Controls of the Latitudinal Migration of the Brazil-Malvinas Confluence described in MOM6-SWA14

Laureanti, Nicole C.; Curchitser, Enrique; Hedstrom, Katherine; Adcroft, Alistair; Hallberg, Robert; Harrison, Matthew J.; Dussin, Raphael; Chou, Sin Chan; Nobre, Paulo; Giarolla, Emanuel; Camayo, Rosio

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-3823

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3823

Preprints

23 Oct 2025

| 23 Oct 2025

Controls of the Latitudinal Migration of the Brazil-Malvinas Confluence described in MOM6-SWA14

Nicole C. Laureanti, Enrique Curchitser, Katherine Hedstrom, Alistair Adcroft, Robert Hallberg, Matthew J. Harrison, Raphael Dussin, Sin Chan Chou, Paulo Nobre, Emanuel Giarolla, and Rosio Camayo

Abstract. The distribution and productivity of nutrients, eddy formation, energy dissipation, and other ocean properties are influenced by the variability of Western Boundary Currents (WBCs). In the Southwestern Atlantic, the key features are the Brazil-Malvinas Confluence (BMC) and the North of Brazil Current (NBC). This work investigates them using a 20-year high-resolution ocean model simulation with the Modular Ocean Model version 6 (MOM6) 1/14° configuration of the Southwestern Atlantic (SWA). The results reveal a significant deviation in the path and trends of volume transport of the WBCs over the decades. The Brazil-Malvinas Confluence (BMC) region gets saltier and warmer, with increased kinetic energy and transport. Although transport trends in the NBC indicate reduced transport, this results from weaker wind forcing, which reduces the mixing layer depth in the simulation and the subsurface transport in the region. The warming in the Brazil Current region triggers a stronger southward flow, resulting in a southward shift of 0.93° ± 0.08 of latitude/decade in the BMC separation. Working against this flow, the propagation of the Kelvin Waves from the Eastern Pacific Ocean induces a northern shift of the BMC, revealed by topographic Kelvin waves in the spectral analysis. This Pacific-Atlantic inter-basin relation indicated here underscores the importance of propagating Pacific disturbances into the region to maintain the positioning of the BMC and its properties under a warming Atlantic Ocean.

Received: 06 Aug 2025 – Discussion started: 23 Oct 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

Nicole C. Laureanti, Enrique Curchitser, Katherine Hedstrom, Alistair Adcroft, Robert Hallberg, Matthew J. Harrison, Raphael Dussin, Sin Chan Chou, Paulo Nobre, Emanuel Giarolla, and Rosio Camayo

Status: final response (author comments only)

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-3823', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Nov 2025
General comments:
In this paper, the authors investigate the variability of the Southwestern Atlantic circulation, focusing on the western boundary currents. Their analysis is based on a high-resolution simulation (1/14º) MOM6 of 20 years and validated. Their results include properties and transports, the shift of the Brazil-Malvinas Confluence separation, and the role of inter-basin interactions.
Overall, the paper is well-structured, well-written, and well-referenced, and I truly think this is a relevant study for GMD.
My comments are mainly oriented to improve the presentation of the results, particularly the figures, along with a few suggestions to improve the text and discussion of the results.
Specific comments on figures:
Figure 1. I suggest changing the blue color, as it makes the label “Amazon” difficult to read. Additionally, increasing the latitude and longitude numbers, as well as the colorbar numbers and title, would improve overall readability.

Figure 8. The years on the x-axis are hard to read. Rotating them 45º would enhance clarity. Consider including the BMC and trend within the corresponding subplot for easier interpretation.

Minor comments and typos:
Line 19. The acronym Brazil-Malvinas Confluence (BMC) is defined twice. I recommend removing the second occurrence in the abstract.

Line 21. I suggest changing “mixing layer depth” to Mixed Layer Depth (MLD) to maintain consistency with the rest of the manuscript.

The term Kelvin wave(s) appears with both uppercase and lowercase “w” throughout the text. I recommend choosing one for consistency.

Line 119. The acronym GLORYS is not defined. Moreover, the reanalysis is referred to inconsistently as Glorys, GLORYS12s, GLORYS12, GLORYS 12v1, GLORYS12 v1. I recommend standardizing the notation for consistency, while keeping distinctions when referring to different resolutions of the product.

