the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Geostrophic circulation and tidal effects in the Gulf of Gabès
Abstract. The mean kinematic features in the Gulf of Gabès region is analyzed based on 30 years of altimetry data (1993–2022) and the outputs of a high resolution ocean model for the year 2022. A comparison of the seasonal variability in three different geographical areas within the gulf is presented. In the northern and southern parts of the gulf, anticyclonic structures prevail, while the central area is dominated by divergence. Similarity in the flow topology is found in these three areas of the gulf due to the signature of hyperbolic regions. In winter and fall, the mean flow is oriented northward while it is reversed in spring and summer. The tidal perturbation influences sea level, kinetic energy and hyperbolic geostrophic structures, leading to the generation of a cyclonic current located in the central part of the gulf and to the presence of persistent strain gradients amplifying hyperbolic structures. The Finite Time Lyapunov Exponent (FTLE) computed using altimetry data highlights the link between physical and biogeochemical processes, with the Gulf of Gabès mean circulation features acting as transport barriers for phytoplankton dispersion.
- Preprint
(2457 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3730', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Feb 2025
reply
Review of manuscript: Geostrophic circulation and tidal effects in the Gulf of Gabès by Bouzaiene et al
This study is about the ocean dynamics and kinematic properties of the Gulf of Gabès, with a focus on the influence of tides on circulation patterns and transport processes. The authors present very relevant research questions, and on an understudied region of the Mediterranean Sea. An interesting framework to investigating the tidal signals is presented too. While the study presents a well-motivated analysis, the manuscript would benefit from a clearer aim with more concrete objectives. This seems to be clear at the beginning, but the results need refining and cohesion. Additionally, even if the proposed framework and diagnostics are very interesting, certain methodological aspects require further justification and refinement, particularly regarding the choice of datasets, diagnostics and/or region of study one the research question is clearer. For example, if the idea is to focus more on the underlying dynamics that affect the phytoplankton blooms, things should be organised differently than if the main focus is on the impact of the tidal signal. I recommend that this manuscript be considered for publication, provided the authors restructure the study and address the following major concerns:
Major comments
- This study presents relevant research question for the oceanographic physics community, but also for the biogeochemical one due to the insights it can bring to understanding the nutrients and phytoplankton present in the study zone and ones with similar dynamics. However, the research question I feel is not clear. There seems to be a focus on impact of tidal signal on the geostrophic circulation, but then a focus on phytoplankton impact, and how FTLEs can show this. Maybe linking better the ideas an results and help also make the research clearer and better linked to results, their discussion and conclusions.
- Throughout the manuscript it is mentioned several times without tidal forcing, when, to my understanding, what is removed is the tidal signal, but the impact of having tidal forcing on the geostrophic field is still there. If the direct impact of tidal forcing was the focus, a simulation without and with tidal forcing would be necessary.
- If the focus is on the effect of tides, it is not clear to me why there is so much focus put on the analysis of the altimetry data. The limitations are mentioned in L65. Again, a rearrangement of some ideas and analyses maybe could help clarify the relevance of the analyses with altimetric data, for example as a geostrophic baseline of what can be understood in the region of interest with these observations. Moreover, the reasoning behind looking at the 30 years of data is not clear. Would be interesting also to see an equivalent analysis to that done with the model data. It is not clear why both datasets used in this study are not compared. Lastly, there is no mention either on the impacts of their different resolutions (1/8 altimetry, 1/24 model).
- More refinement needed: The choice of the temporal period, and of the spatial domain chosen is not clear. The same domain for the altimetry and model data is not chosen, when there is seems to be data available for the same domain. Moreover it worries me that features so close to land are studied given the limitations of both datasets in coastal areas. I understand the difficulty of having data to validate these datasets, and specially so close to land, but there is no mention of it in the datasets description, not even in the discussion. There is no mention of general validation of the datasets, for the model only the QUID. Should be clarified if for example that is part of the reason to include the altimetry data, as a kind of ground truth to the model data (at a geostrophic level).
