the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Budgets of particulate organic carbon in the mesopelagic layer across contrasting North Atlantic ocean biomes: a model study with PISCESv2_RC
Abstract. Biogeochemical and physical processes in the mesopelagic layer regulate the long-term storage of photosynthetic carbon in the ocean interior. However, persisting uncertainties in the budgets of particulate organic carbon (POC) underscore our limited understanding of mesopelagic ecosystem functioning in relation to the biological carbon pump. This study examines the drivers of POC variability in the top 1000 m of the North Atlantic Ocean over a climatological seasonal cycle. Budgets of detrital POC are comprehensively analyzed using the NEMO4-PISCESv2 model, which features two classes of detritus with different sinking speeds, a variable reactivity scheme for POC decay, and diverse modes of zooplankton detritivory and particle aggregation-disaggregation processes. Results reveal a latitudinal shift in detrital POC supply and removal dynamics. In the subtropical area, PISCES depicts relatively simple budgets where gravitational supply is mostly balanced by microbial degradation. By contrast, higher latitudes exhibit marked seasonal succession in supply and removal processes. From February through April, POC diffusion by vertical mixing dominates export fluxes, supplementing gravitational export (by 37 % annually in the subpolar area). During bloom demise in summer, consumption and fragmentation of large aggregates by mesozooplankton explain up to half of the flux attenuation. Interestingly, the lowest mesopelagic transfer efficiency (11 %) occurs in midlatitudes, the most productive area. Optimal detritus removal at midlatitudes results from opposed latitudinal gradients in temperature and particle lability, concurrent with high zooplankton activity. Our results prompt more explicit representation of suspended and slow-sinking particle dynamics and detritus-organism interactions in biogeochemical models.
Status: open (extended)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2162', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Sep 2025 reply
Viewed
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
557 | 0 | 1 | 558 | 0 | 0 |
- HTML: 557
- PDF: 0
- XML: 1
- Total: 558
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Summary:
The objective of this study is to analyze simulated POC dynamics in the mesopelagic layer (defined here as below the euphotic zone and above 1,000 m) in the North Atlantic from a NEMO-PISCES simulation, compare the model results to observations, and derive a budget. The model has a relatively complicated treatment of mesopelagic particle dynamics. My hope, after reading the abstract, was that this study would drive forward ongoing efforts to better constrain the mesopelagic POC dynamics in numerical models, since these are poorly constrained by observations and prone to big uncertainties. However, the comparison to observations presented in thus manuscript is cursory (in Figures 2 and 3 in section 2) and doesn’t add any new insight. Presented instead (in section 3) is a detailed analysis of the output from the somewhat complicated model for different subregions. I fail to see how this adds any valuable insight. Then, in section 4, the authors seem to jump from the model analysis to drawing conclusions about the real world (line 617: “This study provides a comprehensive analysis of POC dynamics in the top 1000 m of the North Atlantic, linking POC distribution and seasonality with transport and transformation processes.”) even though we know that the model is prone to big uncertainties. The obvious flaw that the model results do not equal the real world is not even mentioned. In section 5, the authors claim to have “obtained mechanistic insights into POC distribution, export patterns, and biological carbon pump efficiency across three North Atlantic regions” (line 832-834). No insights about the real world were obtained. In my view, the basic approach to this manuscript flawed. I do not recommend publication.
Perhaps more of a side note: The authors give an inaccurate definition of the biological carbon pump that is, unfortunately, common but should not be perpetuated further. When stating “The ensemble of the biology-mediated processes that transfer POC, PIC, and DOC to the deep ocean is known as the biological C pump (Volk & Hoffert, 1985; Legendre, 2024)” (line 74-76) the authors neglect to mention that biologically derived inorganic carbon is moved from the deep ocean to the sea surface through ocean circulation. That the biological pump is the balance of the organic carbon that is moved downward (in different forms and via different mechanisms) and the resulting inorganic carbon that is moved back to the sea surface and outgasses. See Frenger et al. (2024).
Frenger, I., Landolfi, A., Kvale, K., Somes, C. J., Oschlies, A., Yao, W., et al. (2024). Misconceptions of the marine biological carbon pump in a changing climate: thinking outside the “export” box. Glob. Chang. Biol. 30:e17124. doi: 10.1111/gcb.17124