The role of cyclonic eddies in the detachment and separation of Loop Current eddies

Larrañaga, Marco; Jouanno, Julien; Chassignet, Eric P.; Durante, Giovanni; Ma, Ilkyeong; Sheinbaum, Julio; Renault, Lionel

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-5574

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5574

Preprints

20 Nov 2025

| 20 Nov 2025

The role of cyclonic eddies in the detachment and separation of Loop Current eddies

Marco Larrañaga, Julien Jouanno, Eric P. Chassignet, Giovanni Durante, Ilkyeong Ma, Julio Sheinbaum, and Lionel Renault

Abstract. The Loop Current (LC) and its associated eddies, known as Loop Current Eddies (LCEs), are key oceanic features in the Gulf of Mexico. Using a statistical analysis of 29 years of satellite altimeter data (1993–2021), we show that more than half of the LCEs that detach from the LC reattach within 30 days and that only 42 % truly separate from the LC and move westward in the Gulf. Our observational analysis also shows that i) before a detachment can occur, the LC needs to extend far enough north in the Gulf to reach the Mississippi fan (∼27.5° N); ii) the ratio of separations to reattachments depends on latitude, with detachments being more prone to reattach if they occur south of 25° N and to separate if they occur north of 25° N; and iii) cyclonic eddies are consistently present during the detachment process, with one cyclonic eddy on the eastern side of the LC if the LCE is to reattach and one cyclonic eddy on each side of the LC if the LCE is to separate. In the latter case, the co-occurrence of eastern and western cyclonic eddies in the LC bottleneck zone forms a large cyclonic structure. This large cyclonic structure is often observed during separation events, and when it is absent, LCEs are more likely to reattach, indicating a potential role in modulating the LC extension into the Gulf of Mexico. Sometimes, it can restrict LC growth on time scales of several months. The observed associations between cyclonic eddies and LCE detachments provide a statistical framework that could help anticipate separation events.

Received: 10 Nov 2025 – Discussion started: 20 Nov 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

Preprint (PDF, 10989 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (10989 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

10 Mar 2026

| Highlight paper

The role of cyclonic eddies in the detachment and separation of Loop Current eddies

Marco Larrañaga, Julien Jouanno, Eric P. Chassignet, Giovanni Durante, Ilkyeong Ma, Julio Sheinbaum, and Lionel Renault

Ocean Sci., 22, 821–841, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-22-821-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/os-22-821-2026, 2026

Short summary Co-editor-in-chief

Marco Larrañaga, Julien Jouanno, Eric P. Chassignet, Giovanni Durante, Ilkyeong Ma, Julio Sheinbaum, and Lionel Renault

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5574', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Jan 2026

General comments
In this manuscript, the authors use satellite altimetry observations of the Loop Current (LC) and of ocean eddies to analyze the role of cyclonic eddies in the detachment and separation of LC Eddies. They find that temporary detachments are more frequent as they happen south of the Gulf, as opposed to final separations that are more frequent in the north. They also find that cyclonic eddies tend to be present to the east of the LC in temporary detachment cases, and on both sides of the LC in final separation cases. Finally, they find that the merging of these two cyclonic eddies leads to a large cyclonic eddy that can block the northward extension of the LC.
This is a very nice study, and I enjoyed reading the manuscript. It is generally well written and presents very interesting results that provide a very solid background for analyzing future LC detachment/separation cases. I think the manuscript would benefit from discussing some of its results in relation to previously published results that I believe are relevant to the present study. I also think some aspects need to be clarified. Please see the specific comments below for more details.

