the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Glaciogenic iron transport pathways to the Kerguelen offshore phytoplankton bloom
Abstract. In contrast to the average low biological productivity across most of the Southern Ocean, the Kerguelen region is one of the few subantarctic regions to host massive phytoplankton blooms, extending hundreds of kilometers offshore. These blooms play a crucial role in the Southern Ocean carbon cycle and support a diverse ecosystem of patrimonial and commercial significance. The Kerguelen blooms are associated with a subsurface iron source that supplies surface waters both on the Plateau and offshore. The mechanisms of iron enrichment have only been partially elucidated. The resuspension of iron-enriched sediments over the Plateau, transported offshore by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, is one mechanism that has been studied in the past years. However, the Kerguelen Islands host a glacier system, and two of the outlet glaciers of Kerguelen’s Cook Ice Cap are likely to provide iron enriched lithogenic material downstream to the coastal waters of the Golfe des Baleiniers. Whether the circulation is able to connect the glacier outlets to the open ocean, and how much of the offshore bloom extension can be reached by glaciogenic iron is not known. Using in situ and satellite data, including observations from the recent SWOT satellite mission, we reconstruct the horizontal advection of iron and show that glaciogenic iron supply reaches up to one third of the spatial extent of the offshore bloom onset. These findings have significant implications in the context of ongoing ice cap mass loss and glacier retreat observed on Kerguelen and other Southern Ocean islands under climate change.
- Preprint
(4187 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 16 Jul 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2145', Thomas M. Holmes, 19 Jun 2025
reply
EGUsphere-2025-2145 Review
General comments
The manuscript entitled “Glaciogenic iron transport pathways to the Kerguelen offshore phytoplankton bloom” by Nalivaev, et al. is a timely and interesting study of the effect of iron derived from glacial runoff on a massive annual phytoplankton plume in the Southern Ocean, where phytoplankton growth is generally chronically limited by extremely low iron concentrations. Given the rapid melt rate of these glaciers, it is very important to understand the biogeochemical processes that may be affected by changing supply of glacial runoff, which may have ramifications for marine ecosystems and carbon sequestration efficiency. The authors assess pathways for glacially derived iron from Kerguelen Island to reach the annual phytoplankton bloom over and downstream of the Kerguelen Plateau. They use a combination of satellite data, drifter observations and lagrangian modelling to show that iron from glacial melt on the island can fertilise a significant portion of the bloom.
The mechanisms discussed in this study will be important for informing forthcoming publications looking into in situ biogeochemical measurements collected on the recent MARGOCEAN cruise undertaken in this study region, and more broadly for future studies gauging the effects of retreating glaciers on Southern Ocean biogeochemistry. In my opinion, the scientific method utilised in this study is robust and the paper seems reasonably polished. I have minor suggestions on the scientific discussion and technical corrections. As such, this manuscript will be well suited for publication in Biogeosciences after minor revisions.
Specific comments
Figures: Either figures need to be slightly larger, or text in figures needs to be larger font. For multi-panel figures (2, 5, and 8) the authors could save space or enlarge figures by only having lat/lons on the outer axes (i.e. lats on the y-axis of panels a and c, lons on the x-axis of panels c and d).
Since there is quite a bit of discussion about the polar front, it might be good to show the mean polar front location (to the north of Kerguelen Island) in one of the figures.
Line 160 - 162: A little more information would be good here. At what rate does the iron content diminish? How is this calculated, or what is this based on? What assumptions are made? Is the reduction of iron to 0.1% after 60 days backed up by observational data? Could the authors be a bit more specific about the sensitivity test? Is this per day?
Line 170: Is this a fair assumption to make? Seems unlikely that there is no biological interaction with iron for 60 days during advection… Perhaps this needs rewording?
Line 173 – 177: So, the authors choose the threshold for defining the area of the offshore bloom based on the sensitivity tests? I would move the sentences ‘A statistical threshold of chlorophyll concentration is used to define the area of the offshore bloom. In addition, the iron plumes are horizontally extrapolated to the nearest n pixels (pixel size: 0.01° longitude and latitude).’ to after the sentence about the sensitivity tests if this is case. If it’s not the case, then how do the authors choose which percentile to use? Please explain the methodology a bit more clearly.
I think the SWOT component of this paper is interesting, but right now it seems a bit like a side-project that isn’t really too relevant to the results of the study. The authors could almost sum up the results in a single sentence that the increased resolution of SWOT didn’t really give different results due to the scale of the processes involved, and move the rest to the appendix. If the SWOT results are actually integral to this study, then it would be good to focus on/highlight that a bit more.
In the discussion, the authors correctly identify the limitation of this work as lack of high resolution in situ observations and assumption of the rate of iron removal. The authors state that removal rate is considered through the sensitivity tests they performed, however a comparison of the removal rates used in this study to results from previous studies is missing. It would be good to validate these assumptions by comparison with iron concentrations observed during previous voyages such as ANTARES 3 and KEOPS.