Line 198. The sentence currently repeats “during winter”. I suggest rewriting it to avoid this redundancy.

In section 3.1.2. Are the authors referring to temperature? Or is it potential temperature?

Line 276. A hyphen is missing. It should be: meso- and large-scale circulation.

Line 303. The acronym SSH should be defined.

Line 340. The statement “Different Authors indicated that both currents can widely vary their transport from 5 to 88 Sv”. Should be reconsidered. According to Goni et al. (2011), “Most recently, it has been reported that the transport of this current varies widely between 10 and 88 Sv [Garzoli, 1993;Peterson, 1992].” Please verify and update citation.

Line 404. There is a missing space in 22Sv.

Lines 407 and 436. The authors refer to Figures 8a and 8b, but the subplots in Figure 8 are not labeled. I recommend either adding the letters to the subplots or removing the references to “a” and “b” in the text.

Line 409. The sentence “With maximum latitude at 5ºN”. I suggest adding “With a” to improve readability.

Lines 413-417. These sentences could benefit from improved clarity and consistency in terminology. Currently, wind speed and wind intensity are used interchangeably, which may confuse readers. Additionally, the discussion of reduced wind speed as a limiting factor is somewhat repetitive. I recommend combining the explanation of the cause (low wind speed) with its consequences (reduced wind stress, weaker eddy formation, and decreased NBC retroflection transport) into one sentence.

Line 436. The acronym North Brazil Current (NBC) does not need to be defined here, as it has already been introduced earlier.

Major comments:
Lines 215-217. The authors state that the unbalanced freshwater influence is primarily local and does not lead to a general bias. However, I observe differences in the mixed layer depth, particularly in the Brazil-Malvinas Confluence. I suggest including a plot of the MLD bias in Figure 2 to provide additional support for this claim. Furthermore, in the following section, the authors note critical differences in MLD compared to observational data.

Line 414. It would be interesting if the authors could demonstrate this: “This represents the lack of mixing, which can be either due to the influence of the wind speed (Figure 5c) or the use of a z-coordinate vertical structure.” It would improve clarity and support the conclusions (line 533) if the authors explicitly quantify or visually demonstrate the relative contributions of each factor.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3823-RC1
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC1', Nicole C. Laureanti, 02 Feb 2026
  Dear reviewer,
  On behalf of the co-authors, we thank you for your thoughtful comments on our manuscript. We believe it brought a good perception of what can be improved. You can read below our reply to your comments, and you’ll see the modifications marked in the text.
  Specific comments on figures:
  Figure 1. I suggest changing the blue color, as it makes the label “Amazon” difficult to read. Additionally, increasing the latitude and longitude numbers, as well as the colorbar numbers and title, would improve overall readability.
  
  Response: Thanks for the suggestions. We have implemented the color and letter size modifications you suggested, and we hope they improve readability now.
  Figure 8. The years on the x-axis are hard to read. Rotating them 45º would enhance clarity. Consider including the BMC and trend within the corresponding subplot for easier interpretation.
  
  Response: Thanks for the observations. We evaluated, and the rotation indeed looks better, but the legend is still at the end of the figure, as we think it is easier for the reader to find there.
  Minor comments and typos:
  Line 19. The acronym Brazil-Malvinas Confluence (BMC) is defined twice. I recommend removing the second occurrence in the abstract.
  
  Response: That is fixed now. Sorry for missing this.
  Line 21. I suggest changing “mixing layer depth” to Mixed Layer Depth (MLD) to maintain consistency with the rest of the manuscript.
  
  Response: We agree that would be a better definition. Thanks for the comment.
  The term Kelvin wave(s) appears with both uppercase and lowercase “w” throughout the text. I recommend choosing one for consistency.
  
  Response: We agree with the comment and made the fix.
  Line 119. The acronym GLORYS is not defined. Moreover, the reanalysis is referred to inconsistently as Glorys, GLORYS12s, GLORYS12, GLORYS 12v1, GLORYS12 v1. I recommend standardizing the notation for consistency, while keeping distinctions when referring to different resolutions of the product.
  
  Response: That is a good point, thanks for the comment, we fixed the reference to GLORYS12v1 and took it as the standard.
  Line 198. The sentence currently repeats “during winter”. I suggest rewriting it to avoid this redundancy.
  
