Air&ndash;sea CO<sub>2</sub> exchange in the Southern Adriatic Sea: assessing its role as a moderate carbon sink over the last decade

Dentico, Carlotta; Cossarini, Gianpiero; Civitarese, Giuseppe; Giani, Michele; Rubino, Angelo; Cardin, Vanessa

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2026-1360

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1360

Preprints

25 Mar 2026

| 25 Mar 2026

Air–sea CO₂ exchange in the Southern Adriatic Sea: assessing its role as a moderate carbon sink over the last decade

Carlotta Dentico, Gianpiero Cossarini, Giuseppe Civitarese, Michele Giani, Angelo Rubino, and Vanessa Cardin

Abstract. Coastal waters contribute significantly to the total oceanic carbon uptake. In this context, the cumulative influence exerted by marginal seas may be conspicuous. However sparse and unevenly distributed observations in such regions pose a serious limit to an accurate, experimentally based quantification of carbon dynamics. The Southern Adriatic (SAd) is one of the key sites of the Mediterranean Sea where open-ocean deep water formation occurs, a process recognized as a major driver of carbon sequestration. However, only a limited number of studies have investigated surface carbon dynamics and quantified air-sea carbon flux in the SAd. In this study, a newly validated, decade-long (2015–2024) high-resolution time series of CO₂ and hydrographic measurements collected at the EMSO-E2M3A South Adriatic observatory, located at the center of the Southern Adriatic Pit, has been analysed. The results showed that seasonal temperature variability and winter convection were the main processes driving the dynamics of surface partial pressure of CO₂ (pCO_2sw). Air–sea CO₂ flux (FCO₂), derived from in situ observations, indicated a clear seasonal pattern, with the SAd acting as a CO₂ sink during winter and as a source during summer. Importantly, the results revealed that the SAd acted as a moderate carbon sink over the last decade. Uncertainty analysis in the flux estimates were also evaluated, revealing that wind speed input data used for FCO₂ calculations influenced the magnitude of FCO₂. Finally, the results presented here showed how time series such as the SAd dataset can serve as critical assets for validating operational ocean models, such as the EU Copernicus Marine Service for the Mediterranean, by helping to identify discrepancies in the simulation of key processes.

Received: 13 Mar 2026 – Discussion started: 25 Mar 2026

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, 1661 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 (1661 KB)

Supplement (943 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

04 Aug 2026

Air–sea CO₂ exchange in the Southern Adriatic Sea: assessing its role as a moderate carbon sink over the last decade (2015–2024)

Carlotta Dentico, Gianpiero Cossarini, Giuseppe Civitarese, Michele Giani, Angelo Rubino, and Vanessa Cardin

Biogeosciences, 23, 5399–5418, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-23-5399-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-23-5399-2026, 2026

Short summary

Carlotta Dentico, Gianpiero Cossarini, Giuseppe Civitarese, Michele Giani, Angelo Rubino, and Vanessa Cardin

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-1360', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Apr 2026

