the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Assessing the impact of landwater on the Northwest Pacific using normalized Total Alkalinity
Abstract. The impact of landwater was assessed using salinity-normalized Total Alkalinity observations. The observational data included surface carbonate parameters from decades of surveys conducted by volunteer cargo ships and research vessels in the Northwest Pacific. Statistical processes, such as re-gridding and Fourier regression, used in a previous study were also applied in this study to improve the spatiotemporal resolution. First, the seawater area affected by landwater was identified using an Empirical Orthogonal Function analysis of normalized Total Alkalinity. The differences in normalized Total Alkalinity and Dissolved Inorganic Carbon from the surrounding area were then analysed to evaluate the causes such as landwater supply, advection effects, and biological activities. In addition, the impact of landwater on oceanic CO2 uptake and acidification in the study area was assessed. The analysis showed that landwater was the main source of total coastal Alkalinity but was not the dominant cause of Dissolved Inorganic Carbon. The supply of landwater had little effect on oceanic CO2 uptake throughout the year. The supply of by landwater was a factor in coastal acidification; however, the supplied Total Alkalinity reduced the overall acidification trend by 65 %. The results of this study are expected to be further improved by enhancing observations, such as the vertical profiles of carbonate parameters, and are expected to expand to other sea areas and be applied to global budgets.
- Preprint
(1976 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(694 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 21 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3792', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Feb 2025
reply
Review of the manuscript "Assessing the impact of landwater on the Northwest Pacific using normalized Total Alkalinity" by Tatsuki Tokoro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Shintaro Takao, Shu Saito, Daisuke Sasano, Kazutaka Enyo, Masao Ishii, Naohiro Kosugi, Tsuneo Ono, Kazuaki Tadokoro, and Yukihiro Nojiri
GENERAL COMMENTS:This manuscript's primary goal was to analyze the influence of land water on the carbonate systems in the Northwest Pacific region close to Japan using mainly normalized TA (nTA) and DIC (nDIC) with ancillary data of fCO2 and calcite saturation state. The authors also aimed to evaluate the effects of landwater on future climate change, coastal acidification, and environmental changes. Although it is important to continue to further the understanding of the carbonate system dynamics and consequences of climate change and acidification in coastal areas, some aspects of this manuscript are concerning.
First, the authors do not define landwater in the main text, which is the focus of this manuscript. Landwater can be any body of water (e.g., floods, lakes, rivers) on land. The authors show in the supplement material which rivers they selected to represent landwater (Text S2), referencing this information only in the results section of the main text. Furthermore, the authors cite studies of coastal and landwater bodies to generally state that landwaters are responsible for atmospheric CO2 emissions and acidification, which is misleading. Although many studies show that coastal waters can strongly contribute to CO2 emissions, there is still some debate as they can also act as sinks (e.e., Borges et al. GRL, 2005; Mathis et al. Nature Climate Change, 2024). Therefore, I strongly recommend that the authors define the term landwater (generally and for this manuscript) in the main text. I suggest changing to riverine contribution or a similar term, as it is more significant for biogeochemical studies in coastal waters, and it would reach a broader audience.
Second, the authors show little knowledge of the carbonate system, as illustrated by some affirmations regarding, for instance, the definition of alkalinity and on what it depends. More concerning, they state that TA could affect air-sea CO2 fluxes, which is mistaken. I suggest revising the chemical concepts and, thus, the consequent discussion and conclusions. Some of the methodology is not well explained and rather referenced to previous work or public datasets. For the purpose of FAIR data, this section of the manuscript should be improved.
Third, their methodology strongly relied on the EOF analysis, where their mode decomposition showed that their main three modes explain less than 50% of the spatiotemporal variability (Figure 2 a-c), which questions the degree of confidence of the landwater influence over the study region. Moreover, the discussion does little exploration of other factors that could explain other affecting factors.
Finally, the text is not concise and strenuous to follow at times. The introduction section could be better structured. In addition, it lacks important information (references), such as landwater impact in the study region and the magnitude of its contribution to the carbon cycle.