Specific comments
Some of the results presented here nicely complement previously published results. For example, Le Henaff et al. (2014) found that cyclonic eddies along the Campeche Bank tend to be observed immediately after a detachment or separation of an LC Eddy, which suggested that, since such eddies are involved in the pinching off of LC Eddies (Zavala-Hidalgo et al., 2003), they could only do so after the LC Eddy reattaches to the retracted LC. This is consistent with the present study, which demonstrates that temporary detachments are dominant in the southern part of the basin, meaning that LC Eddies frequently re-attach to the LC there. Since the present study also demonstrates that such eddies along the Campeche Bank tend to be involved in the final separation of a LC Eddy, this suggests that there is a typical sequence starting with the initial, temporary detachment of an LC Eddy, under the influence of a cyclonic eddy on the eastern side of the LC (based on the present study), followed by the formation of a cyclonic eddy on the western side of the LC, which can later be involved in the final separation of the LC Eddy. Such a sequence is consistent with the modeling results from Yang et al. (2023), who found that, during a 2010 LC Eddy shedding sequence, a cyclonic eddy along the Campeche Bank forms only in simulations in which the pre-existing cyclonic eddy on the eastern side of the LC is sufficiently intense to lead to an LC Eddy detachment (and independently from the boundary conditions from the Caribbean Sea). Results from the present study thus suggest that such a teleconnection between the initial presence of a cyclonic eddy on the eastern side of the LC and the later formation of a cyclonic eddy along the Campeche Bank might be quite common. I think it would be nice that these ideas are discussed in the manuscript.
In this context, regarding the role of cyclonic Caribbean eddies discussed in the manuscript, which is also important as illustrated in the study, it is possible that the timing of such eddies matters: a cyclonic anomaly propagating from the Caribbean Sea to the southern Gulf at the time of the initial LC Eddy detachment might find favorable conditions for intensification or growth (allowing it to be detected by current observing platforms), whereas it might not intensify otherwise.
Regarding Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8: the captions mention that these composites are for separation cases, but the manuscript mentions that these figures include both reattachment and separation events (l. 165). This needs to be clarified, as some analyses in the text would not be possible if these figures merge both types of events (l. 175-177, l. 205-206).
In the initial analysis of Figures 1 and 2, point 3 (l. 133-134): I am not sure I fully understand the reasoning here. Can the authors better explain this result? Also, the equivalence between an 1800 km length and the distance to the Mississippi Fan is only mentioned in the summary and discussion, later in the manuscript.

Technical corrections
- l. 23: Shay et al. (2000) could also be cited here.
- l. 62: I suggest “tends to form” instead of “forms”. Otherwise, there would not be cases in which this does not happen, mentioned in the following sentence.
- l. 97: Tables in the Appendix are named A1, A2 etc., not S1, S2. Also, tables A3 and A4 do not seem to be used in the manuscript. If they are not, they should be removed.
- Figure 1 caption: There is no MF on the figure, and there are no continuous gray contours.
- l. 167: In the appendix it is Figure A1, not S1.
- l. 178 and 180: I believe it is “south of 24^oN” instead of “south of 25^oN”.
- l. 180: I believe it is Figure 4 instead of Figure 5.
- l. 180 and 182: the locations of the cyclonic eddy with respect to the LC are hard to identify, since the shape of the LC changes. In Figure 6 the mean LC appears to be detached at -30 days, so it is hard to tell what North, East or West of the LC means, compared to Figure 5 for example.
- l. 216-218: Based on Figure 10d (not Figure 10a-d), it seems that barrier eddies persist for more than 5 months (not 4) northwest of the LC after separations that occurred below 24◦N, and 4 months (not 3) after separations between 24 and 25◦N.
- Figure 10 caption: There is no subplot e, so the text “The cumulative persistence of blocking cyclonic structures over the 29-year period is shown in e. The cumulative persistence is computed by multiplying the mean persistence of blocking cyclonic structures by the number of separations per region” should be removed. Also, what are the 3 types of LC contours visible on Figure 10a-c?
- l. 239: SLA, not SAL.
- Figure 11 caption, I suggest: “Hovmöller composites of SLA (first column) and the occurrence of cyclonic eddies from the AVISO Atlas (second column) during separations occurring below 24^oN etc.”
- Figure 12 caption seems to have many mistakes. I suggest: “Hovmöller composites of SLA (first column) and the occurrence of cyclonic eddies from the AVISO Atlas (second column) during reattachments occurring below 24◦N (first row), between 24-25◦N (second row), and between 25-26◦N (third row). Thick continuous-black contours etc.” There are only 3 rows, not 5.
- Figure 13 caption: In the second column, it seems that SWOT data are blended with CMEMS data outside the SWOT swath, is that correct? If so, this should be mentioned.
- Figure 14: Based on the description of the thick black line and the thin black segmented line, I believe these lines should be the same on the 1^st and 2^nd rows. Can the authors explain?
- l. 279: I suggest starting a new paragraph after “from the LC.”

