the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Drivers of the spatiotemporal distribution of dissolved nitrous oxide and air-sea exchange in a coastal Mediterranean area
Abstract. Among the well-known greenhouse gases (GHG), nitrous oxide (N₂O) is the third most impactful, possessing a global warming potential approximately 300 times greater than carbon dioxide (CO₂) over a century. The distribution of N₂O from aquatic environments exhibits notable spatial and temporal variations, and emissions still remain inadequately constrained and underrepresented in global N₂O emission inventories, particularly from coastal zones. This study focuses on the N₂O levels and air-sea fluxes in the Balearic Islands Archipelago coastal waters in the Western Mediterranean Basin. Data were gathered between 2018 and 2023 at three coastal monitoring stations: two in the highly inhabited island of Mallorca and the third in the well-preserved National Park of the Cabrera Archipelago. Seawater N₂O concentrations varied from 6.5 to 9.9 nM, with no significant differences detected across the sites. The average air-sea fluxes were estimated to range from -0.3 to 0.6 μmol m⁻² d⁻¹, indicating that the study areas generally functioned as weak N₂O sources. A consistent seasonal pattern was noted over the study period. Machine learning analysis indicated that seawater temperature was the primary factor influencing N₂O concentrations, with lesser contributions from chlorophyll levels and salinity.
- Preprint
(3899 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(454 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4166', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Feb 2025
This manuscript set out to evaluate spatial and temporal variability of surface N2O concentrations and estimates of air-sea flux as well as evaluate the drivers of N2O concentration and air-sea flux from three sites located among the Balearic Islands Archipelago. The monitoring period was relatively extensive ranging from 2018 to 2023, and as far as I know these are among the first observations of N2O concentrations and estimations of air-sea flux from these specific sites.
The authors found that N2O concentrations were mainly driven by seasonal temperature fluctuations, with no significant site or yearly differences. The system description with respect to N2O concentration and estimated fluxes, along with length of the dataset warrant publishing this manuscript, but the manuscript needs some additional analyses and polishing as there are some issues that need to be addressed before publication.
General Comments:
- Please include the sampling depth in the description of the study area. From the onset, it was hard to contextualize results from the different sampling sites without understanding the depth water was taken from in the Bay of Palma. It is unclear if Bay of Palma samples were also collected from the buoy sensor depth as the only mention of N2O sample collection depth is at the bottom of the second paragraph in the section (line 106) which discusses sampling depth at the bay of Santa Maria site. Moreover, this description is separated from the description of the Bay of Palma sampling (1st paragraph in the section), so the authors might also consider indicating sampling / sensor depth in the first paragraph and on Figures 2 and 3.
- Quantifying air-sea flux in many marine N2Ostudies is often undertaken using parameterizations of gas transfer velocity (k), in the absence of direct measurements on site. Commonly these parameterizations include wind speed, but in some instance’s other variables such as current speed, heat flux, or even rainfall can be used. The k parameterization used by the authors in this manuscript was described in Dobashi and Ho (2023) and was developed using 3He/SF6 tracer release in a shallow (<3.5m) seagrass bed in Florida Bay, USA. This certainly seems to be an appropriate parameterization for two of the three study sites in this manuscript as they were located in relatively shallow water (Bay of Santa Maria site ~8m deep; Cape Ses Salines lighthouse site 2m deep). The other site (Bay of Palma) however, was described as being approximately 30m deep, so Dobashi and Ho (2023) may not be the most appropriate parameterization here. I would recommend including at least 2 additional parameterizations used for deeper (> 10m) coastal areas in Table 2 for this site.
- I think the examination of the drivers of [N2O] would gain context by examining drivers of N2O% saturation as well. It is well known that dissolved gas concentrations are driven by temperature, but I believe a more useful question is what is driving N2O% saturation in coastal systems. Examining the drivers of N2O % Saturation should be included before publication. I do not see the results any analysis investigating drivers of N2O in this manuscript and the explanation of the analysis is made vague by the use of the term “N2O levels” (line 181, line 288, Figure 4) and “N2O” (line 190) instead of more precise terms “N2O concentrations” or “N2O % Saturation”. I would like to see this, and other instances of vague language (e.g. “N2O variability” line 283), clarified before publication. Also, I would like to see N2O % Saturation included in Figure 3.
- Quantification of uncertainty should also be addressed, especially considering N2O observations are made from duplicate samples. Please specify how uncertainty was propagated through the estimations of air-sea flux (uncertainty can come from many sources including variability between replicates, wind speed variability, temperature variability etc.). In this vein, there should be some indication about which N2O % saturation observations are and are not significantly different than 100% (should be indicated in Table 1). What appears to be slight under saturation at sites CA and CS may not be significantly lower than 100%, but if they are I think this warrants some additional discussion about what might be driving this. The same should be indicated for air-sea fluxes shown in Figure 6 (which of these are significantly greater than 0, and which are just artefacts of statistical noise?)
Specific Comments:
Line 40: Not all nutrient inputs are “solid”, recommend removing this word and retain as “land-derived nutrient inputs”.
Line 43: recommend rephrasing “which also stimulates the generation of N2O” to “which can stimulate the generation of N2O”.
Line 91: What is the sensor depth?
Line 155: Need to show airport wind station on the map on Figure 1.
Line 204: Have you defined which months are indicated by “summer”, “spring”, “winter”, “autumn”? Is this “June to Aug” or “July to Sep”? Please define.
Line 362: “N2O variability” is vague. Need to explicitly say what metric of N2O is being described: “variability of N2O concentration” or “variability of N2O % saturation”.
Line 366: I think the term “impacted” should also be cautiously used here. There are some major depth differences between the stations, and I assume seagrass coverage differences as well.
Line 366: Without showing which estimates of N2O flux are significantly greater than 0, it is hard to justify saying the sites are weak sources of N2O to the atmosphere. They could well be in equilibrium.
Technical Corrections:
Line 31: Please include a reference for this sentence.
Line 51: Please include a reference for this sentence.
Line 74: “N2O” has already been defined as “nitrous oxide”. Just use “N2O”.
Line 103: “N2O” has already been defined as “nitrous oxide”. Just use “N2O”.
Line 117: “N2O” has already been defined as “nitrous oxide”. Just use “N2O”.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4166-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4166', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Mar 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2024-4166/egusphere-2024-4166-RC2-supplement.pdf
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
124 | 33 | 9 | 166 | 19 | 6 | 10 |
- HTML: 124
- PDF: 33
- XML: 9
- Total: 166
- Supplement: 19
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 58 | 35 |
Spain | 2 | 21 | 12 |
China | 3 | 19 | 11 |
Germany | 4 | 12 | 7 |
France | 5 | 6 | 3 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 58