- Missed part mentioning that once tidal forcing included (and also the fact that it is a wave-couple model), in some cases you might not be in geostrophic balance anymore. Also, having a higher resolution model, might also imply that te geostrophic balance does not dominate all the time anymore.
- General formatting: wrong numbering of sections and subsections e.g. introduction should be 1, L138, ..
- Summary and conclusions needs improvement, better structure this section to make it clearer to reader. A lot of interesting points, that a better structure can help to understand and follow the ideas.
Specific comments
L19: Add references here
L20: “region of relevant tides”: Add references. Moreover, as read later, it has relevant tides within the Mediterranean, but not compared to other regions globally. Please clarify text.
L24: Add reference
L54: “Two anomalous..”: This paragraph is not very clear to me, namely why do you refer to these 2 regimes as anomalous? With respect to what?
L59 “shared”: sheared?
L60: There is preprint on this topic in other region: Gomez-Navarro et al: https://doi.org/10.1002/essoar.10512397.5
L72: Not directly tides, but Barkan et al., (2017, 2021), mention impact of internal waves (signal increases significantly when tidal forcing present) on mesoscale eddies.
Other references not mentioned that could be relevant:
- Drillet et al (2019)
- Ruhs et al (2025) (similar dataset used, but for impact of waves, important to mention here too as wave-coupled)
L73: “estimated as the balance of the Coriolis force and the horizontal pressure gradients” : maybe not necessary to include this here?
L82: Altimetry data
- Temporal resolution of data not mentioned
- “EUROPEAN SEAS GRIDDED L4 SEA SURFACE HEIGHTS AND DERIVED VARIABLES REPROCESSED (1993-ONGOING) [dataset].”: no need for uppercase and [dataset]. Improve reference to data.
- “30-year period (1993–2022)”: line above states that ongoing? Please clarify
- “variable used is the absolute surface geostrophic velocity, while altimetry data were used to estimate the vorticity,”: this is not clear. Absolute surface geostrophic velocity is also inferred from altimetry data. Do you mean you inferred vorticity and the other parameters from this velocity variable of from the ADT or SLA?
L90: Chlorophyll-a data
- Should be chlorophyll-a??
- Temporal resolution of dataset is daily? Please clearly specify
- Missing brackets at end
L94: In the introduction you mention the model has temporal resolution, but this detail not included here.
L96: “We have chosen year 2022 since at the time the dataset was processed it was the only complete year for the CMS system including tidal signal in the hydrodynamic model used.”: Related to general comment 4, if for the model data you were limited to year 2022, and given that the model includes data assimilation, why are the fields not compared to the altimetry fields during 2022 instead of the average of 30 years? (See major comment 3)
L99 “coupled hydrodynamic-wave model”: importance of being coupled with a wave model is not mentioned. This can also be affecting the geostrophic field as shown by other studies (Morales-Marquez et al 2023, Ruhs et al, 2025). Even if the focus here is on tides, I was expecting a mention to this important factor at least in the discussion.
L105: “from the MEDSEA_ANALYSISFORECAST_PHY_006_013 product SSH fields”: for clarity refer to this as model data including in brackets the product reference if you want, so that in L106 it does not seem that there 3 datasets
L106: “normalized”: with respect to ?? Later you specify that to f and cite plain et al 2023, but this should already be clear here.
L111: “he geostrophic equations as follows (Vigo et al., 2018a; 2018b)”: maybe other references are more relevant? if not include as e.g.
L112: “sea surface elevation”: specify (model SSH)
L121: “Where H denotes the sea level elevation”: so this is SSH too, i.e., ŋ? If so, please homegenize.
L122: Further details on the implementation of the deciding on the model data would be appreciated. For example to clarify the impact (if any) of the choice of parameter(s) in the detided result.
L126: “sub-mesoscale, mesoscale, filaments, eddies and fronts activity”: concepts mixed, please clarify
L127: The mentioned normalised vorticity would not be equivalent to the Rossby number? There is no mention of it and no references with respect to the order of magnitudes implying a mesoscale or submesoscale driven circulation, e.g. Thomas et al, (2008). Moreover, in this article they mention that for mesoscale Ro <<1 and O(1) for the submesoscale.