References:
- Le Hénaff, M., Kourafalou, V. H., Dussurget, R., and Lumpkin, R. (2014). Cyclonic activity in the eastern Gulf of Mexico: Characterization from along-track altimetry and in situ drifter trajectories. Prog. Oceanography 120, 120–138. doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2013.08.002
- Yang, X, Le Hénaff, M., Mapes, B., and Iskandarani, M. (2023). Dynamical interactions between Loop Current and Loop Current Frontal Eddies in a HYCOM ensemble of the circulation in the Gulf of Mexico. Front. Mar. Sci. 10:1048780. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2023.1048780
- Shay, L.K., Goni, G.J. and Black, P.G. (2000). Effects of a warm oceanic feature on Hurricane Opal. Monthly Weather Review, 128(5), pp.1366-1383.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5574-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Marco Larrañaga, 13 Feb 2026
  
  We thank the reviewer for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the valuable recommendations.
  
  A point-by-point response to all comments is provided here, detailing how each issue has been addressed.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5574-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5574', Kathleen Donohue, 15 Jan 2026

This is a very interesting paper that reveals patterns of meso-scale variability in the Gulf during Loop Current Eddy formation. Through composites of satellite SSH, the authors show that the "necking down" preceding Loop Current eddy separation is associated with two cyclonic features. On the eastern side, a meander along the periphery of the Loop Current grows through some combination of baroclinic instability triggered by vortex stretching due to Loop Current interaction with the Mississippi Fan. On the western side, a cyclonic eddy with origins in the Caribbean and/or Yucatan Channel. This pattern is clearly present for southern separations. In other words, while detachments occur with just the eastern cyclone, separations require a source of cyclonic vorticity along the eastern edge. This paper will have significant impact and represents an important step toward understanding and predicting Loop Current Eddy separations. I clicked the 'major revision' button but I think its closer to minor revision. well done.

Major Comment

The discussion could be substantially strengthened. As it stands, the results lean toward kinematic rather than dynamic interpretation. I encourage you to place these results in a more dynamical context even if somewhat speculative or perhaps by interpreting your results in the context of previous work. I believe this work will serve as a launching point for future studies.

For example, modeling studies suggest barotropic instability is important for detachments. How do the cyclonic eddies interact with this process? Could either the western or eastern eddy strengthen the horizontal shear, thereby enabling barotropic instability? Additionally, are the western eddies truly "fundamental"? Is their role dynamical, or do they simply narrow the Loop Current width? Is there a relationship between the eddies? Is it appropriate to say that the eastern cyclone gets established and as soon as a cyclonic eddy propagates into the Gulf, separation occurs?

Is this worth exploring? The deep, nearly depth-independent cyclone in the channel just north of Yucatan (see Perez-Brunius et al. 2018, Fig. 4) may be key. Perhaps the western cyclones squeeze the Loop Current, reducing its width, while the eastern cyclones and the deep channel cyclone then accomplish the separation. I think that the large cyclonic feature may just be the surface expression of the depth-independent gyre (24.5N, 85.5W) rather than the merging of the western and eastern cyclone – but this is a hypothesis.

Additional Comments

The paper could benefit from increasing the clarity by homing in on the key results. I appreciate the comprehensive nature of the work – it’s impressive yet perhaps not all needs to be in the main body of the paper. Some figures are quite small and may not be essential to the main narrative (see specific suggestions below). Given the comprehensive nature of this work, consider moving some material to the appendix to streamline the main text.

To be clear, the following are suggestions and I’ll leave it to the authors to decide whether they benefit the manuscript.

Kathy Donohue

Abstract:

Line 8: ‘latter’ I don’t know what ‘latter’ refers to here. The preceding sentence is quite long and so latter is not clear.

Line 12: This is an interesting comment that is not discussed (much) in the summary and discussion section.

Introduction

Line 42: why is cyclonic capitalized?

Line 50: Worth citing Oey?

Oey, L. Y., H. C. Lee & W. J. Schmitz (2003) — Effects of winds and Caribbean eddies on the frequency of Loop Current eddy shedding: A numerical model study, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 108(C10).

https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JC001698

Line 40: Barotropic/baroclinic energy conversions. Donohue did not even consider the barotropic eddy conversion so the studies are not at odds with one another. I don’t see how an observational study that shows the baroclinic conversion modeled by Hurlburt and Thomson, Oey and others is controversial. Meanders along the eastern side, deepen, these cyclonic features often have high Rossby numbers – they may be existing features that have propagated in from the west. The deepening is a baroclinic intensification process. All models show this.

