the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Distribution and sources of organic matter in submarine canyons incising the Gulf of Palermo, Sicily: A multi-parameter investigation
Abstract. Submarine canyons act as conduits of terrigenous and marine organic carbon (OC) to deep-sea environments, although the contribution of each of these sources can largely vary depending on the canyon morphology and the prevailing sedimentary dynamics. The Gulf of Palermo is incised by several submarine canyons of similar dimension and depth range, but with slightly different morpho-sedimentary characteristics. Using a combination of geochemical parameters (OC, TN, δ13C, δ15N, Δ14C), as well as biomarker signatures (proteins, carbohydrates, phytopigments, glycerol dialkyl glycerol tetraethers, and n-alkyl lipids) and compound-specific δ13C analyses of surficial sediments, we assess the sources of OC deposited on the shelf and in three major canyons (Arenella, Oreto and Eleuterio). The aim is to provide further insights on the role of submarine canyons in transporting terrigenous OC across continental margins. The contribution of terrigenous OC was highest on the shelf (80 %) and decreased offshore, with contributions that ranged between 50 to 70 % across the studied submarine canyons. The dispersal mechanism of terrigenous OC and its specific sources differ among canyons primarily because of local differences of hydro- and sediment dynamics. Arenella Canyon, which is up-current and farthest from any river mouth, exhibited the lowest terrigenous OC contributions (50 %), Oreto Canyon in the central part of the gulf had slightly higher contributions (50–70 %), and Eleuterio Canyon down-current and closest to shore has the highest proportion of terrigenous OC (60–70 %). Besides natural sediment dispersal mechanisms acting on this continental margin, continuous sediment resuspension by bottom trawling activities inside Oreto Canyon contributes to the down-canyon displacement of terrigenous OC, while promoting the ageing and degradation of OC in the canyon axis. Compound-specific δ13C analyses of fatty acids revealed that the sources of terrigenous OC differ across submarine canyons, with Arenella and Oreto canyons receiving OC from a similar terrigenous source up-current from the gulf, whereas terrigenous OC deposited on the shelf and in Eleuterio Canyon originates from the Oreto and Eleuterio rivers that discharge into the Gulf of Palermo. This study provides further evidence that even non-river connected submarine canyons are important sites of terrigenous OC sequestration and transfer to deep-sea environments, and that bottom trawling activities within submarine canyon environments can contribute to its resuspension and dispersal towards deeper regions.
- Preprint
(1516 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(776 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 29 Jul 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2587', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Jul 2025
reply
This is an interesting study which includes an unusually large number of tracers and biomarkers in order to trace the origins of organic matter in shelf and canyon sediments.
The main weaknesses are the limited number of core samples obtained across the Gulf, and the lack of data on the riverine sources of organic matter. As a result, the conclusions are overstated in places.
Line 100: delete “scarce,”
Page 4, line 2: “biomarkers and other sediment organic matter parameters” (or similar – but not just biomarkers)
Line 119: so these two rivers discharge the same amount of water, on average? What about sediment loads? Thae latter would be more relevant tha water discharges. And what about other “distal sources” which could contribute to the canyons – what might they be (other rivers further upstream etc..)
Line 145-155: First you write that 7 cores were collected, but later you write that triplicate cores were collected from one site in each canyon (500m) – please clarify.
Results section:
The descriptions of the data are a bit too long in my opinion.It should be possible to shorten by sticking to the main findings. All the detailed data needs to be shown in a table. The yellow to purple colour ramp used in the figures is not the easiest to interpret.
Also, there are no Results on the mixing models – this should be included here, not in Discussion.
Discussion:
Sediment accumulation rates should be shown in the Results section first. And included in the Methods too.
Line 433: what is BIT index again? Need to remind reader.
The authors should be careful when stating their conclusion – after all, they are based on only 1, 2 or 3 core samples, which may not be representative of the entire canyons. This shortcoming need to be acknowledged and the langage used more careful.
Line 480: This patytern is consistent…
Line 485: need more info on distal sources etc.. see earlier comment
Line 495: remind us what CPI is?
Line 476-500: I think there is a bit of a jump between what the data show and the conclusions about riverine sources. This should be provided as a hypothesis rather than a firm conclusion. Temper the langage and acknowledge that there are weaknesses in your study design and that other processes may be at play (such as x or y).
Figure 8: use same orientation as Figure 1.
Page 21 first sentence: “dire consequences” to strong langage.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2587-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2587', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Jul 2025
reply
Review of Paradis et al. “Distribution and sources of organic matter in submarine canyons incising the Gulf of Palermo, Sicily: A multi-parameter investigation” (egusphere-2025-2587)
Synopsis
Paradis et al. presented a comprehensive study containing geochemical parameters (OC, TN, δ13C, δ15N, and Δ14C), biomarker signatures (proteins, carbohydrates, phytopigments, GDGTs, and n-alkyl lipids), and compound-specific δ13C analyses of surface sediments to assess the sources of OC deposited on the shelf and in the three major canyons in the Mediterranean Sea. A particularly interesting aspect of this study is the use of a wide of source-assignment methods to investigate the role of submarine canyons in transporting terrigenous OC across continental margins. However, due to the limited number of samples (total n=7), any observed differences should be interpreted with caution. While I have no major concerns, I offer several suggestions that could help improve the manuscript.
My specific comments are outlined below.
Line 16: add “, and” before “Δ14C”.
Lines 19-21: please specify which method was used to assess the contribution.
Line 23: It would be better to add “relatively” before “lowest”.
Line 30: Are you referring to the Arenella and Oreto Canyons, which are not connected to rivers? If so, could you explain the potential sources of terrigenous OC into these two canyons?
Lines 48-49: What about differences in marine primary production, which also influence the relative proportion of terrigenous OC.
Lines 72-73: distinguish between specific sub-pools of terrigenous OC (e.g., vegetation, soils, and fossil OC).
Lines 157-159: What is the carbonate content? Could it affect the mean grain size of the terrigenous sediments?
Line 216: the CPI index formulae is wrong, please correct it.
Line 224: rewrite the δ13CCH3 to δ13CMeOH and consider adding a sentence explaining how the δ13C value of HMW compounds (n>24) was calculated.
Table 1: please also include the reference for the marine end-member values.
Lines 275-293: What about the relative proportions of these OC classes based on OC content rather than sediment mass? They could provide insight into the reactivity of OC. Or is it already normalized to OC content?
Line 299: When discussing the concentration of each GDGT, please remember the data are semi-quantitative. It would be more appropriate to present relative abundances rather the absolute.
Figure 4: Specify if HMW FA include all compounds with C≥24 or only even-numbered ones?
Line 320: The CPI value is quite low, could please double-check the calculation? Even in highly degraded, sandy sediments, CPI values typically ranged between 4 and 5.5 (See Wei et al. (2025), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2025.122712)
Line 484: Are there any specific rivers?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2587-RC2
Data sets
Geochemical composition of surficial sediments in the Gulf of Palermo Sarah Paradis https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000738723
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
170 | 39 | 14 | 223 | 9 | 10 | 14 |
- HTML: 170
- PDF: 39
- XML: 14
- Total: 223
- Supplement: 9
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1