the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Pelagic ecosystem responses to changes in seawater conditions during the Middle Pleistocene Transition in the Eastern Mediterranean
Abstract. We present a multiproxy, ecosystem-level assessment of paleoenvironmental change and its impacts on marine organisms in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Middle Pleistocene Transition, between 923 and 756 kyr B.P. (marine isotope stages MIS 23–18). This study combines analyses of organic biomarkers; organic matter content; carbon and oxygen stable isotopes on bulk sediment, surface-dwelling, deep-dwelling planktonic and benthic foraminifera, ostracods and fish otoliths; as well as foraminiferal, ostracod and sponge abundance estimates, with a statistical assessment of paleoenvironmental regime shifts and estimation of fish distribution depths in the past. Our results show that temperature and productivity played the most important role in driving ecosystem changes in the study area at different times: temperature was the primary driver during MIS 21 interglacial, whereas productivity became a dominant factor in MIS 19 interglacial. In addition, the responses of organisms throughout the water column varied. Both interglacials yielded relatively higher plankton and benthos biomasses. However, for fishes, the responses differed. The abrupt global warming that occurred in early MIS 21, which was also captured by our record, probably led to a reduction in diel vertical migration by mesopelagic fishes and consequently to the efficiency of the biological carbon pump. In contrast, increased productivity across trophic levels is attested for MIS 19 that subsequently dropped in MIS 18, affecting foraminifera, ostracod and sponge biomasses, but not inhibiting fish diel vertical migration. Therefore, we conclude that carbon sequestration during MIS 19 was likely enhanced.
Status: open (until 06 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-96', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Feb 2025
reply
The submitted manuscript by Agiadi et al. is a valuable contribution to study the paleo-environmental evolution of the Island of Rhodes during the Pleistocene as it uses a multi-proxy approach to identify changes in productivity and temperature. In addition, the authors estimated the fish distribution depths at Lardos to assess the response of fish to the environmental changes. The study provides unique SST and SSS data of the Island of Rhodes that contribute to the understanding of climate change in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Therefore, I believe the manuscript is a valuable contribution to the field and worth being published.
However, there are some aspects that should be clarified and adapted before publication, which is why I suggest a major revision.
For once I believe the many proxies used in this study are rather confusing and not all contribute to the understanding of the paleo-environmental conditions. Much of the discussion focuses on the d13C of benthic and planktic foraminifera, while ostracods and sponge spicules for example seem not to contribute to the understanding. In that regard, a summarizing figure would additionally be needed, where the reader better can follow the discussion.
The authors suggest capturing the MPT and use the age model provided by Titschack et al., 2013. However, in 2024 the age model for Lardos has been refined by Eichner et al. towards a younger age. I suggest that the authors also check and discuss whether they are really in the time frame of the MPT by also considering the refined age model from 2024. In this regard, I would suggest changing the title because in the discussion the MPT is not mentioned at all. From the discussion it is not clear if the MPT did influence the study area or not.
In the discussion I am missing a critical view on the data provided by the study. It is not really clear what these regime shifts are and some of the suggested changes are not as clear to me as suggested in the text. Further the authors should discuss the data to a much greater extend, especially chapters 4.1.1-4.1.4. I also suggest changing the structure of the discussion and instead of describing the regime shifts individually, discuss them as a whole. What are the changes and what is responsible for it?
Please be more precise when talking about depth. You should specify in the whole manuscript if you are talking about water depth/section depth/ fish depths etc. It is not entirely clear.
The authors should make clear that Agiadi et al., 2024b is a database with the data generated for this study and not an earlier publication where the data was already described in. Why not refer to it in the journals section “data availability” where you can add the doi. At the moment it is just confusing.
The reference list was not checked for completeness. My specific comments and suggestions can be found in the following attached pdf:
Data sets
Dataset K. Agiadi, I. Vasiliev, A. Vite, S. D. Zarkogiannis, and F. Quillévéré https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14623783
Model code and software
Code for estimating the fish lifetime-average depth A. Fuster-Alonso, J. Mestre Tomás, and K. Agiadi https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14565733
Viewed
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
54 | 0 | 0 | 54 | 0 | 0 |
- HTML: 54
- PDF: 0
- XML: 0
- Total: 54
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1