Yang et al. (2023) show that during Loop Current Eddy detachment, the eddy kinetic energy increase is primarily fueled by barotropic instability, with barotropic energy conversions dominating the horizontal energy budget relative to buoyancy forcing during detachment. I would argue that the energy conversion in the MITGCM might be underestimated based on the low deep eddy kinetic energy relative to observations (see Morey’s paper).

Line 42: I would change the topic sentence to ‘Omnipresent in both the GOM and the Caribbean.’ Most of this paragraph is about Caribbean vorticity entering the Gulf. This is an opportunity to discuss both cyclonic and anticyclonic vorticity into the Gulf.

Line 55: I don’t love ‘debate’. Reads more adversarial than necessary. Consider something like -- reflecting the complex and not yet fully resolved role of Caribbean cyclonic eddies in the shedding process.” Or reflecting our incomplete understanding of Caribbean cyclonic eddies, perhaps due to the difficulty in both observing and modeling these features. (This last sentence would set the stage for your section about how the altimeter barely resolves these cyclones.)

Line 62: as mentioned before, I think this large cyclonic feature is really that deep cyclone sitting at 24.5N observed by the Rafos floats.

Figure 1 – nice figure! The caption needs a rewrite. Maybe just delete that first a) and write Figure 1. Detachment locations. Odd to put panel d in the lower left – you don’t label the other figures in this clockwise manner. Could you make the height of panel d smaller – I spent misguided time trying to align the latitudes in histogram plot with the maps.

Line 111: Detachments that lead to reattachments maybe say Detachments with subsequent reattachments. Lead sounded odd. Would one say detachments that lead to separations?

Line 133: I read this over and over and I’m still not sure what the authors are communicating. Please consider a rewrite.

Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8:

-why this colorbar for the vorticity? Why not make negative vorticity red and positive vorticity blue. In that way, the anticyclonic features are red in the SSH anomaly plots and red in the vorticity plots.

Are all the panels in 4-8 necessary. The text hardly talks about the Ro# or occurrence of cyclonic eddies. Could these be in the appendix or a supplement. In that way, you might be able to condense to 4-8 to 1 or 2 plots. I think that would really help the reader see the patterns at a glance.

The titles should be changed because they are consistent with the text. For example, ‘below’ should ‘south of’ and above should be ‘north of’ Perhaps you were trying to keep the titles short.

Figure captions generally: Please take a careful look at the captions.

Lines 182-189: This is very confusing. Please try to rewrite.

Line 189: Self-serving sure, but you say frontal eddy, I say meander and while there may be eddies merging I think it was clear from Donohue that substantial meander growth happens through baroclinic instability and that it’s the trough (cyclonic vorticity) that grows.

Figure 10 uses both term barrier and blocking eddy. Please clarify if they are different. How is barrier eddy defined in the analysis leading to Figure 10?

Figure 11: typo in caption for the bottom panels. It should be EMF, I think.

Figure 13: last sentence. ‘that is not visible in AVISO’. I’ll argue that the cyclone is visible -- it is just weak and displaced relative to SWOT. This displacement is likely do to sampling of the ‘standard’ altimeters. These are nice figures!

Line 236: SLA not SAL

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5574-RC2
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Marco Larrañaga, 13 Feb 2026
  
  We sincerely thank Kathleen Donohue for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided.
  
  Enclosed is a point-by-point response to each of the comments, which we hope addresses all concerns and clarifies the manuscript.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5574-AC1

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5574', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Jan 2026

General comments
In this manuscript, the authors use satellite altimetry observations of the Loop Current (LC) and of ocean eddies to analyze the role of cyclonic eddies in the detachment and separation of LC Eddies. They find that temporary detachments are more frequent as they happen south of the Gulf, as opposed to final separations that are more frequent in the north. They also find that cyclonic eddies tend to be present to the east of the LC in temporary detachment cases, and on both sides of the LC in final separation cases. Finally, they find that the merging of these two cyclonic eddies leads to a large cyclonic eddy that can block the northward extension of the LC.
This is a very nice study, and I enjoyed reading the manuscript. It is generally well written and presents very interesting results that provide a very solid background for analyzing future LC detachment/separation cases. I think the manuscript would benefit from discussing some of its results in relation to previously published results that I believe are relevant to the present study. I also think some aspects need to be clarified. Please see the specific comments below for more details.

