the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Impacts of recent eutrophication and deoxygenation on the sediment biogeochemistry in the Sea of Marmara
Abstract. The biogeochemistry of seafloor sediments can be significantly altered in response to deoxygenation and eutrophication-driven organic carbon production, resulting in increased benthic fluxes of dissolved nutrients (such as ammonia and phosphate) and metals. The Sea of Marmara, which also have faced large-scale mucilage outbreaks in recent years, is undergoing severe eutrophication and deoxygenation but the consequences on sediment biogeochemistry and benthic feedback have not been studied so far. This study aims to understand the impacts of deoxygenation and coastal eutrophication on sedimentary biogeochemical processes in the Marmara Sea, which experiences varying degrees of anthropogenic pressure along with natural inputs from the adjacent Black Sea via Bosphorus surface inflows. Multicore-obtained undisturbed sediment core samples indicate that oxic respiration no longer plays a significant role in Marmara sediments but denitrification, metal reduction and sulfate respiration are prevalent. The deep-water sediments become more reducing in the Eastern Marmara, for instance cores from İzmit Bay reveal important biogeochemical processes such as anaerobic oxidation of methane (AOM), carbonate precipitation, iron reduction, and low-temperature silicate diagenesis. Furthermore, sediment total organic carbon concentrations in core samples were observed to be nearly twice those in less productive sites with oxic bottom waters, indicating a refractive particulate organic matter fraction in the buried sediments. Calculated diffusive benthic nutrient fluxes show markedly high phosphate and ammonium fluxes into the near-bottom waters of highly eutrophic areas of the Eastern Marmara, which are expected to enhance primary production in the upper halocline during the dry season. On the other hand, these sediments are a sink for nitrate, indicating denitrification and removal of fixed nitrogen. This trend contributes to the accumulation of organic matter as well as shifting N/P ratios and the development of a steep hypoxic zone at halocline boundary depths. As a result, we show that sediments are already influenced by the widespread hypoxia in the Sea of Marmara and benthic-pelagic coupling have started exacerbated the existing eutrophication problem, analogous to the benthic ‘vicious cycle’ observed in the shallower Baltic Sea. We conclude that the Sea of Marmara Sea is now on a clear path towards being included within the list of famous ‘dead zones’ of the Earth oceans, such as the Baltic Sea, Gulf of Mexico or Chesapeake Bay. In order to reverse the ecosystem degradation complex predictive models and decision support tools are needed to guide decision-makers, but they should take into account hypoxia-induced benthic biogeochemical processes and benthic-pelagic coupled cycling of nutrients in the Sea of Marmara.
- Preprint
(2727 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1255', Sergey Konovalov, 11 Apr 2025
This work is good and scientifically sound. The work is addressed to effects of eutrophication on the Sea of Marmara, and specifically on redox conditions in marine sediments. The authors have done a good job analyzing spatial variations in biogeochemical properties of marine sediments. They have shown a clear relations between the level of primary production, its spatial variations, ventilation of different layers of the sea and spatial variations in redox conditions and the distribution of redox sensitive biogeochemical substances. I support publication of this manuscript, but after correction of the text. Many of my corrections and suggestions are in the attached file. Yet, some of them must be mentioned here. Firstly, English needs to be improved. Secondly, information in some tables and figures is very the same. Thirdly, data on and discussion of major redox none-sensitive irons are not related to the subject of this work and should be eliminated. All other comments are in the attached file.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', İsmail Akçay, 22 May 2025
Response
We would like to express our gratitude to Sergey Konovalov (reviewer 1). Thank you for your valuable comments. We tried to do our best for all the suggestions. Most notably, the language of the manuscript was improved. We preferred to keep Table 2 since it represents the data of physical and biochemical parameters in the deep water. Figure 4 represents the vertical profiles of nutrients for the sediment core samples. Finally, as requested by the reviewer, data and discussion of major non-redox-sensitive elements were eliminated for a better focus on the main message on euthropication impact on sediments.
Best regards,
İsmail Akçay
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', İsmail Akçay, 22 May 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1255', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 May 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', İsmail Akçay, 22 May 2025
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your valuable comments. We tried to do our best for all the suggestions. According to your comments, you can find the point-to-point replies below.
Best regards,
İsmail Akçay
Detailed Comments
- Line 47: a reference to figure 1 would be helpful here.
R: We added Fig.1 for reference.
- Line 51: “The Marmara Sea ecosystem”
R: We corrected.
