Biogeochemical and absorption properties of different size fractions of suspended matter in the western Spitsbergen fjords (Svalbard Archipelago) in the summer

Meler, Justyna; Stoń-Egiert, Joanna; Zabłocka, Monika

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2800

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2800

Preprints

28 Aug 2025

| 28 Aug 2025

Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Biogeosciences (BG).

Biogeochemical and absorption properties of different size fractions of suspended matter in the western Spitsbergen fjords (Svalbard Archipelago) in the summer

Justyna Meler, Joanna Stoń-Egiert, and Monika Zabłocka

Abstract. In the summers of 2022 and 2023, the variability of biogeochemical properties and light absorption of suspended particulate matter (SPM) was investigated in three western Spitsbergen fjords: Hornsund, Kongsfjorden, and Isfjorden. Analyses included SPM and its organic (POM) and inorganic (PIM) fractions, chlorophyll a (Tchla), and light absorption coefficients of total particles (a_p(λ)), phytoplankton (a_ph(λ)), and detritus (a_d(λ)). Measurements were conducted on unfractionated seawater and on size-fractionated samples obtained by cascade filtration, allowing the assessment of four particle classes: pico- (0.2–2 µm), ultra- (2–5 µm), nano- (5–20 µm), and micro-particles (20–200 µm).

The obtained results revealed clear differences in particle size contributions in the fjord waters. Ultra-particles dominated the total concentrations, contributing 39 %–56 % of SPM, POM, PIM, and Tchla. Pico-particles also had large contribution: 16 %–29 %, and micro- and nano-particles accounted for 12 %–17 %. The average POM/SPM ratio was 33 %, indicating the dominance of inorganic matter. However, organic contributions varied with size of particles: micro- and pico-particles contained more organic material (45 % and 43 %), while nano- and ultra-particles had lower proportions (38 % and 26 %).

Ultra-particles also played a leading role in light absorption at 443 nm, contributing 44 %–62 % to a_p(443), a_d(443), and a_ph(443). Pico-, nano-, and micro-particles contributed 24 %–28 %, 10 %–19 %, and 4 %–9 %, respectively. Considerable variability in absorption properties was observed across size classes. Since variability ranges often overlap for different size classes, this may prevent unambiguous identification of particle size class based on light absorption spectra.

Received: 12 Jun 2025 – Discussion started: 28 Aug 2025

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Justyna Meler, Joanna Stoń-Egiert, and Monika Zabłocka

Status: open (until 18 Oct 2025)

Post a comment Subscribe to comment alert

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-2800', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Aug 2025 reply
The authors investigate the biogeochemical composition and light absorption characteristics of SPM across four size fractions in three western Svalbard fjords during the summers of 2022 and 2023. The use of cascade filtration provides some insight into the distribution of SPM in fjordic systems, and the dataset may have value for the polar biogeochemical community as a seasonal snapshot sensitive to climate-driven change.
However, in its current form, the manuscript functions more as a data report than as a research article. It presents percentages and descriptive summaries without rigorous analysis, mechanistic interpretation, or clear hypotheses. As such, the study does not yet meet the standards for a publishable research contribution. Major revisions are required, including the addition of statistical and comparative analyses, stronger ecological and optical interpretation, and a clear positioning within the existing literature, to elevate this work from a dataset report to a substantive scientific article.
General comments are as follows:
First and foremost, the overall novelty of the manuscript is weak. The authors must articulate more clearly how this dataset provides new insights into Arctic size-fractionated optics and biogeochemistry, rather than simply reporting percentage contributions. Without methodological strengthening, statistical rigor, and broader contextualization, the study risks being perceived as a limited dataset report rather than a substantive scientific contribution.

The Introduction is currently too weak to guide readers toward the purpose of the study. It provides minimal background, insufficient literature context, and lacks a clear articulation of the knowledge gap. As written, readers cannot easily understand what scientific question this paper seeks to address or why it matters. The stated aims are descriptive (“to determine the contribution of…”) rather than hypothesis-driven, and there is no strong link between the particle size–resolved measurements and the broader ecological or optical processes in fjord systems. Overall, the Introduction requires substantial revision to provide context, define the gap, and present clear, hypothesis-driven objectives.

A major limitation lies in the underspecified sampling design. Critical details such as sampling depth, instrumentation, replication strategy, tidal or glacial influences, and spatial gradients within fjords are not reported. Without this information, it is impossible to assess the representativeness of the dataset or the robustness of the derived patterns. Similarly, no statistical tests are presented to determine whether contributions of different size classes are significantly distinct, or whether differences exist among fjords or between years. This omission reduces the study to a purely descriptive account rather than a quantitative analysis.

The stated aim “to capture the greatest possible optical diversity of fjord waters” in Line 161 is not supported by the sampling design. The dataset consists of limited snapshot measurements from two summer campaigns, which cannot adequately represent the strong seasonal and interannual variability known in Svalbard fjords. Optical and biogeochemical properties in these systems are highly dynamic, influenced by spring blooms, glacial meltwater pulses, and autumn mixing, none of which are captured here. As a result, the claim of covering “the greatest possible optical diversity” is overstated and should be substantially tempered. The authors should acknowledge this limitation clearly and frame their dataset as a restricted summer snapshot rather than a comprehensive representation of fjord optical diversity.

The manuscript repeatedly refers to a separate paper for detailed explanations of sample analyses. While cross-referencing related work is acceptable, the current paper must remain methodologically self-contained. Readers should not have to consult another publication to understand how the measurements were obtained, processed, or validated. At minimum, the authors need to provide concise but sufficient descriptions of key analytical methods (e.g., cascade filtration procedure, absorption measurements, organic/inorganic determinations), including potential uncertainties and limitations. Without this, the study is not reproducible or assessable on its own merits. A brief summary of the essential methodological details should therefore be included directly in the present manuscript, even if a companion paper contains additional depth.

The interpretation of results is also weak. The dominance of ultra-particles is repeatedly emphasized, but no mechanistic explanation is provided. The discussion mainly restates percentages rather than linking particle distributions to processes such as fjord circulation, glacial meltwater input, seasonality, or primary production dynamics.

The manuscript is further weakened by its limited engagement with existing literature. Several studies have examined size-fractionated SPM and absorption in other polar and temperate environments, yet the authors do not convincingly explain how their results advance understanding beyond what is already known. The main conclusion—that mid-sized particles dominate bulk properties—is not surprising and risks being seen as incremental without stronger comparative analysis or conceptual framing. Similarly, the ecological implications remain underdeveloped. If absorption is dominated by particles smaller than 5 µm, what does this mean for fjord light climate, primary productivity, or biogeochemical cycling? These connections must be drawn explicitly.

Reply
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2800-RC1

Justyna Meler, Joanna Stoń-Egiert, and Monika Zabłocka

Viewed

Total article views: 1,086 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
1,062	19	5	1,086	8	8

HTML: 1,062
PDF: 19
XML: 5
Total: 1,086
BibTeX: 8
EndNote: 8

Views and downloads (calculated since 28 Aug 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2025	343	6	5	354
Sep 2025	719	13	0	732

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 28 Aug 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2025	343	6	5	354
Sep 2025	719	13	0	732

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,085 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,085 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 18 Sep 2025

Short summary

We present a variability of absorption properties by different size fractions of particles suspended in the Spitsbergen Fjords waters in the summer season. The light absorption coefficient by all suspended particles, detritus and phytoplankton was determined for four size fractions: pico, ultra, nano and micro-particles. We have shown the proportions of particles from the size classes in the total absorptions, and we have found that dominant contribution had ultra-particles.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0