Specific comments
Some of the results presented here nicely complement previously published results. For example, Le Henaff et al. (2014) found that cyclonic eddies along the Campeche Bank tend to be observed immediately after a detachment or separation of an LC Eddy, which suggested that, since such eddies are involved in the pinching off of LC Eddies (Zavala-Hidalgo et al., 2003), they could only do so after the LC Eddy reattaches to the retracted LC. This is consistent with the present study, which demonstrates that temporary detachments are dominant in the southern part of the basin, meaning that LC Eddies frequently re-attach to the LC there. Since the present study also demonstrates that such eddies along the Campeche Bank tend to be involved in the final separation of a LC Eddy, this suggests that there is a typical sequence starting with the initial, temporary detachment of an LC Eddy, under the influence of a cyclonic eddy on the eastern side of the LC (based on the present study), followed by the formation of a cyclonic eddy on the western side of the LC, which can later be involved in the final separation of the LC Eddy. Such a sequence is consistent with the modeling results from Yang et al. (2023), who found that, during a 2010 LC Eddy shedding sequence, a cyclonic eddy along the Campeche Bank forms only in simulations in which the pre-existing cyclonic eddy on the eastern side of the LC is sufficiently intense to lead to an LC Eddy detachment (and independently from the boundary conditions from the Caribbean Sea). Results from the present study thus suggest that such a teleconnection between the initial presence of a cyclonic eddy on the eastern side of the LC and the later formation of a cyclonic eddy along the Campeche Bank might be quite common. I think it would be nice that these ideas are discussed in the manuscript.
In this context, regarding the role of cyclonic Caribbean eddies discussed in the manuscript, which is also important as illustrated in the study, it is possible that the timing of such eddies matters: a cyclonic anomaly propagating from the Caribbean Sea to the southern Gulf at the time of the initial LC Eddy detachment might find favorable conditions for intensification or growth (allowing it to be detected by current observing platforms), whereas it might not intensify otherwise.
Regarding Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8: the captions mention that these composites are for separation cases, but the manuscript mentions that these figures include both reattachment and separation events (l. 165). This needs to be clarified, as some analyses in the text would not be possible if these figures merge both types of events (l. 175-177, l. 205-206).
In the initial analysis of Figures 1 and 2, point 3 (l. 133-134): I am not sure I fully understand the reasoning here. Can the authors better explain this result? Also, the equivalence between an 1800 km length and the distance to the Mississippi Fan is only mentioned in the summary and discussion, later in the manuscript.

Technical corrections
- l. 23: Shay et al. (2000) could also be cited here.
- l. 62: I suggest “tends to form” instead of “forms”. Otherwise, there would not be cases in which this does not happen, mentioned in the following sentence.
- l. 97: Tables in the Appendix are named A1, A2 etc., not S1, S2. Also, tables A3 and A4 do not seem to be used in the manuscript. If they are not, they should be removed.
- Figure 1 caption: There is no MF on the figure, and there are no continuous gray contours.
- l. 167: In the appendix it is Figure A1, not S1.
- l. 178 and 180: I believe it is “south of 24^oN” instead of “south of 25^oN”.
- l. 180: I believe it is Figure 4 instead of Figure 5.
- l. 180 and 182: the locations of the cyclonic eddy with respect to the LC are hard to identify, since the shape of the LC changes. In Figure 6 the mean LC appears to be detached at -30 days, so it is hard to tell what North, East or West of the LC means, compared to Figure 5 for example.
- l. 216-218: Based on Figure 10d (not Figure 10a-d), it seems that barrier eddies persist for more than 5 months (not 4) northwest of the LC after separations that occurred below 24◦N, and 4 months (not 3) after separations between 24 and 25◦N.
- Figure 10 caption: There is no subplot e, so the text “The cumulative persistence of blocking cyclonic structures over the 29-year period is shown in e. The cumulative persistence is computed by multiplying the mean persistence of blocking cyclonic structures by the number of separations per region” should be removed. Also, what are the 3 types of LC contours visible on Figure 10a-c?
- l. 239: SLA, not SAL.
- Figure 11 caption, I suggest: “Hovmöller composites of SLA (first column) and the occurrence of cyclonic eddies from the AVISO Atlas (second column) during separations occurring below 24^oN etc.”
- Figure 12 caption seems to have many mistakes. I suggest: “Hovmöller composites of SLA (first column) and the occurrence of cyclonic eddies from the AVISO Atlas (second column) during reattachments occurring below 24◦N (first row), between 24-25◦N (second row), and between 25-26◦N (third row). Thick continuous-black contours etc.” There are only 3 rows, not 5.
- Figure 13 caption: In the second column, it seems that SWOT data are blended with CMEMS data outside the SWOT swath, is that correct? If so, this should be mentioned.
- Figure 14: Based on the description of the thick black line and the thin black segmented line, I believe these lines should be the same on the 1^st and 2^nd rows. Can the authors explain?
- l. 279: I suggest starting a new paragraph after “from the LC.”