  Response: Thanks for the attention here. We removed the additional sentence
  In section 3.1.2. Are the authors referring to temperature? Or is it potential temperature?
  
  Response: It is the potential temperature. We have specified in the first sentence to make it clear.
  Line 276. A hyphen is missing. It should be: meso- and large-scale circulation.
  
  Response: Indeed, thanks for the comment.
  Line 303. The acronym SSH should be defined.
  
  Response: We are adding this at line 307.
  Line 340. The statement “Different Authors indicated that both currents can widely vary their transport from 5 to 88 Sv”. Should be reconsidered. According to Goni et al. (2011), “Most recently, it has been reported that the transport of this current varies widely between 10 and 88 Sv [Garzoli, 1993;Peterson, 1992].” Please verify and update citation.
  
  Response: During the research, various mean transport values for the currents were identified, but according to Goni et al. (2011), the variability ranges from 10 to 88 Sv. We made the amendment in the text according to Goni et al., (2011).
  Line 404. There is a missing space in 22Sv.
  
  Response: That's fixed.
  Lines 407 and 436. The authors refer to Figures 8a and 8b, but the subplots in Figure 8 are not labeled. I recommend either adding the letters to the subplots or removing the references to “a” and “b” in the text.
  
  Response: We believe it’s better to add the letter to the subplots, as they refer to different accountable values that need distinction. Figure 8 is updated with this adjustment.
  Line 409. The sentence “With maximum latitude at 5ºN”. I suggest adding “With a” to improve readability.
  
  Response: Yes, we believe that sounds better. We made the adjustment in the sentence that is on line 416 in the new version of the paper.
  
  Lines 413-417. These sentences could benefit from improved clarity and consistency in terminology. Currently, wind speed and wind intensity are used interchangeably, which may confuse readers. Additionally, the discussion of reduced wind speed as a limiting factor is somewhat repetitive. I recommend combining the explanation of the cause (low wind speed) with its consequences (reduced wind stress, weaker eddy formation, and decreased NBC retroflection transport) into one sentence.
  
  Response: We had the chance to rephrase this paragraph to ease the understanding. This is lines 417-425 in the updated manuscript.
  
  Line 436. The acronym North Brazil Current (NBC) does not need to be defined here, as it has already been introduced earlier.
  
  Response: Agreed, that was removed at this line.
  Major comments:
  Lines 215-217. The authors state that the unbalanced freshwater influence is primarily local and does not lead to a general bias. However, I observe differences in the mixed layer depth, particularly in the Brazil-Malvinas Confluence. I suggest including a plot of the MLD bias in Figure 2 to provide additional support for this claim. Furthermore, in the following section, the authors note critical differences in MLD compared to observational data.
  
  Response: We agree that the writing needs revision as it has created confusion. The sentence offers a very broad understanding of the outcome. The model provides a biased version when compared to observations. This is especially the case in Figure 2 near the coastline, as the observations provide a low-resolution MLD field with less information in this region. We believe it will increase the sensitivity of the result if we reformulate the sentence from:
  The results indicate that the amount of freshwater on the surface and the lower density contribute to less mixing in shallower depths. The similarity of the results far from the coast, especially MLD and density patterns, indicates that this unbalanced freshwater influence is primarily local at the delta of the Amazon and La Plata Rivers and does not lead to a general bias.
  to:
  The results indicate that the amount of freshwater on the surface and the lower density contribute to less mixing in shallower depths. At higher depths, the similarity of the results, especially in MLD and density patterns, indicates that the unbalanced freshwater influences the appearance of local biases more strongly at the deltas of the Amazon and La Plata Rivers. However, there are still biases near the BMC and in tropical regions that may be due to other factors.
  Line 414. It would be interesting if the authors could demonstrate this: “This represents the lack of mixing, which can be either due to the influence of the wind speed (Figure 5c) or the use of a z-coordinate vertical structure.” It would improve clarity and support the conclusions (line 533) if the authors explicitly quantify or visually demonstrate the relative contributions of each factor.
  
