the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Oceanic enrichment of ammonium and its impacts on phytoplankton community composition under a high-emissions scenario
Abstract. Ammonium (NH4+) is an important component of the ocean’s dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) pool, especially in stratified marine environments where intense recycling of organic matter elevates its supply over other forms. Using a global ocean biogeochemical model with good fidelity to the sparse NH4+ data that is available, we project increases in the NH4+:DIN ratio in over 98 % of the ocean by the end of the 21st century under a high-emission scenario. This relative enrichment of NH4+ is driven largely by circulation changes, and secondarily by warming-induced increases in microbial metabolism, as well as reduced nitrification rates due to pH decreases. Supplementing our model projections with geochemical measurements and phytoplankton abundance data from Tara Oceans, we demonstrate that shifts in the form of DIN to NH4+ may impact phytoplankton communities by disadvantaging nitrate-dependent taxa like diatoms while promoting taxa better adapted to NH4+. This could have cascading effects on marine food webs, carbon cycling, and fisheries productivity. Overall, the form of bioavailable nitrogen emerges as an potentially underappreciated driver of ecosystem structure and function in the changing ocean.
- Preprint
(5273 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(9518 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 02 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3639', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Feb 2025
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2024-3639/egusphere-2024-3639-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3639', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Mar 2025
reply
In this study, the authors apply a global marine biogeochemical model to investigate the changes in the relative abundance of diatoms in response to shifts in NH4:DIN ratio. This topic is of interest to both the modelling community and the broader research audience. Overall, the manuscript is well-written but would benefit from some structural reorganisation for readability. Additionally, several sections require further clarification and the inclusion of more supporting information.
General comments
Typically, the presentation of model-data agreement (misfit) should precede the transient simulations, i.e., we should have “build confidence in the model” first. I suggest reorganising the discussion section so that the steady-state evaluation of the relationship between NH4:NO3 and diatom abundance appears first, followed by the transient simulations. Also, the “Model experiment” section should be moved after “Statistical analyses” in the methods.
Several statistical techniques are applied in this study. I recommend providing more background information and justification for the selected values (e.g., VIFs and spline complexity). This would help readers unfamiliar with those tools to better understand the methodological choices.
Although the biogeochemical model is based on a previously published version, this study applies a different nitrification configuration. The manuscript should provide at least a brief summary of how these changes affect key biogeochemical inventories (such as the relative abundance of the two phytoplankton types) and fluxes (including nitrogen fixation) to support the new model’s validity.
Fig. 3 shows a 70% difference in the decline of delta % diatoms between the Modelcontrol and Modelcompete. However, their delta µM C diatoms are very similar (Fig. S9). Could the changes in delta % diatoms during the transient simulation mainly result from differences in the initial conditions rather than the NH4:DIN ratio? If so, the decline in delta % diatoms might be primarily driven by a decrease in the overall nutrient pool rather than by competition with nanophytoplankton.
This brings another question to me. The manuscript does not discuss nanophytoplankton abundance during the transient simulations. Is the decline in their abundance really smaller than that of diatoms by the end of this century? From Fig. S8a, the “delta other phytoplankton” are negative in most of the low latitude regions, where the NH4:DIN increases mostly. Since the title highlights impacts on phytoplankton community composition, I believe this is an important point. More discussion is needed on how both phytoplankton groups respond to the NH4:DIN shift.
Specific comments
Title: The majority of changes in diatom abundance due to changes in the NH4:NO3 ratio occur in trophic and subtropic regions (Fig. 3a and d), where NH4 concentration actually decreases (Fig. S6). Therefore, I suggest revising the phrase “enrichment of ammonium” in the title, as it may not accurately reflect the spatial trends shown in the results.
Line 27: an -> a
Line 30: remove the extra “in”
Fig. 1: Suggest adding labels to indicate which conditions are subject to anthropogenic pressure.
Line 101: Are riverine inputs and nitrogen deposition influenced by anthropogenic forcing in the model?
Line 104-108: As mentioned in the major comments, please include some evaluations here, particularly for the nitrogen fixation since it’s also affected by the forcings. Additionally, I couldn’t find the information regarding the form of N introduced to the system through nitrogen fixation.
Line 121: Please provide a clearer description of the “changing circulation (‘Phys’)” configuration. For example, does it include stronger stratification? It is not clear which specific factors are incorporated under this forcing. Later in the text (Line 211), changes in sea-ice loss are also mentioned as part of this forcing, so clarification is needed regarding which processes are included.
Line 129: Please provide a reference or justification for this criterion (0.1 mmol C m-3).
Line 160-163: Why the rate saturates when pH > 8? Base on the equation in Fig. S5 the rate is supposed to keep increase.
Equation (1): at least one item is missing before +s1(x1).
Line 183: the intercept 𝛼 is missing in the equation.
Line 183: “thin-plate spline” is not a trivial term, it would be helpful if the author could provide a brief explanation or background information in the text.
Line 184: independent variable. -> independent variable x.
Line 193-194: Please provide a bit more information regarding the VIFs and the criterion.
Line 210-211: The full name was mentioned in the Methods and it is sufficient using only RCP8.5 here.
Line 211: “sea-ice loss” should be mentioned already in the methods instead of here.
Line 217: What does the ±6 stands for?
Line 219: Please give specific locations for examples for the “oceanographic fronts”.
Line 225-242: When comparing Fig. 3b and 3e, the major contribution to the changes in diatom abundance appears to come from the "phys", which aligns with its 55% contribution to the NH4:NO3 ratio. However, although the contribution from OA (25%) is about double that of Warming (13%), OA appears to have almost no effect on the changes in diatom between Fig.3b and 3e. This discrepancy should be addressed and further explained in the manuscript.
Fig. 3 and Fig. S9: The delta µM C diatoms of “All” are comparable between Modelcontrol and Modelcompete in Fig. S9, yet the delta % diatoms in Fig. 3 show much larger difference. Does this imply that the total diatom biomass is substantially higher in Modelcompete? Additionally, in Modelcontrol, the delta µM C diatoms decline under “Warm” is about 2.5 times greater than Phys (Fig. S9c), but their delta % diatoms declines are similar. Does this indicate that the diatom biomass is much higher in “Phys”? These discrepancies should be clarified in the text, as they are important for interpreting the results.
Line 289: thid -> the or this?
Line 296-304: move to method. Also, was the modelcompete simulation spun up before the transient simulation? Such information is missing in the text.
Line 306: Why surprisingly? Is 70% too high or too low?
Line 493: albiet -> albeit
Line 496: ellaboratiung -> elaborating
Fig. S3: If possible, please add one panel that displays model results from where observations exist.
Fig. S8: I believe the unit (or scale) for the right panels is wrong.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3639-RC2
Data sets
Supplementary dataset 1: Nutrient concentration data Pearse J. Buchanan https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14194938
Supplementary dataset 2: Ammonia oxidation rates Pearse J. Buchanan https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14194938
Supplementary dataset 3: Coincident nutrient and regenerated to new primary production data Pearse J. Buchanan https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14194938
Supplementary dataset 4: Variations in ammonia oxidation rates for pH changes. Rates normalized to a pH of 8. Pearse J. Buchanan https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14194938
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
182 | 53 | 11 | 246 | 20 | 5 | 5 |
- HTML: 182
- PDF: 53
- XML: 11
- Total: 246
- Supplement: 20
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 111 | 44 |
Germany | 2 | 19 | 7 |
United Kingdom | 3 | 15 | 6 |
China | 4 | 13 | 5 |
Australia | 5 | 12 | 4 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 111