References:
- Le Hénaff, M., Kourafalou, V. H., Dussurget, R., and Lumpkin, R. (2014). Cyclonic activity in the eastern Gulf of Mexico: Characterization from along-track altimetry and in situ drifter trajectories. Prog. Oceanography 120, 120–138. doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2013.08.002
- Yang, X, Le Hénaff, M., Mapes, B., and Iskandarani, M. (2023). Dynamical interactions between Loop Current and Loop Current Frontal Eddies in a HYCOM ensemble of the circulation in the Gulf of Mexico. Front. Mar. Sci. 10:1048780. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2023.1048780
- Shay, L.K., Goni, G.J. and Black, P.G. (2000). Effects of a warm oceanic feature on Hurricane Opal. Monthly Weather Review, 128(5), pp.1366-1383.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5574-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Marco Larrañaga, 13 Feb 2026
  
  We thank the reviewer for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the valuable recommendations.
  
  A point-by-point response to all comments is provided here, detailing how each issue has been addressed.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5574-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-5574', Kathleen Donohue, 15 Jan 2026

This is a very interesting paper that reveals patterns of meso-scale variability in the Gulf during Loop Current Eddy formation. Through composites of satellite SSH, the authors show that the "necking down" preceding Loop Current eddy separation is associated with two cyclonic features. On the eastern side, a meander along the periphery of the Loop Current grows through some combination of baroclinic instability triggered by vortex stretching due to Loop Current interaction with the Mississippi Fan. On the western side, a cyclonic eddy with origins in the Caribbean and/or Yucatan Channel. This pattern is clearly present for southern separations. In other words, while detachments occur with just the eastern cyclone, separations require a source of cyclonic vorticity along the eastern edge. This paper will have significant impact and represents an important step toward understanding and predicting Loop Current Eddy separations. I clicked the 'major revision' button but I think its closer to minor revision. well done.

Major Comment

The discussion could be substantially strengthened. As it stands, the results lean toward kinematic rather than dynamic interpretation. I encourage you to place these results in a more dynamical context even if somewhat speculative or perhaps by interpreting your results in the context of previous work. I believe this work will serve as a launching point for future studies.

For example, modeling studies suggest barotropic instability is important for detachments. How do the cyclonic eddies interact with this process? Could either the western or eastern eddy strengthen the horizontal shear, thereby enabling barotropic instability? Additionally, are the western eddies truly "fundamental"? Is their role dynamical, or do they simply narrow the Loop Current width? Is there a relationship between the eddies? Is it appropriate to say that the eastern cyclone gets established and as soon as a cyclonic eddy propagates into the Gulf, separation occurs?

Is this worth exploring? The deep, nearly depth-independent cyclone in the channel just north of Yucatan (see Perez-Brunius et al. 2018, Fig. 4) may be key. Perhaps the western cyclones squeeze the Loop Current, reducing its width, while the eastern cyclones and the deep channel cyclone then accomplish the separation. I think that the large cyclonic feature may just be the surface expression of the depth-independent gyre (24.5N, 85.5W) rather than the merging of the western and eastern cyclone – but this is a hypothesis.

Additional Comments

The paper could benefit from increasing the clarity by homing in on the key results. I appreciate the comprehensive nature of the work – it’s impressive yet perhaps not all needs to be in the main body of the paper. Some figures are quite small and may not be essential to the main narrative (see specific suggestions below). Given the comprehensive nature of this work, consider moving some material to the appendix to streamline the main text.