  Response: This is indeed an interesting investigation. To pursue this, we made a simulation with a similar configuration using a different coordinate system called hybrid coordinates. We present the outcome in the new version of Figure 5. Due to time constraints, the hybrid simulation is smaller than the one with the initial z-coordinate, so the analysis period in this figure was reduced to 5 years (compared with 20 years initially considered). However, we could demonstrate with clarity that the range of bias in the vertical structure is highly dependent on the vertical discretization. We thank you for your suggestion. Adding this really improved the results to have this verification. We also added the previous figure as a supplementary figure, to serve as a comparison of the 5-year period mean and the 20-year period.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3823-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-3823', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Jan 2026

This study presents a high-resolution (1/14°) regional ocean simulation of the Southwestern Atlantic (SWA) using the Modular Ocean Model version 6 (MOM6) over a 20-year period (1997–2016). The primary objective is to investigate the variability and trends of the Western Boundary Currents (WBCs), specifically the Brazil-Malvinas Confluence (BMC) and the North Brazil Current (NBC).
The authors report a significant deviation in the volume transport trends over the decades. A key finding is the southward shift of the BMC separation at a rate of 0.93°±0.08 per decade, driven by warming in the Brazil Current region. Furthermore, the study identifies that the propagation of topographic Kelvin waves from the Eastern Pacific induces a northward shift in the BMC, acting as a counter-mechanism to the southward trend.
I support the publication with some comments (Minor/Major):
Text:
Lines 29 to 34: is not clear how the authors are presenting the work, I suggest reformulate these first sentences.
Line 46: I will suggest another term to replace “intercepted”, maybe just mention that the BC and the MC confluence at… and include some more citations of works that have study the confluence zone.
Line 47: include citations from Barré et al. 2006; Ferrari et al. 2017; Artana and Provost 2023, they have studied this region in terms of ocean dynamics and will give the authors some more ideas to explain clearer the confluence zone.
Line 50 and 51: Search for citations to support the sentence.
Line 193: did authors thought of performing and EOF analysis to find if there is a dipole?
Line 283 and lines 293 to 297: I will include more citations from recent works that also describe the MC and BC and their confluence using GLORYS12 and satellite data.
Lines 304 to 305: so then is the NBC the most prominent current? (lines 287). Explain clearer related to the preview statement in line 287.
Line 316: the variability depends on the dynamics the BMC is a confluence of 2 currents and the dynamic associated to this feature explains the high variability of the region. Search for more literature and explain better this concepts.
Line 346: support with citations related to bottom friction and bottom currents in the Argentine Basin, there are many works in the region.
Line 363: replace Glorys with GLORYS12 reanalysis.
Line 416: support with citations
Line 443 to 445: support with citations
Line 477: support with citations
Lines 482 and 483: This is an important result can you explain a bit more.
For the summary and conclusions if the authors accept the suggestions of new literature to be cited then this will enhance also the discussion.
Line 499: The maximum negative SST bias of 1.0°C is sufficiently good performance for forecasting ocean conditions. Why?
Figures:
Fig. 1: I think the river is in blue is Parana River and Rio de La Plata is the estuary in the discharge of Parana and Uruguay rivers.
Fig. 2: I suggest to use a thinner grid line is a bit to strong and difficult to appreciate the data, also will be good for the reader to plot more isolines to compare better the results from the model with the observation data.
Fig. 3: same grid problem as 2 and also some thinner isolines will help as well.
Fig. 4: I will suggest to remove the grid is making complicated to understand the results.
Fig. 6: maybe will be a good idea to show in the figures again the main currents and play a bit more with colors to enhance the MC and BC. Also grids thinner.
Fig. 8: for the years I suggest to put one year yes one year not they are too tight like it is.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3823-RC2
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', Nicole C. Laureanti, 02 Feb 2026
  Dear reviewer,
  Thanks for your time and patience in reviewing our manuscript. We believe your comments were very important to enhance the value of this study and make the scientific content more instructive to readers! Writing below, we are making our comments in blue under yours and hoping we satisfy your concerns and show a better, improved manuscript after reformulation.
  Text:
  Lines 29 to 34: is not clear how the authors are presenting the work, I suggest reformulate these first sentences.
  
  Response: The sentence was reformulated, we hope that the explanation is plain on how this work intends to contribute to science.
  Line 46: I will suggest another term to replace “intercepted”, maybe just mention that the BC and the MC confluence at… and include some more citations of works that have study the confluence zone.
  
