the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Ocean acidification alters phytoplankton diversity and community structure in the coastal water of the East China Sea
Abstract. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions and their continuous dissolution into seawater lead to seawater pCO2 rise and ocean acidification (OA). Phytoplankton groups are known to be differentially affected by carbonate chemistry changes associated with OA in different regions of contrasting physical and chemical features. To explore responses of phytoplankton to OA in the Chinese coastal waters, we conducted a mesocosm experiment in a eutrophic bay of the southern East China Sea under ambient (410 μatm, AC) and elevated (1000 μatm, HC) pCO2 levels. The HC stimulated phytoplankton growth and primary production during the initial nutrient-replete stage, while the community diversity and evenness were reduced during this stage due to the rapid nutrient consumption and diatom blooms, and the subsequent shift from diatoms to hetero-dinoflagellates led to a decline in primary production during the mid and later phases under nutrient depletion. Such suppression of diatom-to-dinoflagellate succession occurred with enhanced remineralization of organic matter under the HC conditions, with smaller phytoplankton becoming dominant for the sustained primary production. Our findings indicate that, the impacts of OA on phytoplankton diversity in the coastal water of the southern East China Sea depend on availability of nutrients, with primary productivity and biodiversity of phytoplankton reduced in the eutrophicated coastal water.
- Preprint
(1491 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1426 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 25 Jan 2026)
- CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5218', Li Gang, 31 Dec 2025 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 135 | 65 | 15 | 215 | 18 | 8 | 10 |
- HTML: 135
- PDF: 65
- XML: 15
- Total: 215
- Supplement: 18
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Reviewer Report
The authors present an interesting manuscript aimed at understanding the effects of OA (ocean acidification) on marine phytoplankton communities in coastal waters. Using surface water collected from highly eutrophic coastal region in the East China Sea, they performed an in situ mesocosm experiment to measure primary productivity, as well as phytoplankton community growth and composition. They observed the effects of OA on phytoplankton diversity and primary productivity depend on availability of nutrients. Since both phytoplankton diversity and biomass decreased under OA and nitrient-depleted conditions, the authors proposed that community diversity will be lost and primary production will decrease in the future ocean.
The premise of the study is of interest to the scientific community, as the effects of OA on marine phytoplankton remain controversy. The authors utilized in situ mesocosm experiment making the results straightforward and reliable. For these reasons, my comments on the manuscript are quite minor and based on the authors’ line numbers as follows:
Lines 26-27, as I understand it, and as shown in Figs. 5, 6, the smaller phytoplankton became dominant after the diatom-to-dinoflagellate succession and concurrently with enhanced organic matter remineralization, but this sentence looks like these three incidents happened simultaneously, please clarify.
Lines 59-61, Doesn’t this sentence describe the same thing (i.e., the availabilities of nutrient can modulate the effects of OA) as what’s described after line 66 ‘On the other hand….’?
Line 84, I am not in favor of the repeated mentions of Chinese coastal regions, shouldn’t the results of this work have some inplication that reflect a global perspective?
Lines 123-128, more information is needed on the nutrient analyses, specifically the actual methods used and the standard curve information. More importantly, does ‘0.45 mm’ refer to the diameter or pore size of the membrane?
Lines 139 and 299-301, What’s the point of measuring POC and PON in different size fraction? If 20 μm is the threshold of micro- and nano-sized phytoplankton, the discussion of the correlations between POC/PON in different size an phytoplankton species of corresponding size classes was not sufficient.
Line 162, lugol’s iodine or acidic lugol’s iodine? Was the statically time sufficient for cells sedimentation? The actual method should be described in more detail.
Line 176, TYPO: analyses.
Lines 190, 194 and elsewhere, the discription of ‘day’ and ‘Day’ should be consistent through the manuscript.
Line 267, Figure 4. It is unclear why primary production increased, yet primary productivity decreased? For example, from day 4 to day 6, primary production increased with the increasing Chl a, but primary productivity decreased.
Line 313, Fig 6, as I understand from the figure legend, did the author classifed diatoms and dinoflagellates as microphytoplankton, and classfied Cyanobacteria, Chlorophyta, Cryptophytes, Euglenophyta as nanophytoplankton? I disagree with the classification, since some diatoms and dinoflagellates are smaller than 20 μm, which is acknoledged by the author in lines 329-332. I admit that the phytoplankton groups mentioned as being small (Cyano, Chlo, Cryp, Eugl) are generally smaller than diatoms and dinoflagellates, but this statement, as well as the legend and caption in Fig. 6 should be clarified more carefully.
Lines 326-329, which shift was suppressed? Indeed, as seen from Figs. 5 c, S7 b, transition from diatoms to autotrophic dinoflagellates was suppresed. However, as shown from Fig. S8 b, elevated pCO2 only had a negative on community diversity after day 24. Before that, elevated pCO2 led to higher diversity under diatoms dominance and somehow compensated for the negative effects of subsequent reduced nutrient availability on community diversity (as described by the authors in lines 344-345 and 402-403). Therefore, I believe the authors should substantially revised this part of discussion.