L140: Q* is supposed to be normalized by f too? Then in eq. (6) you use S* and ζ*?
L145: Space missing after comma
L149: “S is normalized by f to identify the sheared and/or stretched regions:” why need to normalize to show these regions?
The Finite Time Lyapunov Exponents
- L154: “In previous investigations within the Mediterranean region, the emphasis was on the Finite Scale Lyapunov Exponent (FSLE) rather than the FTLE.” Aren’t both FTLE and FSLE supposed to be equivalent? They should render the same (or very very similar) transport barriers. The only difference should be how the Lyapunov Exponent is calculated (defining time or space). The later mentioned gap could then be focused on calculating it in coastal areas, not the use of FTLE itself. As mentioned in general comments, it is important to consider that the implementation of this in coastal areas, namely from altimetry data, has been limited by the error of the data in very coastal areas.
- Integration time of 6 days? FTLE fields are then obtained daily? And averaged for 30 days and 7 days? Please clarify.
- L166: missing tr “indicates the..”
- L169: Missing clearer explanation that FTLE can be implemented forward and/or backward in time and the implications for phytoplankton as one shows attracting and the other repelling structures.
- L172: “30 years to detect mean features”: why 30 years? Are so many years necessary?
- L175: “16 times larger” : is it really necessary? I understand it is beneficial to go below the grid resolution, but I was expecting around 4 times more.
L180: A 2D bathymetry figure could be used to compare the figures shown in the results where impact of bathymetry mentioned.
L190: Fig. 2 (top), and other figures showing currents should be bigger or refined to see better the circulation patterns mentioned in the discussion of the results.
L200: GGSD area could be shown in fig. 2, but difference in domain shown for altimetry and model data is confusing. Limitation mentioned here clear, but then why not same domain used for model data as for the altimetry results shown in fig. 2?
L203: Are these averages also removed from the altimetry data?
L205: Therefore, only model data really used to assess effect of tides? Makes it confusing then as to why altimetry data then used in this study.
L220: this could go in the methods section were the FTLEs are described.
L265: Some of these details could go in the introduction.
L271: Can you give more details on this agreement?
L285: Maybe missing something but not very clear for me in figure 5. Please give more details.
L290: Some of the circulation patterns (for example cyclonic circulation in the mentioned cases) not very clear, maybe improvement of figure can help. Also colorer in last 2 rows might need to be adjusted?
L308: “absence of tidal forcing”, would actually be without tidal signal not tidal forcing as detided. See major comment 2.
L314: Maybe you can support this theory with wind data? Maybe the atmospheric forcing data used for the model?
L325: How is the PDF obtained? What is the sensitivity of the skewness and kurtosis values to this?
L330: Maybe adding a grid on the plot and having all x-axis alike can help make results clearer
L336: “The first case”: ??
L343: Application mentioned is very interesting, but the connection with previous results not so clear. Also the connection between FTLE and Chl-a plots a bit hard to understand. This last part needs improvement.
L515: Here year of publication put at end, check that formatting of references is consistent.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3730-RC1 -
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3730', Tarek Nemsi, 19 Mar 2025
reply
he paper does a good job of combining a long-term altimetry dataset (30 years) with high-resolution model output (for 2022). This multi-faceted approach is crucial for understanding complex systems like the Gulf of Gabès (GG).
Focus on a Key Region: The Gulf of Gabès is an important, yet perhaps understudied, region of the Mediterranean Sea, particularly concerning the interplay of tides, geostrophic circulation, and biogeochemical processes.
Application of Advanced Techniques: The use of Finite-Time Lyapunov Exponents (FTLE) and the Okubo-Weiss parameter to analyze flow topology and Lagrangian Coherent Structures (LCS) is appropriate and adds valuable insight.
Clear Research Questions: The paper clearly states its aims, focusing on the influence of tides on geostrophic features and the connection between physical and biogeochemical processes.
Links made with Biological Data using Chlorophyl a data.