  Response: Thanks for the suggestion, we rephrase the sentence now to: The BC and the Malvinas Current (MC) confluence at a southward region (Garzoli and Bianchi, 1987; Goni et al. 2011; Combes and Matano, 2014b; Barré et al. 2006; Ferrari et al. 2017; Artana and Provost 2023), forming the Brazil-Malvinas Confluence (BMC).
  Line 47: include citations from Barré et al. 2006; Ferrari et al. 2017; Artana and Provost 2023, they have studied this region in terms of ocean dynamics and will give the authors some more ideas to explain clearer the confluence zone.
  
  Response: Thank you for indicating the references. We amended the text and are also considering the citations.
  Line 50 and 51: Search for citations to support the sentence.
  
  Response: Thanks for pointing this out. We believe that the best citation for this sentence is Combes and Matano 2014b (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014GL062523) which shows some relation between the ACC and MC.
  Line 193: did authors thought of performing and EOF analysis to find if there is a dipole?
  
  Response: No, we actually performed EOFs for the entire basins, but for other purposes, rather than to distinguish the density cores found in the bias plot in Figure 3. We appreciate your interference here. The sentence was reviewed for clarity.
  Line 283 and lines 293 to 297: I will include more citations from recent works that also describe the MC and BC and their confluence using GLORYS12 and satellite data.
  
  Response: We believe the most recent findings from GLORYSS12 are consistent with the 38S location for the BMC. We added this information in line 383, the location in the text that we choose to precisely discuss the BMC. They are the following:
  Artana, C., Provost, C., Poli, L., Ferrari, R., Lellouche, J.-M.: Revisiting the Malvinas Current upper circulation and water masses using a highresolution ocean reanalysis. Journal of Geophysical Research. Oceans, 126 (6), doi.org/10.1029/2021JC017271, 2021
  Artana, C., Provost, C., Lellouche, J.-M., Rio, M.-H., Ferrari, R., & Sennéchael, N.: The Malvinas Current at the Confluence with the Brazil Current: Inferences from 25 years of Mercator Ocean reanalysis. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 124, 7178–7200. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JC015289, 2019.
  Lines 304 to 305: so then is the NBC the most prominent current? (lines 287). Explain clearer related to the preview statement in line 287.
  
  Response: Thank you for this observation. It is true that, despite being the WBC with the highest current speed in the Southwestern Atlantic, the NBC SSH standard deviation patterns don’t stand out. This suggests that in this region, the energy cascade may not drive local eddy formation. This is explained at the end of this paragraph with some additional information on lines 318-320
  Line 316: the variability depends on the dynamics the BMC is a confluence of 2 currents and the dynamic associated to this feature explains the high variability of the region. Search for more literature and explain better this concepts.
  
  Response: Corrected text: The high variability in the BMC occurs due to the physical processes related to the confluence of the BC and MC, which, near the Patagonian shelf, promote eddy formation due to the continental slope. As it shows fewer SSH deviations, the propagation of eddies in the NBC in this simulation is reduced. This suggests that the energy cascade primary process may not only drive eddy formation in this region but also other physical dissipative processes. The distinguished aspects found for the NBC and the BMC are covered in different sections in the following chapter, where this study evaluated the seasonal variability and trends.
  Line 346: support with citations related to bottom friction and bottom currents in the Argentine Basin, there are many works in the region.
  
  Response: We think a rephrasing was needed here. We wanted to compare the regional model development with ROMS and MOM6. In the ROMS outputs, from Combes and Matano (2014a), the authors reveal that the ACC transport and the bottom friction interfere the MC variability. In our case, the ACC transport is given through the reanalysis, so the only interference to the MC variability is the bottom friction, which is obtained in the model with the bottom parametrization in the ocean model.
  Line 363: replace Glorys with GLORYS12 reanalysis.
  
  Response: Corrected. Thanks for pointing this out.
  Line 416: support with citations
  
  Response: We emphasize in lines 425 and 426 the influence of wind on the currents’ eddy kinetic energy and vertical mixing with this reference: Song, H., Marshall, J., McGillicuddy, D. J., & Seo, H. (2020). Impact of current-wind interaction on vertical processes in the Southern Ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 125, e2020JC016046. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JC016046
  Line 443 to 445: support with citations
  
  Response: The additional supporting citations can be found in line 463 in the new version.
  Line 477: support with citations
  
  Response: You will find the citations and an improved description in lines 485-488.
  Lines 482 and 483: This is an important result can you explain a bit more.
  