- Line 59: with a permanent pycnocline at 15-20 m I would like to know what the effect of
shipping is in the region, as the whole area is a busy thoroughfare (as far as I know) and ship
wakes can reach to these depths (e.g. Nylund e al, 2020). Does the traffic volume affect the
pycnocline and vertical mixing?
R: We added some information according to result of Nylund e al (2020).
- Line 60: “Thus a major oxygen source”
R: We corrected it.
- Section 2.1: can the authors say anything about how representative the year 2019 was for the
area? And I miss a description of the sediments themselves here: are they sandy or muddy, is
the medium gran size known, are there differences between the three areas in terms of sea
bed composition?
R: We include about some physical properties of the obtained sediment core samples.
- Line 97: “CTD probe that was coupled to”
R: We checked and corrected.
- Line 131: “indication a significant fraction of the TN pool”
R: We corrected this sentence.
- Lines 232-236: please rephrase, too long and grammatically incorrect.
R: Grammar was checked and the sentence was rewritten.
- Line 237: “In all sites ”
R: It was corrected.
- Line 239/241: “Porewater diffusive PO4,NH4 and Si fluxes” is repetitive, please rephrase
R: We rephrased
- Line 244: are the increases in the diffusive fluxes of reactive iron and manganese derived from figure 7 or from unpublished results?
R: This sentence was rewritten.
- Line 246: “mixing across the basin, intensifying during winter”
R: We corrected it.
- Line 248: “The corrolation between”, I see no correlation parameters provided anywhere for
this statement.
R: We wrote relationship instead of correlation for this sentence.
- Figure 5: please provide a 0 line for the NOx plots
R: We revised this graph based on your comments.
- Line 269: if these results are not shown please state so clearly, otherwise indicate the relevant
table or figure.
R: We have rewritten this sentence.
- Line 274: “core samples and decreased”
R: We corrected the expression.
- Line 280: “İzmit Bay”, and they had higher TOC levels compared to what? Previous studies, or the third region under study?
R: We changed this sentence. Our study and other studies mentioned in the manuscript showed higher concentrations of TOC in the Sea of Marmara.
- Line 285: “results further show”
R: We corrected it.
- Lines 285-287: I don’t quite see the evidence for this statement as the manuscript does not
contain accumulation rates or previous results for İzmit Bay.
R: This sentence was rewritten.
- Line 287: “results also report”
R: Corrected.
- Line 294: “results altogether show” and it seems only stations IZ-30 and IZ-2 have elevated
levels. Of TOC and TN, not the other stations in the same bay. Also please provide a reference
for the Baltic statement.
R: This sentence was revised and we added a reference for the Baltic Sea.
- Line 300: I see no difference in figure 6 between the TOC and TN levels of southern Marmara and Çınarcık Basin.
R: For some stations high concentrations of TOC/TN were recorded in the Çınarcık Basin.
- Line 304: “caused accumulation of excess amounts of ”
R: Corrected.
- Figure 7: the markers for stations IZ-2 and 8 are practically identical
R: The graph was revised.
- Line 336: “nitrogen (NO3) through denitrification”
R: Corrected.
- Line 343: what is N.A.F.?
R: We added the long version – ‘North Anatolian Fault’.
- Line 355: “core samples in this study were taken by”
R: Corrected.
- Line 377: the figure 7 results for Mg seem the same everywhere?
R: This sentence was rewritten.
- Line 390: as there are no observational data for primary production anywhere in this
manuscript (only Chla) I suggest the authors rephrase this statement
R: This sentence was revised.
- Line 393/396: the manuscript has not introduced actual sedimentation rates before, so this
information should be presented in the discussion. No new evidence should be included in the
conclusions.
R: This sentence was removed from conclusion and added to results and discussion section of the manuscript.
- Line 396-400: overly long sentence making it unclear what the “respectively” actually refers to. I suspect it refers to the areas (Çınarcık Basin/İzmit Bay vs southern Marmara Sea) but on initial reading it seems linked to sink and source.
R: This sentence was rewritten.
- Line 411: as this refers to primary production I would assume that the process of higher
nutrient fluxes to the deep water is gravity driven, not gradient (diffusive) driven
R: We revised this sentence.
- Lines 428-431: as states way above I would like to see some perspective for this, in the
discussion section. How important is this process compared to for instance climate change
impacts on nutrient inputs, increased stratification, etc.? And is there any natural (background)
eutrophication occurring in this region? It doesn’t have to be long or extensive, but as marine
management is touched on here I think it is relevant.