Based on this consideration and further specific notes, I recommend this article to go under major revision before a second revision by peers.
SPECIFIC NOTES:A figure of the studies region (either in the introduction or SM), highlighting the main rivers considered in this study would improve the understanding of the results and the its impact.
Lines 32-35: Strong statements. Please define what are is being considered as landwater. Also, please provide a range of how much (ballpark) the land water is contributing to the Co2 emission and acidification.
Line 35-36: "However, strong carbon flows, such as biological pumps, impact carbonate distribution in coastal areas". Is it a positive or negative impact?
Line 39-40: "Therefore, it is crucial to assess the impacts of landwater on oceanic CO2 uptake and coastal acidification". I fail to see why it is important? Is it because of the contrast between the NW Pacific Ocean sink? If so, it would be interesting to provide information (with number) in this paragraph about how much the landwater in Japan contributes to the regional carbon budget.
Line 43: "variations in landwater in seas in this region". Did you mean just landwater in this region? Explain or rephrase it.
Line 43: "land water tracers". For the public that do not know, please provide some examples of land water tracers.
Line 45: "other factors such as precipitation and evaporation also impact". Salinity can signal effects of precipitation and evaporation with fresher and saltier values respectively. On this statement, did you mean that precipitation and evaporation have not been intricacy studied such as with the use of isotopes as oxygen-18?
Lines 45-47: "This omission ... of and-water ... been observed." (1) remove "and-"; (2) This is an information on effects of precipitation and evaporation on the open ocean. What is the relation with the previous sentence? How is the land water impacting the coastal area of Japan?
Line 50: "defined by the charge balance of dissolved ions, such as hydrogen carbonate (Zeebe and Wolf-Glad-row, 2001)". For general understanding, one can state this definition. However, it is not accurate. TA is defined after Andrew Dickson DSR Part A (1981) as the balance between protons acceptors and proton donors. Please correct the reference and state that this is a broad definition of TA.
Lines 51-52: "TA depends on several factors, such as advection from different water masses and biological metabolism, including the calcification and dissolution of calcium carbonate." Depends is a strong verb here. TA depends on its sources, which essentially is the process of rock weathering which will provide the major ions, with some biological processes as stated. More currently, the discharge of high nutrient waters due to agriculture has strongly altered TA in some coastal regions. The advection of water masses only displaces the water parcel with a X TA value. Thus, please rephrase this sentence. Also, I suggest looking into these references instead: Zeebe and Wolf-Gladrow (2001); Wolf-Gladrow et al. Mar Them 106 (2007); Kerr et al. Mar Them 237 (2021).
Line 55: Please add reference for this equation
Lines 57-58: " Equation (1) is formulated based on the assumption that a water mass with zero salinity has zero TA." Reference?
Line 63: "langwater" landwater?
Line 72: "on the environment" It is too general. Please specify on which environment (e.g., the NW Pacific Ocean, Japan's coastal region).
Lines 72-74: "Seawater CO2 fugacity (fCO2) and the calcite saturation state of seawater (Ωcal) were the two carbonate parameters that were used as the index of environmental changes caused by landwater input." Why these two?
Line 74: "affects–the" remove the dash
Lines 74-75: "The TA and DIC supplied by landwater should change seawater fCO2 and oceanic CO2 uptake." TA does not affect the air-sea CO2 flux as CO2 does not constitute TA, hence, only DIC affects air-sea CO2 balance. Please rephrase this sentence.
Line 76: "is an index of ocean acidification". Why not aragonite since it is more sensible to acidification than calcite, specially in open ocean conditions? Please explain in a sentence your choice on using calcite instead of aragonite.
Line 77: "supplied by landwater" Rivers or industrial discharge? What is the definition of landwater used in the manuscript?
Line 76-79: "In coastal areas ... Wallace et al., 2014)." This sentence seems better placed at the beginning of the introductions where explaining the importance of studying the impacts of land water.
