Sinking particle fluxes and biological carbon pump efficiency in the Labrador Sea during a Phaeocystis bloom decline
Abstract. The Labrador Sea is a key region for carbon dioxide uptake characterized by deep mixing during winter that supplies nutrients to the upper water column and fuels extensive phytoplankton blooms in spring. Yet, the efficiency by which organic carbon is exported from surface waters during these blooms, as well as their contribution to carbon sequestration, remain poorly constrained. Here, we present an unprecedented number of measurements of sinking export fluxes (particulate organic carbon, POC; and biogenic silica, bSi) collected in the central Labrador Sea during a 2-week-long process study that observed the decline of a historically large Phaeocystis bloom in spring 2022. This Phaeocystis bloom was unusually large and highly productive, extending over more than half of the Labrador Sea for 6 weeks. During the late stages of the bloom, we found that POC fluxes from the base of the euphotic zone to 500 m were variable but overall moderate to high (average of 8 ± 5 mmol C m-2 d-1). Nevertheless, evidence of shallow POC flux remineralization combined with the fact that POC fluxes in the bloom were not higher than in a region sampled outside of the bloom (average of 13 ± 3 mmol C m-2 d-1) suggested a limited role of Phaeocystis in carbon export. Large (>51 μm) particles collected using large volume pumps presented relatively low bSi/POC ratios and, therefore, diatoms did not appear to have an important ballasting role of Phaeocystis-derived material. Using in situ net primary production (NPP) rates, we determined that 2 weeks after the peak of the bloom, the total amount of NPP that reached 100 m below the euphotic zone was only 6 %. However, 3 weeks after the peak of the bloom, the value had increased to 29 %. The observed change was driven primarily by a decline in NPP over the sampling period, as POC fluxes remained relatively constant. Using satellite-derived NPP from the peak of the bloom until its end, we obtained an overall biological carbon pump (BCP) efficiency of 6 % placing this Phaeocystis bloom as a low BCP efficiency system. We stress the importance of long-term observations of both NPP and POC export for estimating meaningful BCP efficiencies. The results presented in this study provide a foundation for comparisons with other datasets collected during this ship-based process study and autonomous platforms present in the area during and beyond this study. These future efforts will provide the opportunity to increase the observational period and further elucidate the mechanisms leading to the low BCP efficiency found during the decline of this Phaeocystis bloom in the Labrador Sea.
Review Roca-Marti et al. Sinking particle fluxes and biological carbon pump efficiency in the Labrador Sea during a Phaeocystis bloom decline
The paper describes and discusses the fate of a Phaeocystis bloom in the Labrador Sea in spring 2022, and impact on the biological carbon pump. The authors have a nice data set including bloom, late bloom and outlayer stations, and they have done a thorough job in methodological testing and discussing of premises on steady state for the models used, use of particles > 51 µm for the carbon estimates and stoichiometry. They also utilize a broader dataset to provide context to the observations, like remote sensing based primary production in the period before and during the field sampling to evaluate the efficiency of the biological carbon pump.
I like the paper and work, I find the approach and methods useful and well described, and it fits well with the scope of BG. The dataset and concept of comparative testing of export within and outside a Phaeocystis bloom region is novel – including impressing many profiles for Th-based carbon export, and the data are elegantly used in combination with net primary production and quantification of both carbon and BSi to address the potential impact of diatom-associated export during this Phaeocystis dominated bloom. The title is appropriate, the abstract reflects the content well, and the references are approriate.
There are some structural issues on placement of figures and a chapter on earlier studies in the region that could be improved. A few places the methodology needs some improved clarification, but in general is this a well written paper, with clear ideas and methods. The assumptions are valid and clearly outlined, and the conclusions are substantial and sound and based on the results. See specific comments for more details.
This is obviously one of several papers from the expedition, and there are several references to publications in prep. These are hard to access, but may be in a more progressed state at the time of publication. A few places some more info could perhaps be provided. The figures are informative and well described in the Figure caption, and Tables provide valuable information on relevant numbers. A table including sampled depths could be useful (in Suppl.). The supplementary material is useful and works well as Suppl.
More specific comments:
Figures (2,) 3, 4 and 5 are placed in the Material and methods section, but are just briefly referred to here, while they are described and discussed more in detail in the results chapter. Suggest to move them there to ease the reading of the results sections (e.g Fig. 3 in 3.1, Fig. 4 in 3.2).
L116: Water was collected from six depths – which ones? A table in supplementary will do.
L119-120: type 1 water – please explain
Eq.1 and L142-143: perhaps my limited familiarity with these calculations, but unclear how at%xs refers to excess 13C atoms in either PC or DIC, when both PC and DIC are part of the equation
L151-163: the use of Chl a conc to calculate NPP is a bit confusing. Was this only for the central stations where NPP measurements were missing? Please clarify.
L156: Fluorometer profiles from the CTD – should this be fluorescence profiles?
L157-158: Since the Bertrand et al. paper is still in prep, it is hard to get the background for the non-corrected photochemical quenching related to a sub-chl max
L233: Similarly, is parts of method used for sampling marine snow catching deployments and processing referring to a Cisternas-Novoa et al. in prep. Please provide the most important information in this paper.
L375: Section 3.5 on the Comparison with other studies reads more like discussion than results to me. Suggest to move this to the Discussion section.
L418: 1 week – should be one week (spell out numbers <10)
L419: the Bertrand et al. in prep – can evt be a pers comm.?
L533-536: It is a valid and important point, but not new knowledge that NPP and export is separated in time by weeks – requiring a larger time scale to evaluate export efficiency. This is well done in the present paper, but I suggest acknowledging one or two of the earlier studies on this like Smetacek et al. 1984, and Kiørboe et al. 1996.
Smetacek V, Bodungen B, Knoppers B, Peinert R, Pollehne F, Stegmann P, Zeitzschel B. 1984. Seasonal stages characterizing the annual cycle of an inshore pelagic system. Rapp PV Reun Cons Int Explor Mer 183:126-135.
Kiørboe T, Hansen JLS, Alldredge AL, Jackson GA, Passow U, Dam HG, Drapeau DT, Waite A, Garcia CM. 1996. Sedimentation of phytoplankton during a diatom bloom: Rates and mechanisms. Journal of Marine Research 54:1123-1148.