the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The influence of irradiance and interspecific differences on δ11B, δ13C and elemental ratios in four coralline algae complexes
Abstract. Coralline algae are a cosmopolitan group of important foundational species. The calcium carbonate they produce is increasingly being investigated as paleoenvironmental archives, as well as used to trace physiological responses of these important macroalgae to environmental change. Here we address the impact of light (irradiance) on 4 species complexes of coralline red algae including two morphologies; geniculate (branching) and non-geniculate (encrusting). The four complexes up-regulated their δ11B derived pHCF relative to seawater by 0.6 to 0.8 pH unit. δ11B was not measurably affected by varing irradiance despite evidence of increasing photosynthesis constrained by measurements of photophysiological parameters and δ13Cmineral. All complexes were able to maintain and elevate their pHCF relative to seawater for all treatments. Non-geniculate and geniculate complexes had distinct geochemical signatures of δ11B, δ13Cmineral and trace elements. These differences in geochemical signatures indicate a variety of calcification mechanisms exist within coralline algae.
We propose that different sources of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) are necessary to explain the observed δ13Cmineral. As geniculate species have higher photosynthetic activity (i.e. gross photosynthesis), the DIC sources allocated to calcification might be limited due to greater CO2 drawdown. This is supported by B/Ca and U/Ca ratios suggesting modulation of carbonate chemistry and especially lower DICCF in geniculate relative to non-geniculate complexes. DIC sources might come from direct CO2 diffusion or better recycling of metabolic CO2 which would explain the depleted δ13Cmineral. This strategy likely arises from the different energy needs of the organisms, with non-geniculate using relatively more energy to support calcification. We suggest the different calcification mechanisms between morphologies are linked to distinct photosynthetic activity strategies. While photosynthesis can provide energy to geniculate complexes to maintain their metabolic needs, their calcification may be limited by DIC. In contrast, non-geniculate forms, may benefit from more limited DIC drawdown due to lower photosynthetic activity, therefore maintaining higher internal DIC concentrations ultimately supporting faster calcification.
- Preprint
(1600 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(997 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 22 Sep 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2626', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Aug 2025
reply
Dear Dr. de Winter,
I was pleased to review manuscript # 2025-2626 “The influence of irradiance and interspecific differences on δ11B, δ13C and elemental ratios in four coralline algae complexes” by Guillermic and colleagues. The manuscript represents a significant contribution to the understandings of coralline algal geochemistry and calcification mechanisms, which are still poorly understood, especially given the growing number of identified species and the small research group that studies them. I agree with the authors that this study represents part of the groundwork required to validate the use of certain paleoenvironmental proxies. The major findings of insignificant effects of irradiance on δ11B, δ13C and elemental ratios in four coralline algae species, but also notable differences in DIC modulations between geniculate and non-geniculate species represents an important step towards understanding calcification mechanisms and biological processes among diverse coralline algal morphologies and species. The manuscript is well presented, clear, and data support the findings. Except for a few technical corrections, figures clearly demonstrate findings and support interpretations. It is rare that a paper includes this abundance of data collected and from multiple species. I recommend that the manuscript be accepted subject to minor corrections.I remain available if you have any questions.
Regards
--
Scientific signifiance: Excellent
Scientific quality: Excellent
Presentation quality: Good
Reviewer Recommendation: Accepted subject to minor revisions
* I would not be willing to review the revised manuscript.
--
General Comments:- I think the manuscript would benefit with a higher impact statement in the introduction and abstract on what the potentially risks are of not understanding irradiance impacts on calcification and geochemistry (e.g., erroneous paleoenvironmental reconstructions, linking the wrong parameter to calcification rates, providing conflicting data between different archives and creating doubt in paleo-environmental timeseries, and potentially even more importantly, environmental forecasts which allow us to put in place the proper environmental policies and protections, etc.). This would better elucidate the importance of the study.
Specific Comments:
- The point made on line 456 is very interesting: “These differences could be explained by the competition experienced by non-geniculate species to not be overgrown (e.g. turf algae) which must also rely on fast calcification while geniculate species must compensate for a more dynamic environment and prioritize other needs (e.g. grazing, repairs)”.
- A short description on morphologies and “behaviour” (e.g., rolling / mobile vs. encrusting / immobile) could be highlighted somewhere in the introduction to “foreshadow” this point.
- In the methods section 2.3., I was unclear about the temporal span represented by these algae samples that were powdered. Were spores deposited in the water column to cultivate the algae from scratch or were small crusts/branches collected and placed in tanks experiments? If the latter, provide growth rates of species and the time represented by each species / samples. Clarifying which growth layers are powdered for analysis would also be important to know (specific language on whole samples including epithallus and perithallus). Could different temporalities represented by the different species be responsible for some of the geochemical differences reported here?
- The introduction would benefit from a short theoretical explanation on boron, carbon, Li and Mg fractionation and how it is affected by seawater and calcification etc. Some of this information is found in the discussion and methods, but should be discussed in the introduction.
- Line 114: Ref (Gaillardet et al., 2001, Wang et al., 2008). Indicate if the more specific procedure is found in these papers. If not, add the time(s) of dissolution etc.
- In the introduction and discussion (maybe section 4.6), there is a missing statement on why this specific study was conducted. Something like, “In other words, previous studies such as Anagnostou et al. found […] but lacked understandings about […]. This understanding is critical because without it we risk […].” Or focus on Comeau et al. 2019’s findings and state something like “To further test Comeau et al’s hypothesis we investigated calcification differences between faster and slower growing coralline algae species using geochemical tracers.
- We need something clear that states how this paper builds on what is already known.
- In the discussion: a comment can be added about how internal pH has been studied here and additional studies on how coralline algae modulate pH CF, DIC CF calcification would be helpful to capture the limits of plasticity of photosynthesis and calcification modulation with increasing ocean acidification as to provide limits or warnings for policy application?
- Section 4.7: could you add that this study also supports that well defined DNA work might be required to calibrate geochemical data to the species for paleoenvironmental reconstructions?
- Figure 4: Provide a more elaborate description especially for panels A-D. Consider also adding a label to colour bar (axis)
- Figure 7: Explanation for larger symbols and error bars.
Technical Corrections:
- Line 70: “CCA” This is the only place where this acronym is used. It is also not explained anywhere
- Line 162: “However, Krieger et al. (2023) presented two significant relationships, one non-linear for Corallina and one non-linear for Spongites when the full dataset was taken into account”. Clarify if this refers to a relationship between net calcification and irradiance. If so, consider inversing the order of the two last sentences of the paragraph.
- Line 180 to 181, when possible, always add geniculate or non-geniculate adjectives before species to orient readers. You do this most of the time, but check throughout
- The two back-to-back sentences “There are no significant linear relationships between δ11B and irradiance (Tables S3 and S4). No significant linear or non-linear regression was observed between δ11B and irradiance” are a bit redundant
- Sometimes e.g., is used instead of the correct i.e., (e.g., lines 369 and 371 .
- Line 412: make sure to define OA (ocean acidification). I think this is the only place the acronym is used
- Figure 3: correct the alignment of B)
- I think the font of the axes and axes titles might also be smaller
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2626-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
222 | 23 | 11 | 256 | 16 | 8 | 16 |
- HTML: 222
- PDF: 23
- XML: 11
- Total: 256
- Supplement: 16
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 16
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1