  Response: Thanks for the comments. Considering this, we are presenting a better representation of the waves in the diagram with an auxiliary diagram in Figure 11. We think that would improve the understanding of the results.
  For the summary and conclusions if the authors accept the suggestions of new literature to be cited then this will enhance also the discussion.
  Line 499: The maximum negative SST bias of 1.0°C is sufficiently good performance for forecasting ocean conditions. Why?
  
  Response: In South America, global models usually present seasonal biases, as noted in Adcroft et al., (2019). This interfere in the distribution in the energy and could imply in major problem with the interactions with the atmosphere.
  Figures:
  Fig. 1: I think the river is in blue is Parana River and Rio de La Plata is the estuary in the discharge of Parana and Uruguay rivers.
  
  Response: Thanks for the observation, La Plata is indeed the estuary. In the plot, we show the Parana River and up north, the Paraguay River flowing in Bolivia. We renamed accordingly.
  Fig. 2: I suggest to use a thinner grid line is a bit to strong and difficult to appreciate the data, also will be good for the reader to plot more isolines to compare better the results from the model with the observation data.
  
  Response: Agreed, that was fixed in the new version. We hope the new design is more appealing
  Fig. 3: same grid problem as 2 and also some thinner isolines will help as well.
  
  Response: Agreed, that was fixed in the new version. We hope the new design is more appealing
  Fig. 4: I will suggest to remove the grid is making complicated to understand the results.
  
  Response: Agreed, we removed the horizontal grid
  Fig. 6: maybe will be a good idea to show in the figures again the main currents and play a bit more with colors to enhance the MC and BC. Also grids thinner.
  
  Response: We changed the colors displayed in Figures 6 and 7. We believe that already helped to observe the main features and currents in the domain.
  Fig. 8: for the years I suggest to put one year yes one year not they are too tight like it is.
  
  Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We plotted the years rotated, and hope it improves the readability.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3823-AC2

Nicole C. Laureanti, Enrique Curchitser, Katherine Hedstrom, Alistair Adcroft, Robert Hallberg, Matthew J. Harrison, Raphael Dussin, Sin Chan Chou, Paulo Nobre, Emanuel Giarolla, and Rosio Camayo

Data sets

MOM6-SWA14 Model outputs N. C. Laureanti et al. http://antares.esm.rutgers.edu:8080/thredds/catalog/MOM6/ESMG/SWA14/exp.010/catalog.html

Model code and software

MOM6 Ocean Model N. C. Laureanti et al. https://zenodo.org/records/17252994

Interactive computing environment

Model configuration and scripts N. C. Laureanti https://zenodo.org/records/17252554

Nicole C. Laureanti, Enrique Curchitser, Katherine Hedstrom, Alistair Adcroft, Robert Hallberg, Matthew J. Harrison, Raphael Dussin, Sin Chan Chou, Paulo Nobre, Emanuel Giarolla, and Rosio Camayo

Viewed

Total article views: 490 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
285	170	35	490	24	23

HTML: 285
PDF: 170
XML: 35
Total: 490
BibTeX: 24
EndNote: 23

Views and downloads (calculated since 23 Oct 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Oct 2025	79	22	8	109
Nov 2025	91	46	10	147
Dec 2025	42	45	8	95
Jan 2026	64	48	5	117
Feb 2026	9	9	4	22

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 23 Oct 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Oct 2025	79	22	8	109
Nov 2025	91	46	10	147
Dec 2025	42	45	8	95
Jan 2026	64	48	5	117
Feb 2026	9	9	4	22

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 467 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 467 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 06 Feb 2026

Short summary

This study investigates changes in the Southwestern Atlantic Ocean with a high-resolution ocean model. Particularly in the Brazil-Malvinas Confluence (BMC), it finds that the southward movement of the BMC, induced by the warming trends in the region, is balanced by northward flow from the Malvinas Current and Pacific Waves, affecting the Atlantic. The results also comment on disparities observed in the simulation, especially concerning the North Brazil Current, which impacts its evolution.


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