R: Thank you for your suggestions. We added new text about the climate change and possible effects on marine eutrophication and on the benthic nutrient dynamics.
Added References
Albayrak, S., Balkis, H., Zenetos, A., Kurun, A., and Kubanç, C.: Ecological quality status of coastal benthic ecosystems in the Sea of Marmara. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52(7), 790-799, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.11.022, 2006.
Nylund, A.T., Arneborg, L., Tengberg, A., Mallast, U., Hassellov, ¨ I.M.: In situ observations of turbulent ship wakes and their spatiotemporal extent. Ocean Sci. 17(5), 1285–1302. https://doi.org/10.5194/os-17-1285-2021, 2021.
van Helmond, N.A., Robertson, E.K., Conley, D.J., Hermans, M., Humborg, C., Kubeneck, L.J., Lenstra, W.K., and Slomp, C.P.: Removal of phosphorus and nitrogen in sediments of the eutrophic Stockholm archipelago, Baltic Sea, Biogeosciences, 17(10), 2745-2766, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2745-2020, 2020.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', İsmail Akçay, 22 May 2025
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1255', Sergey Konovalov, 11 Apr 2025
This work is good and scientifically sound. The work is addressed to effects of eutrophication on the Sea of Marmara, and specifically on redox conditions in marine sediments. The authors have done a good job analyzing spatial variations in biogeochemical properties of marine sediments. They have shown a clear relations between the level of primary production, its spatial variations, ventilation of different layers of the sea and spatial variations in redox conditions and the distribution of redox sensitive biogeochemical substances. I support publication of this manuscript, but after correction of the text. Many of my corrections and suggestions are in the attached file. Yet, some of them must be mentioned here. Firstly, English needs to be improved. Secondly, information in some tables and figures is very the same. Thirdly, data on and discussion of major redox none-sensitive irons are not related to the subject of this work and should be eliminated. All other comments are in the attached file.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', İsmail Akçay, 22 May 2025
Response
We would like to express our gratitude to Sergey Konovalov (reviewer 1). Thank you for your valuable comments. We tried to do our best for all the suggestions. Most notably, the language of the manuscript was improved. We preferred to keep Table 2 since it represents the data of physical and biochemical parameters in the deep water. Figure 4 represents the vertical profiles of nutrients for the sediment core samples. Finally, as requested by the reviewer, data and discussion of major non-redox-sensitive elements were eliminated for a better focus on the main message on euthropication impact on sediments.
Best regards,
İsmail Akçay
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', İsmail Akçay, 22 May 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1255', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 May 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', İsmail Akçay, 22 May 2025
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your valuable comments. We tried to do our best for all the suggestions. According to your comments, you can find the point-to-point replies below.
Best regards,
İsmail Akçay
Detailed Comments
- Line 47: a reference to figure 1 would be helpful here.
R: We added Fig.1 for reference.
- Line 51: “The Marmara Sea ecosystem”
R: We corrected.
- Line 59: with a permanent pycnocline at 15-20 m I would like to know what the effect of
shipping is in the region, as the whole area is a busy thoroughfare (as far as I know) and ship
wakes can reach to these depths (e.g. Nylund e al, 2020). Does the traffic volume affect the
pycnocline and vertical mixing?
R: We added some information according to result of Nylund e al (2020).
- Line 60: “Thus a major oxygen source”
R: We corrected it.
- Section 2.1: can the authors say anything about how representative the year 2019 was for the
area? And I miss a description of the sediments themselves here: are they sandy or muddy, is
the medium gran size known, are there differences between the three areas in terms of sea
bed composition?
R: We include about some physical properties of the obtained sediment core samples.
- Line 97: “CTD probe that was coupled to”
R: We checked and corrected.
- Line 131: “indication a significant fraction of the TN pool”
R: We corrected this sentence.
- Lines 232-236: please rephrase, too long and grammatically incorrect.
R: Grammar was checked and the sentence was rewritten.
- Line 237: “In all sites ”
R: It was corrected.
- Line 239/241: “Porewater diffusive PO4,NH4 and Si fluxes” is repetitive, please rephrase
R: We rephrased
- Line 244: are the increases in the diffusive fluxes of reactive iron and manganese derived from figure 7 or from unpublished results?
R: This sentence was rewritten.