To be clear, the following are suggestions and I’ll leave it to the authors to decide whether they benefit the manuscript.

Kathy Donohue

Abstract:

Line 8: ‘latter’ I don’t know what ‘latter’ refers to here. The preceding sentence is quite long and so latter is not clear.

Line 12: This is an interesting comment that is not discussed (much) in the summary and discussion section.

Introduction

Line 42: why is cyclonic capitalized?

Line 50: Worth citing Oey?

Oey, L. Y., H. C. Lee & W. J. Schmitz (2003) — Effects of winds and Caribbean eddies on the frequency of Loop Current eddy shedding: A numerical model study, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 108(C10).

https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JC001698

Line 40: Barotropic/baroclinic energy conversions. Donohue did not even consider the barotropic eddy conversion so the studies are not at odds with one another. I don’t see how an observational study that shows the baroclinic conversion modeled by Hurlburt and Thomson, Oey and others is controversial. Meanders along the eastern side, deepen, these cyclonic features often have high Rossby numbers – they may be existing features that have propagated in from the west. The deepening is a baroclinic intensification process. All models show this.

Yang et al. (2023) show that during Loop Current Eddy detachment, the eddy kinetic energy increase is primarily fueled by barotropic instability, with barotropic energy conversions dominating the horizontal energy budget relative to buoyancy forcing during detachment. I would argue that the energy conversion in the MITGCM might be underestimated based on the low deep eddy kinetic energy relative to observations (see Morey’s paper).

Line 42: I would change the topic sentence to ‘Omnipresent in both the GOM and the Caribbean.’ Most of this paragraph is about Caribbean vorticity entering the Gulf. This is an opportunity to discuss both cyclonic and anticyclonic vorticity into the Gulf.

Line 55: I don’t love ‘debate’. Reads more adversarial than necessary. Consider something like -- reflecting the complex and not yet fully resolved role of Caribbean cyclonic eddies in the shedding process.” Or reflecting our incomplete understanding of Caribbean cyclonic eddies, perhaps due to the difficulty in both observing and modeling these features. (This last sentence would set the stage for your section about how the altimeter barely resolves these cyclones.)

Line 62: as mentioned before, I think this large cyclonic feature is really that deep cyclone sitting at 24.5N observed by the Rafos floats.

Figure 1 – nice figure! The caption needs a rewrite. Maybe just delete that first a) and write Figure 1. Detachment locations. Odd to put panel d in the lower left – you don’t label the other figures in this clockwise manner. Could you make the height of panel d smaller – I spent misguided time trying to align the latitudes in histogram plot with the maps.

Line 111: Detachments that lead to reattachments maybe say Detachments with subsequent reattachments. Lead sounded odd. Would one say detachments that lead to separations?

Line 133: I read this over and over and I’m still not sure what the authors are communicating. Please consider a rewrite.

Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8:

-why this colorbar for the vorticity? Why not make negative vorticity red and positive vorticity blue. In that way, the anticyclonic features are red in the SSH anomaly plots and red in the vorticity plots.

Are all the panels in 4-8 necessary. The text hardly talks about the Ro# or occurrence of cyclonic eddies. Could these be in the appendix or a supplement. In that way, you might be able to condense to 4-8 to 1 or 2 plots. I think that would really help the reader see the patterns at a glance.

The titles should be changed because they are consistent with the text. For example, ‘below’ should ‘south of’ and above should be ‘north of’ Perhaps you were trying to keep the titles short.

Figure captions generally: Please take a careful look at the captions.

Lines 182-189: This is very confusing. Please try to rewrite.

Line 189: Self-serving sure, but you say frontal eddy, I say meander and while there may be eddies merging I think it was clear from Donohue that substantial meander growth happens through baroclinic instability and that it’s the trough (cyclonic vorticity) that grows.

Figure 10 uses both term barrier and blocking eddy. Please clarify if they are different. How is barrier eddy defined in the analysis leading to Figure 10?

Figure 11: typo in caption for the bottom panels. It should be EMF, I think.

Figure 13: last sentence. ‘that is not visible in AVISO’. I’ll argue that the cyclone is visible -- it is just weak and displaced relative to SWOT. This displacement is likely do to sampling of the ‘standard’ altimeters. These are nice figures!

