the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Cross-canyon variability in zooplankton backscattering strength in a river-influenced upwelling area
Abstract. Zooplankton are a key component of food webs in upwelling systems. Their distribution is affected not only by mesoscale and climate dynamics, but also by topography and local currents. Submarine canyons that cut the continental shelf can act as conduits that transport deep nutrient-rich waters to shallower areas, promoting coastal biological productivity. Consequently, canyons facilitate the advection and accumulation of zooplankton. We aimed to describe the spatio-temporal variability in zooplankton distribution (from net samples and acoustic data) and their association with local currents, in a long and narrow submarine canyon located in the highly productive continental shelf of central Chile. The backscattering strength (Sv), a proxy for zooplankton biomass, was highly variable at a diurnal and spatial scale. Higher Sv and abundances were found during nighttime, following the classic diel vertical migration pattern. Zooplankton was not uniformly distributed within the canyon. In the surface and mid-depth layers, the canyon walls accumulated more zooplankton than the center of it, specially during the night. Within the canyon, the currents were asymmetrical and frequently changed direction. When the positive along-canyon current was more intense in the northern than in the southern slope, Sv was also higher to the north. This pattern was clearer in the section closer to the canyon head. We show that submarine canyons are highly dynamic environments where conditions can rapidly change and currents revert. Our findings suggest a possible mechanism for zooplankton retention based on the asymmetry of canyon currents and the changes in horizontal zooplankton distribution.
- Preprint
(13626 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2753 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 15 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-417', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Mar 2025
reply
General comments:
Díaz-Astudillo et al use a 26 hours of acoustic data over a submarine canyon to provide another example of the importance of these topographical features in marine ecosystems. I commend the authors on their work. I think that is an interesting contribution and I have no specific comments on the validity of the methods or results. Overall, I think the manuscript is good, but I have two major comments that I would like the authors to address.
Specific/Technical Comments:
1) A majority of the text is verbose, making the text difficult to get through. I would encourage the authors to read the text aloud, or move any extraneous text to the supplement (while important, the extensive description of the wind/upwelling conditions and accompanying figures at the start of the results comes to mind) to consolidate the text to make it easier for the reader to understand your main points. I would also suggest that the authors reduce the number of figures and should take the time to thoroughly proofread the manuscript (ie make sure all abbreviations are consistently used throughout and verbs are in the correct tense).
2) The authors put a lot of weight in their results, suggesting that they have discovered a potential fourth mechanism for submarine canyons facilitating food web focusing using just over a day's worth of data. I think both mechanisms 3 (interaction of DVM and abrupt topographies) and 4 (canyon mediated retention) are valid, but the fourth mechanism is not new. The Hudson et al 2022a, b papers (in MEPS [cited already] and JGR Oceans) illustrate both of these mechanisms. These mechanisms differ slightly than those described here (ie, the Antarctic krill are not being 'blocked' from migrating, or if they are, it was not considered as a focusing mechanism), but the overall concepts are the same. I would encourage the authors to combine these two mechanisms into a single section in which they describe how BBC retains zooplankton and then describe the ecological implications in a different section.
Furthermore, there is a lot of weight put on these results (ie, suggesting a "new" mechanism) on 26 hours worth of data, which included only 2 zooplankton samples. We always want more data, and I still think that the study is strong with this limited dataset, but I think this needs to be addressed in the discussion and should include a brief (~1 paragraph) discussion of the limitations of this study. You performed this sampling study after a period of upwelling winds; discuss how you might expect this mechanism to change under different conditions. What if there hadn't been upwelling winds prior to your sampling event? If this mechanism is tied to upwelling winds, is it truly a different mechanism?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-417-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
88 | 25 | 4 | 117 | 13 | 4 | 3 |
- HTML: 88
- PDF: 25
- XML: 4
- Total: 117
- Supplement: 13
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1