Potential Gaps and Areas for Further Research (Lacunes)
Based on my review, here are some areas where the research could be extended or where gaps might exist:
Limited Temporal Scope of High-Resolution Model:
* Lacune: The high-resolution model data is only for one year (2022). While this is understandable due to computational constraints and data availability, it limits the ability to draw conclusions about interannual variability or long-term trends in tidal effects.
Suggestion: If possible, extending the high-resolution model analysis to cover more years, or even performing targeted simulations of specific events (e.g., strong bloom years, anomalous atmospheric conditions), would strengthen the conclusions.
Mechanism of Tidal Influence:
Lacune: While the paper convincingly demonstrates that tides influence the circulation and topology, the mechanisms of this influence are not fully explored. For example, how do specific tidal constituents (M2, S2, etc.) interact with the bathymetry and coastline to generate the observed patterns?
Suggestion: A deeper dive into the tidal dynamics, perhaps through harmonic analysis of the tidal currents and sea level, could help elucidate the specific mechanisms. Analyzing the contributions of different tidal constituents would be valuable.
Vertical Structure and 3D Effects:
Lacune: The analysis primarily focuses on surface geostrophic currents. However, tidal interactions with bathymetry can generate significant vertical currents and mixing. The paper acknowledges this (e.g., vertical mixing and chlorophyll), but doesn't fully incorporate it into the analysis.
Suggestion: Incorporating 3D model output, if available, could provide a more complete picture of the tidal influence, particularly on upwelling/downwelling and nutrient transport. Investigating the vertical structure of the FTLE fields could reveal subsurface LCS.
Biogeochemical Coupling Details:
Lacune: The link between physics (FTLE) and biogeochemistry (chlorophyll-a) is presented qualitatively. While the correlation is suggestive, a more quantitative analysis would be beneficial.
Suggestion: Exploring statistical relationships between FTLE, divergence, vorticity, and chlorophyll-a concentrations (e.g., correlation analysis, regression models) could strengthen the conclusions. Considering other biogeochemical variables (e.g., nutrients, dissolved oxygen) would provide a more holistic view. Investigating the time lag between physical forcing and biological response would be valuable.
Wind Forcing Role:
Lacune: The paper acknowledges the potential role of wind forcing but doesn't analyze it in detail. Wind stress can significantly influence surface currents and mixing, potentially interacting with tidal effects.
Suggestion: Including a more detailed analysis of wind forcing (e.g., from reanalysis datasets or atmospheric models) would help to disentangle the relative contributions of wind and tides to the observed patterns.
Impact on Higher Trophic Levels:
**Lacune:**The study highlights the connection between physics and phytoplankton. Extending this to consider the potential impacts on higher trophic levels (e.g., zooplankton, fish) would enhance the ecological relevance of the findings.
**Suggestion:** Using the FTLE to predict zooplankton blooms and nutrients advections.
Model Validation:
Lacune: Although it is briefly mentioned that the model data have a section on quality information, there is no specific discussion of how well the model used reproduces the observed circulation features in the study area.
Suggestion: Add a section on model validation, comparing model outputs (SSH, currents) with available observations (e.g., altimetry, drifter data).
Limited Discussion of Anomalous Dispersion
Lacune: The paper touches upon previous studies which identified anomalous dispersion laws. It is not addressed in the result and discussions.
Suggestion: Calculate the absolute dispersion and asses the anomlous dispresion regimes in the study area.
Overall Assessment
The paper presents a valuable contribution to understanding the complex dynamics of the Gulf of Gabès. The identified "lacunes" are not necessarily flaws, but rather opportunities for future research to build upon the foundation established by this study. By addressing these gaps, a more complete and nuanced understanding of the interplay between tides, geostrophic circulation, and biogeochemical processes in this important region can be achieved.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3730-CC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
195 | 91 | 16 | 302 | 14 | 8 |
- HTML: 195
- PDF: 91
- XML: 16
- Total: 302
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 159 | 55 |
Italy | 2 | 30 | 10 |
France | 3 | 15 | 5 |
Brazil | 4 | 9 | 3 |
Russia | 5 | 9 | 3 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 159