the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A Novel Approach to Estimate Carbon and Nitrogen Flux from In Situ Optics: Application to Cyclonic Eddies off the Cape Verde Islands
Abstract. Mesoscale eddies are pervasive in the global ocean and are suggested to play a significant role in enhancing carbon export from the surface to the deep ocean. However, their dynamic nature and associated challenges of in-situ sampling have limited direct measurements of carbon flux within these features, leaving their contribution to carbon export uncertain. In-situ optical devices offer a promising solution by providing high-resolution data on particle abundance and size distribution (PSD) within eddies, both vertically and horizontally. Yet, converting PSD data into reliable carbon flux estimates is particularly challenging in dynamic features like eddies, and is further complicated by the need to account for key factors regulating carbon export. To address this, we present a novel mechanistic framework that optimally integrates PSD data with flux measurements, settling velocities and respiration rates of in-situ collected aggregates, together with water temperature and oxygen concentration to estimate both particulate carbon and nitrogen fluxes in the water column. This framework tackles primary challenges by incorporating contributions from suspended particles, size-dependent sinking velocities, and the degradation rates of settling particles with depth. Applied to a multi-instrument dataset from a high-resolution survey of eddies off the Cape Verde Islands, the presented framework reveals distinct funnel-shaped flux patterns for particulate organic carbon and nitrogen, with a twofold enhancement of flux within the examined cyclonic eddy. Furthermore, it identifies lower carbon-to-nitrogen ratios in settling organic matter at the deep eddy core, indicating the transport of fresher organic matter to the deep sea. These findings provide new insights into eddy-driven carbon export, highlighting the roles of settling velocity, water temperature, and oxygen concentration in shaping carbon flux and organic matter stoichiometry. While observed in a single eddy, this doubling of carbon flux underscores the potential for mesoscale eddies to locally enhance carbon export and, given their widespread occurrence, contribute significantly to the ocean's capacity to sequester atmospheric CO2.
- Preprint
(2436 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 02 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-347', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Mar 2025
reply
Review of "A Novel Approach to Estimate Carbon and Nitrogen Flux from In Situ Optics: Application to Cyclonic Eddies off the Cape Verde Islands" by Moradi and co-authors.
The authors describe field observations of sinking particle fluxes and its modeling from particle imagery using data from the Cape Verde Islands both inside and outside of cyclonic eddies. They introduce two methods for modeling sinking particle fluxes from in situ particle imagery to model POC and PON fluxes and their characteristics. They show a two-fold increase in flux inside cyclonic eddy compared with sites outside.
Several issues preclude the publication of this paper at this time. First, there seems to be a significant error in the formulation of the model used in their second method for assessing sinking POC/PON fluxes. This issue must be reconciled before this paper can be considered for publication. I also have a couple suggestions about the first method as well. Second, the paper ignores uncertainty in the modeling performed, making it impossible to tell how robust any of the methods are. Third, I was unclear of the paper's intent. Is it a methods paper or is it about the roles of eddies on sinking particle fluxes? This needed to made clear from the onset (title, abstract and intro) and this was not accomplished. Last, the paper needed a good deal of editorial help before it was submitted. There were many writing and presentation issues that made this paper very hard to review. I do wish I could be more positive in this recommendation as I think there are several interesting analyses presented.
First, there were several methodological issues and omissions that need to be reconciled and missing analyses need to be included. Importantly, there appears to be a mistake in the formulation of the second method for assessing sinking POC/PON fluxes. Equations 4 & 5 (and the text before that) all state that the carbon content at depth should decreases linearly in time due to remineralization processes, implying that at some time the CarbonMass would be negative. This is incorrect. Typically, the loss of mass due to a first order decay process is modeled as...
CarbonMass = InitialCarbonMass * exp(-DecayRate * Time)
This is fundamental and the analysis presented needs to be entirely reworked. After realizing that there is an important error, it seemed pointless to spend more time addressing the results from this method.
Further, the comparison of the UVP and gel trap spectra could be very interesting. However, all what is presented are the one-to-one coefficients from the fits (Figure 7), and it is unclear what this represents. More analysis is needed here and it would be easy. For example, it would be good to know if the concentration of sinking particles seen by the gel traps is always less than the suspended seen by the UVP (taking into account uncertainties in the method too!). Also, what is the fraction of sinking to suspended particles, what its dependence on size would be, etc. These obvious results are missing and should be included in a revised manuscript.
Second, the paper ignores uncertainty in the modeling performed, making it impossible to tell how robust any of the methods are. The model parameters are developed using least squares fits and it is straight forward to estimate their confidence levels. All through the paper, the model fit parameters are reported to the 5th or some 6th digit, which is way more precision than Any revision of this paper needs uncertainties properly calculated and reported AND their propagation to final calculations.
Last, the paper was very difficult to read and review. Part of it was overall construction. The paper does not lead the reviewer through the story effectively. Not sure what the point was. The introduction should lay that path and that was a mess. Some of that was in the discussion. I found myself guessing what the point of the paper was. At the next level down, paragraphs need to focus on a single topic with a useful topic sentence that describe the goal of the paragraph. What was the hardest was the lack of polish on the paper. Many things were hard to figure out. For example, the acronym "SDPF" is used multiple times starting on page 7 before it is defined on page 11. There are many other examples that made this tough to review. Again, I wish I could be more positive in this recommendation, but the paper needs some serious attention to details that I know the authors are capable of.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-347-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
85 | 15 | 5 | 105 | 5 | 4 |
- HTML: 85
- PDF: 15
- XML: 5
- Total: 105
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 37 | 31 |
Germany | 2 | 16 | 13 |
France | 3 | 11 | 9 |
China | 4 | 10 | 8 |
undefined | 5 | 7 | 5 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 37