- Line 246: “mixing across the basin, intensifying during winter”
R: We corrected it.
- Line 248: “The corrolation between”, I see no correlation parameters provided anywhere for
this statement.
R: We wrote relationship instead of correlation for this sentence.
- Figure 5: please provide a 0 line for the NOx plots
R: We revised this graph based on your comments.
- Line 269: if these results are not shown please state so clearly, otherwise indicate the relevant
table or figure.
R: We have rewritten this sentence.
- Line 274: “core samples and decreased”
R: We corrected the expression.
- Line 280: “İzmit Bay”, and they had higher TOC levels compared to what? Previous studies, or the third region under study?
R: We changed this sentence. Our study and other studies mentioned in the manuscript showed higher concentrations of TOC in the Sea of Marmara.
- Line 285: “results further show”
R: We corrected it.
- Lines 285-287: I don’t quite see the evidence for this statement as the manuscript does not
contain accumulation rates or previous results for İzmit Bay.
R: This sentence was rewritten.
- Line 287: “results also report”
R: Corrected.
- Line 294: “results altogether show” and it seems only stations IZ-30 and IZ-2 have elevated
levels. Of TOC and TN, not the other stations in the same bay. Also please provide a reference
for the Baltic statement.
R: This sentence was revised and we added a reference for the Baltic Sea.
- Line 300: I see no difference in figure 6 between the TOC and TN levels of southern Marmara and Çınarcık Basin.
R: For some stations high concentrations of TOC/TN were recorded in the Çınarcık Basin.
- Line 304: “caused accumulation of excess amounts of ”
R: Corrected.
- Figure 7: the markers for stations IZ-2 and 8 are practically identical
R: The graph was revised.
- Line 336: “nitrogen (NO3) through denitrification”
R: Corrected.
- Line 343: what is N.A.F.?
R: We added the long version – ‘North Anatolian Fault’.
- Line 355: “core samples in this study were taken by”
R: Corrected.
- Line 377: the figure 7 results for Mg seem the same everywhere?
R: This sentence was rewritten.
- Line 390: as there are no observational data for primary production anywhere in this
manuscript (only Chla) I suggest the authors rephrase this statement
R: This sentence was revised.
- Line 393/396: the manuscript has not introduced actual sedimentation rates before, so this
information should be presented in the discussion. No new evidence should be included in the
conclusions.
R: This sentence was removed from conclusion and added to results and discussion section of the manuscript.
- Line 396-400: overly long sentence making it unclear what the “respectively” actually refers to. I suspect it refers to the areas (Çınarcık Basin/İzmit Bay vs southern Marmara Sea) but on initial reading it seems linked to sink and source.
R: This sentence was rewritten.
- Line 411: as this refers to primary production I would assume that the process of higher
nutrient fluxes to the deep water is gravity driven, not gradient (diffusive) driven
R: We revised this sentence.
- Lines 428-431: as states way above I would like to see some perspective for this, in the
discussion section. How important is this process compared to for instance climate change
impacts on nutrient inputs, increased stratification, etc.? And is there any natural (background)
eutrophication occurring in this region? It doesn’t have to be long or extensive, but as marine
management is touched on here I think it is relevant.
R: Thank you for your suggestions. We added new text about the climate change and possible effects on marine eutrophication and on the benthic nutrient dynamics.
Added References
Albayrak, S., Balkis, H., Zenetos, A., Kurun, A., and Kubanç, C.: Ecological quality status of coastal benthic ecosystems in the Sea of Marmara. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52(7), 790-799, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.11.022, 2006.
Nylund, A.T., Arneborg, L., Tengberg, A., Mallast, U., Hassellov, ¨ I.M.: In situ observations of turbulent ship wakes and their spatiotemporal extent. Ocean Sci. 17(5), 1285–1302. https://doi.org/10.5194/os-17-1285-2021, 2021.
van Helmond, N.A., Robertson, E.K., Conley, D.J., Hermans, M., Humborg, C., Kubeneck, L.J., Lenstra, W.K., and Slomp, C.P.: Removal of phosphorus and nitrogen in sediments of the eutrophic Stockholm archipelago, Baltic Sea, Biogeosciences, 17(10), 2745-2766, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2745-2020, 2020.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', İsmail Akçay, 22 May 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
446 | 61 | 20 | 527 | 12 | 32 |
- HTML: 446
- PDF: 61
- XML: 20
- Total: 527
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 32
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1