Line 96: "temporal data (n > = 60)" Does this correspond to 6 years? Please clarify in the text.
Line 110-111: "we identified that “Area A” was significantly influenced by landwater." This seems like a results phrase because I was hoping for a citing figure to show this.
Line 113: "the value of Area A minus that of Area B" Do you mean, the nTA value of Area A minus the nTA value of area B? Please clarify.
Line 115: Did the EOF analysis generate equation 2?
Line 117: "to exclude the effect of seawater volume change due to landwater inflow" Is this a next step? Seems that there is some information missing to support this phrase.
Lines 118-122: "Flux is the term ... to the DIC input" I suggest separating this section in smaller sentences for clarity.'Cflux is the term of difference in air-sea CO2 flux between Areas A and B divided by mixed layer depth (MLD). The MLD was calculated from the reanalysis data of seawater temperature profiles by Japan Agency for 120 Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JCOPE2M; Miyazawa et al., 2017, 2019, https://www.jamstec.go.jp/jcope/htdocs/distribution/). We determined an isothermal depth at ∆T = 0.2 °C with linear interpolation (de Boyer Montégut et al., 2004; Holte and Talley, 2009).'
Also, the MLD is receptive to each area, correct?Line 122: "This term" Which one?
Line 124: "for river discharge" First time rivers are mentioned. Is this your definition for landwater?
Line 131: "Notably" I don't think it is notable to someone unfamiliar to the region. Just remove the word from the sentence. However, DIC has seasonal variations then?
Lines 131-132: "however, the effect of spatial differences among the three bays was more pronounced." Is there a figure to show this? Please provide one.
Lines 134-137: Generally for the purpose of data transparency, it would be beneficial to have a simple equation showing the general calculation of the CO2 flux (e.g, FCO2 = (fCO2_air-fCO2_sw)*solubility_product*transfer_coefficient). The internal calculations of fCO2 by the instrument could be cited to the previous study then, although a mention of which instrument was used also help to determine the whole internal calculations process of fCO2. Please add a general equation for the air-sea CO2 flux.
Lines 140-144: "Although both seawater fCO2 and Ωcal can be unambiguously determined ... between SSS and nTA and nDIC". Please clarify, were fCO2 and calcite saturation state calculated from a multivariate linear model using TA and DIC? If so, why not use well stablished calculation routines (seacarb, CO2SYS, pyCO2SYS) which consider the non-linearity of the carbonate system parameters?
Line 147: "was attributed to freshwater inflow from the Amur River in the north and high evaporation at horse latitudes." What was the average inflow of Amur river and levels of evaporation in the horse latitude area compared to other analysed river, areas to make this attribution?
Line 148: "(32–34°N, 132–140°E; Figure 1a" A rectangle in Figure 1a could help the visualisation.
Line 151-152: "which was consistent with the TA value of the Amur River ... and Japanese river water" Does this information partially answers my observation for line 147?
Line 153: "nTA was inversely proportional to SSS" This is an artfact of the calculation of normalisation.
Lines 165-166: "and maximum nTA was observed in summer south of 37°N, whereas the maximum was in winter north of 37°N (data not shown)" Sentence not clear. What is the second maximum (winter) referred to?
Line 166: "thereby reaching its peak in summer on the Pacific side" Is there precipitation data to support this results or is it based on the literature/meteo data center? If so, please provide a reference.
Lines 197-198: "of all dAB tended to increase significantly" even SST (Figure 3e)?
Line 198: "This indicates that the supply of landwater increased" One removes the influence of riverine input when applying the traditional equation to normalize TA. What does measured TA show?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3792-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
121 | 30 | 10 | 161 | 17 | 9 | 9 |
- HTML: 121
- PDF: 30
- XML: 10
- Total: 161
- Supplement: 17
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 61 | 38 |
Japan | 2 | 21 | 13 |
Brazil | 3 | 10 | 6 |
China | 4 | 10 | 6 |
Germany | 5 | 10 | 6 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 61