the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Contributions of Transparent Exopolymer Particles by Specific Phytoplankton Groups in the Cosmonaut Sea, East Antarctic
Abstract. Transparent exopolymer particles (TEP) play a crucial role in marine carbon cycling. While phytoplankton are known to be the primary contributors to TEP, the impact of changes in phytoplankton community structure on TEP production in natural aquatic environments remains incompletely understood. This study employed multiple linear regression (MLR) modeling to quantify the contributions of two dominant phytoplankton groups, diatoms and haptophytes (primarily Phaeocystis antarctica), to TEP production in the surface waters of the Cosmonaut Sea, antarctica during the austral summer. Results demonstrate that in situ TEP production by each group can be estimated by scaling laboratory-derived theoretical values with an environmentally adjusted correction factor. These factors, primarily governed by phytoplankton community structure, reveal taxon-specific discrepancies between field and laboratory TEP production capacities. Notably, temperature, ammonium, and polysaccharide composition act as secondary modifiers of through indirect physiological effects. This study revealed that when the chlorophyll a concentration (Chl a) of P. antarctica exceeds 0.5 μg/L in the Cosmonaut Sea, its TEP production capacity surpasses that of diatoms at equivalent biomass levels – challenging the paradigm of diatom-dominated TEP contributions. In the research area, P. antarctica contributed 14.6–82.5 % (mean: 48.6 ± 15.4 %) to total TEP production, while diatoms contributed 31.0–112.0 % (mean: 55.1 ± 21.2 %; values >100 % reflect co-occurring group contributions). This highlights the pivotal role of P. antarctica in Southern Ocean carbon cycling and provides mechanistic insights for refining polar carbon budget models.
- Preprint
(2600 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 24 Dec 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3445', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Oct 2025
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ji Hu, 30 Oct 2025
reply
Dear Anonymous Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your positive and constructive feedback.
We are particularly encouraged by your recognition that “the topic is highly relevant” and that “this study is very valuable to Antarctic research.” It is gratifying to know that you found our work to be a meaningful contribution to understanding the potential impacts of climate change on phytoplankton composition and the carbon cycle in the Southern Ocean.
We also note your comment regarding the mathematical approach, specifically that it “relies on many assumptions and has limitations, however the limitations are well addressed in the manuscript.” We thank you for this acknowledgment. We strived to be transparent about the methodological framework, and we are pleased that our discussion of these limitations was found to be adequate.
In light of your supportive comments, we will ensure that the significance of our findings and their implications for Antarctic research are further emphasized in the final version of the manuscript, particularly in the Discussion and Conclusion sections.
Once again, we are grateful for your insightful review and your endorsement of our work.
Sincerely,
Dr. Hu, Ji
On behalf of all co-authors.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3445-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ji Hu, 30 Oct 2025
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3445', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Nov 2025
reply
Review of Manuscript Ref: egusphere-2025-3445
Title: Contributions of Transparent Exopolymer Particles by Specific Phytoplankton Groups in the Cosmonaut Sea, East Antarctic
The manuscript presents information on the contribution phytoplankton production of TEPs by phytoplankton in the Cosmonaut Sea, East Antarctic.
The authors applied multiple linear regression model to quantify the relative contributions of two major groups diatoms and haptophytes (~P. antarctica) during the austral summer. Their approach estimates values of TEP using theoretical values combined with an environmentally adjusted correction factor.
General comments:
The manuscript is clearly written, logically structured, and supported by well-conducted analyses.
The following points require clarification:
The authors mention the use of CHEMTAX (Line 156); however, it is not clear what specific analyses were performed with the software. If CHEMTAX was used, the authors should provide the initial input matrices as well as the final output matrices generated besides the model.
The results show a strong correlation between TEP and all phytoplankton groups. In fact, the findings suggest that the community composition—at least for these major groups—was influenced more by nutrient availability than by other environmental factors. This limitation when applying the same methodology in different conditions should be acknowledged explicitly in the manuscript.
Specific comments
Were chlorophyll b (indicative of chlorophytes) and zeaxanthin also detected?
Additionally, in Line 201, it is unclear how the presence of picoeukaryotes was assessed. If you did not analyze picoeukaryotes, please clarify this sentence accordingly.Line 237 please express salinity in psu units
Line 260, what are other groups? Cryptophytes and chlorophytes? specify
The station distribution or sampling lines should be shown in some of the figures—as dots or markers (e.g., in Fig. 2). This would help readers better visualize the spatial coverage of the sampling with hydrographic conditions etc.
Fig 4. Unclear if the results presented are from the pigment analyses after CHEMTAX or not
Fig. 5. Is the abundance of the phytoplankton groups in absolute abundance here or is relative abundance derived from pigments, unclear.
In Line 333, the absence of a significant relationship between MW% and phytoplankton abundance deserves further discussion. Lasternas & Agustí (2010) reported that the influence of ice-melt waters was negatively associated with diatoms, while P. pouchetii responded differently in the Arctic. A comparison between your results and previous findings from both the Arctic and Antarctic would strengthen the discussion and help with the observed patterns.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3445-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,886 | 52 | 22 | 1,960 | 18 | 27 |
- HTML: 1,886
- PDF: 52
- XML: 22
- Total: 1,960
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 27
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The study combines field data, empirical relationships and statistical modelling, in order to quantify the production of TEP by different phytoplankton groups in the Cosmonaut Sea, East Antarctica. The mathematical approach used relies on many assumptions and has limitations, however the limitations are well addressed in the manuscript.
The topic is highly relevant in the waters surrounding Antarctica, in which the phytoplankton composition could be altered by climate change with cascading implications on TEP production and carbon cycle, making this study is very valuable to Antarctic research.