The discussion ends rather abruptly and could use a final sentence summarising the implications of this study in the context of the previous paragraphs.
Technical corrections
References: After checking the BG requirements, I think the format the authors have used for in-text citations is acceptable, except for where there is more than one reference together, where they should be separated by a semicolon, not a comma.
Figure 1: It might be nice for readers not familiar with this region to have an inset, or another panel showing where the plateau is in the Southern Ocean.
Line 54: Suggest replacing ‘englobing’ with ‘including’ or ‘surrounding’, and citing Figure 1 at the end of the sentence.
Line 59: Can now remove the final sentence of this paragraph as figure is cited above.
Line 66: Change ‘on’ to ‘in’.
Line 80: ‘North’ does not need to be capitalised here.
Line 81: ‘Golfe des Baleiniers’ is the name of the gulf, but as this paper is written in English, I think that ‘Golfe’ at the end of the sentence should just be ‘gulf’ (no capitalisation needed, as this is just the noun, not the name).
Line 121: The coordinates are not clear as currently written, suggest changing to ‘(66 – 90°E, 45 – 55°S)’.
Line 153: Please amend coordinates to match the format suggested at line 121.
Line 190: Same comment for ‘Golfe’ here as at line 81.
Line 192: Where does the threshold of 0.75 mg.m−3 come from? Please relate this to the previously mentioned percentiles. Also remove full stop after ‘0.75 mg.m−3’.
Line 198: Remove ‘for short’.
Line 200: Remove ‘…for methodological consistency. Indeed,…’ and replace with ‘as’.
Line 206: After ‘…(considered as control…’ add reference to grey shaded area in Figure 3d.
Line 207: I would add ‘used as control’ after ‘For the offshore bloom’ to make sure this is clear. Also what does the ‘grey curve’ relate to? Maybe just say ‘grey shaded area’.
Line 208 – 209: As with the previous comment, maybe change to ‘blue shaded area’ and ‘red shaded area’.
Figure 3: It could be good to have an annotation showing the location of the GdB on panel b. Change ‘blue/red/grey curve and area’ to just ‘blue/red/grey shaded area’ for consistency with previous comments. Make sure to use either ‘grey’ or ‘gray’ consistently throughout the manuscript. I would amend the final sentence of the caption to read ‘On graph c), uncertainties are shown as lighter shading and represent the interannual variability’. Lastly, this is purely aesthetic and to save a tiny bit of space, but could the authors align the tops of panels a) and b), and the bottoms of panels c) and d).
Line 221: Change ‘are’ to ‘were’.
Line 223: As per the BG instructions to authors, all figure citations should be in the format Fig. 4, unless at the start of a sentence.
Line 224: Please change ‘…Fig.4)’ to ‘(Fig. 4)’.
Line 245: Suggest moving ‘km2’ to after ‘106,100’.
Line 255: Fix figure citation.
Line 257: Remove full stop and replace ‘We calculate’ with ‘by calculating’.
Line 259: Fix figure citation.
Line 260: Fix figure citation.
Line 268: Would it be possible to show this data in the appendix?
Figure 5: Line 2 of caption, change ‘multisattelite’ to ‘multi-satellite’. I don’t think the hatching is the clearest way to delineate the 2000m bathymetry. Could the authors just show the 2000m contour in another colour, or perhaps finer scale hatching or shading in a lighter colour, or a combination of these? Also, what do the boxes represent in panels c) and d)?
Figure 6: Y-axis label, change ‘km2’ to ‘km2’. Error bars are a bit hard to see. Recommend adding markers to the end of the error bars, or removing grid lines.
Line 283: delete ‘in respect’.
Figure 7: Recommend adding markers to the end of the error bars, or removing grid lines. Perhaps even just making grid lines finer/lighter could help. Also, could grid lines be drawn under the bars, instead of over them?
Line 289: Please fix Bindoff reference.
Line 300: Fix figure citation.
Line 302: Consider replacing ‘remarkably’ with ‘closely’. Fix figure citation.
Line 305: Fix figure citation.
Line 331: Consider replacing ‘stirring’ with ‘mixing’ or ‘advection’.
Line 346: Suggest deleting ‘and soon to come papers’, as this is quite vague.
Line 347: Suggest changing the tone of this sentence, as ‘strong limitation of this study’ is quite negative and casts doubt on the strength of this study, which should not be the case as the authors have carried out a scientifically robust method. I would instead reword this to talk about the assumptions that the authors had to make, due to lack of data and scope of this work (which is outlined in following sentences).
Line 382: Remove comma after ‘scale’.
Figure C1: In the caption line 2, did the authors mean panels d to i, not e to i?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2145-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
126 | 35 | 6 | 167 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 126
- PDF: 35
- XML: 6
- Total: 167
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1