton and Zooplankton, NPZ) in the surface mixed layer and a separate one (NPZ) in a subsurface layer below it. The two ecosystems are linked only by dynamic advection of nutrients between layers and controls on light attenuation. The model is forced with surface light (modelled from top-of-atmosphere) and observations of mixed layer depth. We run our model at the Bermuda Atlantic Time-series Study site (BATS) and compare results with a 30+ year time-series of phytoplankton and nutrient observations. When compared with observations, the model simulates contrasting seasonal and interannual variability in phytoplankton in the two layers, reproducing trends post 2011 caused by ocean warming and explaining the drivers. Results lend support to the hypothesis that the euphotic zone of stratified systems can be described using two vertically separated planktonic ecosystems. Nevertheless, simulating the ecosystem in the subsurface layer was more challenging than the ecosystem in the surface mixed-layer, suggesting more work is needed to study controls on subsurface planktonic communities.
- Preprint
(8095 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 19 Jan 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3502', Camila Serra-Pompei, 12 Dec 2024
reply
Review comments for the manuscript “Simulating vertical phytoplankton dynamics in a stratified ocean using a two-layered ecosystem model” by Zheng et al.
Reviewer: Camila Serra Pompei (DTU).
In this study, the authors developed a 2-layered NPZ model to better understand the mechanisms driving surface and sub-surface plankton dynamics in a stratified system. The BATS Ocean station is used as a case study, and the model is used to better understand the diverging phytoplankton trends observed in the surface vs subsurface layers in this location. The model provides an interesting avenue to better represent stratified systems with simple NPZ models, where the good model performance compared to field data highlights the strength of the approach. The article is relevant as it shows that different processes drive the dynamics of these two plankton communities, and that changes seen at the surface do not necessarily reflect changes observed in the sub-surface layer.
The manuscript is well written, clear, and model assumptions are well stated. My comments mostly center on the choice of euphotic zone depth and how this affects the representation of the sub-surface community and model comparison with data. There are also some aspects of the sensitivity analysis that need to be clarified.
Comments regarding the assumption of the euphotic zone depth:
The assumption of 0.001% might need to be discussed in the discussion section. Although phytoplankton might have been seen growing at these low light levels, is the choice of such a light level representative of where most phytoplankton in the subsurface layer reside? The choice of this low-light level results in the sub-surface layer always having a zeu deeper than 300m, and a depth range (zeu-zm) varying between 150 and 300m. On the other hand, when I look at BATS Chl data, the bulk Chl does not seem to go deeper than 180m, and anything deeper than that has an extremely low Chl concentration. So, it seems to me that the depth range of the sub-surface layer encompasses two layers in the “real world”: the deep Chl maximum and whatever is below it. So, in short, could the authors discuss how this assumption affects the model compared to the real world and how it affects its comparison to field data for the sub-surface layer?
The above comment specially applies in regard to the method chosen to compare the subsurface layer with field data: first field Chl is averaged between zm and zk and then multiplied by the thickness of the sub-surface layer in the model (zeu-zm). Can the authors mention if the sub-surface layer is representative of the zk-zm depth range? The value of zk is missing in the text and should be provided.
If possible, it could have been nice to have some additional figures (e.g. in an appendix) showing the vertical distribution of the field data used. This will help the reader have a better notion of the effect of the data transformation for model comparison.
Does the zeu assumption affect the light experienced in the sub-surface layer? How would Chlc,d and Chld change when choosing a different zeu value? Given the exponential decay of PAR and its averaging to use as input in the model, I expect Chlc,d not to change much, but Chld will certainly change (simply due to its multiplication with zeu). How would this affect the data comparison? In other words, it would be good to do a sensitivity analysis on the 0.001% value assumed to define zeu.
To sum up: I suggest that (i) an additional paragraph in the discussion section is added addressing the zeu choice and how does this compare to the observed depth range of the subsurface plankton community, (ii) a sensitivity analysis is performed on the 0.001% value, and (iii) some figures showing the vertical distribution of the Chl data are provided in an appendix.
Comments regarding the sensitivity analysis:
I am not sure I understand how ze0 has been varied in the sensitivity analysis. Ze0 is the initial value of the euphotic zone, but zeu is not a fixed parameter, it varies with surface light Kd, Chl etc. So, is this value only different in the first time-step and afterwards just follows the light forcing and kd and amount of Chl?
The same goes for zm0, since zm is externally forced, does this mean that only the value in the first time step is changed and afterwards all is the same as the MLD forcing? Or does this initial condition somehow affect zm over the entire time-series? L188, why is the initial value of zm set as the mean of the ML? shouldn’t it be set as the initial value of the MLD provided by the data at the starting date of the model? Please provide an explanation on the choice of initial conditions for these forcing variables, why are they not the value provided by the forcing input variables on the corresponding day of the time series?
Other comments:
L 225 Just to clarify, is the “methodology outlined by Viljoen et al. (2024)” the one explained in the rest of this paragraph? Or is it something different?
L118 “but also involves the phytoplankton and zooplankton excursion from the surface layer (Eq. (14))” this makes it sound as if there was a vertical migration process. Perhaps rephrase this sentence as some kind of remineralization of dead plankton and sloppy feeding.
L124 mention in this part of the text that table 1 shows a description of the parameters.
L147, please indicate in this part of the text the units of N, P, Z and Chl in the model.
Equation 11, remove the multiplication signs (*) for consistency with the rest of equations. The (C:N) ratio could be given a parameter name (e.g. Q_{C:N}, or whatever you want to call it), since phytoplankton C:N ratio is fixed in the model. I also suggest changing “MWc” to contain only one capital letter and have the rest of letters as subscripts, as not to be mistaken as two different parameters.
Mention earlier in the text that the model has not been spinned-up but that it converges quickly. This is mentioned in the results section, but I was wondering about it while reading the methods.
L269, I would not use the word “histogram”, as the figure is not a histogram. Perhaps “bar-plot” or simply refer to the figure.
L283 typo in “notebaly”
L334 “modelling” should probably be “modelled”
L335 “is very similar to in observations” should probably be rephrased.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3502-RC1
Interactive computing environment
Simulating vertical phytoplankton dynamics in a stratified ocean using a two-layered ecosystem model Qi Zheng https://github.com/Qicodediary/two-layered-ecosystem-model
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
107 | 24 | 6 | 137 | 1 | 0 |
- HTML: 107
- PDF: 24
- XML: 6
- Total: 137
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1