Line 236: SLA not SAL

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5574-RC2
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Marco Larrañaga, 13 Feb 2026
  
  We sincerely thank Kathleen Donohue for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided.
  
  Enclosed is a point-by-point response to each of the comments, which we hope addresses all concerns and clarifies the manuscript.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5574-AC1

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

AR by Marco Larrañaga on behalf of the Authors (13 Feb 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (20 Feb 2026) by Mario Hoppema

Dear Dr. Larrañaga and co-authors,

Both referees were positive about your manuscript but also had some comments. I think you satisfactorily responded to these comments and that the manuscript is almost ready for publication.
My final comments are listed below; these are mostly of technical nature. Please prepare the final version of your manuscript taking into account these comments.

L31-32 change below to south of and above to north of: … when the LC retreats south of 25°N, and around 5 months when it retreats north of this latitude …

L60 insert to: … been shown to occur along …
L63 cyclonic

L67 delete: 29 years of (as this is again mentioned at the beginning of the data section)
L78 15 October 2024 Please use this data format throughout the paper

L81 define SSH as it is used for the first time
L114 north of instead of above
L118 south of instead of below

Caption figure 1: Panels b and d are not described. Please add those to the caption
L160 south of instead of below
L161, 162 north of instead of above

Caption Figure 5: south of instead of below
L203 north of instead of above
L230 south of instead of below

L234 change format: … AVISO (Pegliasco et al., 2022), where …
Caption Figure 6: south of instead of below

Caption Figure 6, text at the end: … shown in panel d. (add: panel)
Caption Figure 7 second and third line: south of instead of below; north of instead of above

Caption Figure 8 second line: south of instead of below
L295 The Yucatan current is here mentioned for the first time. Please add info about its location and direction.

Figure 10 In the figure please change below and above to south of and north of, respectively. Also change the wording in the caption.

L302 delete: We believe that (this is not necessary in view of what is written after that)
L332 south of instead of below

In Tables A1-A4 please change below and above to south of and north of, respectively
Caption Figure A2: change wording below and above into south of and north of, respectively
Caption Figure A3: change wording below and above into south of and north of, respectively

L451 Strange symbols in the title
L461 volume and pages missing
L468 n/a not correct, pages missing
L471 reference incomplete
L488 reference incomplete, add doi
L503 Journal missing?

Thank you for submitting your work to Ocean Science.
Congrats to this very nice paper.

Mario Hoppema
- editor

Hide

AR by Marco Larrañaga on behalf of the Authors (24 Feb 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (26 Feb 2026) by Mario Hoppema

AR by Marco Larrañaga on behalf of the Authors (02 Mar 2026) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

10 Mar 2026

| Highlight paper

The role of cyclonic eddies in the detachment and separation of Loop Current eddies

Marco Larrañaga, Julien Jouanno, Eric P. Chassignet, Giovanni Durante, Ilkyeong Ma, Julio Sheinbaum, and Lionel Renault

Ocean Sci., 22, 821–841, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-22-821-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/os-22-821-2026, 2026

Short summary Co-editor-in-chief

Marco Larrañaga, Julien Jouanno, Eric P. Chassignet, Giovanni Durante, Ilkyeong Ma, Julio Sheinbaum, and Lionel Renault

Viewed

Total article views: 492 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
245	214	33	492	21	21

HTML: 245
PDF: 214
XML: 33
Total: 492
BibTeX: 21
EndNote: 21

Views and downloads (calculated since 20 Nov 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Nov 2025	71	23	11	105
Dec 2025	27	74	9	110
Jan 2026	85	63	6	154
Feb 2026	49	41	7	97
Mar 2026	13	13	0	26

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 20 Nov 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Nov 2025	71	23	11	105
Dec 2025	27	74	9	110
Jan 2026	85	63	6	154
Feb 2026	49	41	7	97
Mar 2026	13	13	0	26

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 474 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 474 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 12 Mar 2026

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (10989 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

We analyze 29 years of satellite altimetry to investigate the detachment of Loop Current Eddies in the Gulf of Mexico. Over half of the Loop Current eddies reattach within a month, while 42 % separate and drift westward. Detachment requires the Loop Current to reach the Mississippi Fan and is strongly influenced by cyclonic eddies, whose configuration determines whether an eddy separates or reattaches to the Loop Current.


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