;;;;;;;;;; General comment:
In this manuscript authors describe and interpret new pCO2 data in the Adriatic in 2015-2024. These data were recently presented in detail and published (Dentico et al, 2026). Here authors used the pCO2 data first to separate the drivers (only thermal and non-thermal terms are quantified); the data are then used to calculate CO2 fluxes. As the data were not continuously acquired, two approaches (M1 and M2) are presented to derive CO2 fluxes (synthetized in Table 2) and authors also addressed the uncertainty of the fluxes depending the wind (synthetized in Figure 4). They found that the region is a CO2 sink in October-April and a CO2 source in May-September. The seasonality of pCO2 is mainly control by temperature as observed in previous work in the western Mediterranean Sea (e.g. Bégovic and Copin-Montégut 2002; Hood and Merlivat, 2001; Wimart-Rousseau et al, 2023; Tsiaras et al 2024). The discussion on drivers of pCO2 appears limited to the temperature effect although biological processes and winter mixing are also likely driving the pCO2 temporal variations. Interestingly authors also compare the pCO2 data and derived fluxes with models results (Cossarini et al 2021, available at CMEMS) suggesting that models reproduce the pCO2 time-series excepted in winter (simulated pCO2 lower than observations). The comparison also suggests that simulations are not able to reproduce large anomalies such as in summer 2022. Consequently the large CO2 source observed in summer 2022 (up to 100 mmolC/m2/d) is not simulated and the annual flux from the model probably not correct. These are very interesting results but the processes that explain the differences between data and model are not fully discussed. Would that be linked to the mixed-layer/stratification not well simulated? I think the analysis should extend the discussion to inform what should be corrected in the model. For example, it would be interesting to present and discuss the DIC and TALK profiles from the model. On the other hand, in the title the term “Decadal” suggests that the trend of the CO2 flux would be explored. Is the CO2 sink increase or decrease in the Adriatic ? This is not addressed in the paper although I think authors have in hand the data (E2M3A mooring and models) to explore this topic. In the southern Adriatic Cossarini et al (2021) estimate an increase of the CO2 sink of around 0.1 mmolC/m2/d/yr over 1999–2019. How this is compared with the new results obtained in 2015-2024. This could be also compared with reconstruct pCO2 and air-sea CO2 fluxes also available at CMEMS (Chau et al 2024). Finally, in the introduction authors mentioned the carbon sequestration and ocean acidification. However, this is not discussed although authors have in hand pCO2 data, some discrete TALK data, as well as pH data for 2015-2016 to investigate this topic and to compare with the model. Authors might try to calculate DIC and pH using TALK and pCO2, the time-series of TALK being deduced from TALK/Salinity relation. This could be compared with pH trend deduced from a Neural Network method (pH trend over 2014-2024 = -0.023/decade at the mooring location, Chau et al, 2024). In addition, to complement the mooring data (recently described by Dentico et al, 2026), the authors may add data from SOCAT (in 2014-2020) near the location of the E2M3A mooring. I also strongly recommend send their new pCO2 data to SOCAT. References in this manuscript are adapted and I suggest add few others.
The manuscript is suitable for publication after revision. Specific and minor comments are listed below.
;;;;;;;; Specific comments
C-01: Title: “Air–sea CO2 exchange in the Southern Adriatic Sea: assessing its role as a moderate carbon sink over the last decade”. I suggest specify the period 2015-2024. “Last decade” is somehow general and maybe not appropriate for future readers in 2030, 2035, 2040… Suggestion: “Air–sea CO2 exchange in the Southern Adriatic Sea: assessing its role as a moderate carbon sink in 2015-2024” or “Air–sea CO2 exchange in the Southern Adriatic Sea: an analysis over 2015-2024.”
C-02 Line 20: “The results showed that seasonal temperature variability and winter convection were the main processes driving the dynamics of surface partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2sw).” In winter is it convection or mixing in top layers ? Biological processes are not driving pCO2 in this region ?
C-03: Line 32: Gulev et al., (2021), not in references
C-04: Line 38-48: Authors introduced the ocean acidification but this is not discussed in the results (see also general comment).
C-05: Line 53: Authors write: “in more than 30 million observations in the Surface Ocean CO2 Atlas (SOCAT) V2022 release.” In the most recent version V2025 there are now more than 40 million observations. Please add reference to Bakker et al (2016). Note that version V2026 should be soon available (June 2026).
C-06: Line 55: “….and the amount of new observations per year in the open ocean has decreased since 2017 (Bakker et al., 2023).” This is correct but for this paper focused in the Adriatic is it really useful to recall that in the introduction? Maybe specify that few fCO2 data in SOCAT are available in the Adriatic (and only since 2014).
C-07: Line 58: “However, generating a coupled physical-biogeochemical reanalysis remains a complex challenge (Park et al., 2018), due to uncertainties in the representation of interactions between physical and biogeochemical processes,…“. I guess the comparison of pCO2 presented in figure 5 offers very interesting results to highlight processes not well represented in the model (e.g. winter mixing ?).
C-08: Line 89: Authors write: “..hereafter EMSO-E2M3A, is presented”. I guess you can refer to Dentico et al (2026).
C-09: The introduction is somehow long and, regarding the analysis, might be focused on uncertainty of CO2 flux in the marginal seas and recall Mediterranean Sea specificities such as high salinity and low Revelle factor (see a review in Álvarez et al 2023). For the CO2 data, in addition to SOCAT, you can also refer to the CARIMED data-base (Álvarez et al 2025).
C-10 Line 115: Figure 1 Caption: “…are also displayed and highlighted by the two red lines.” There is no red line in this figure.
C-11 Line 157: “The secondary mooring line is composed of an instrument chain with sensors at different depths for physical and chemical measurements from the seafloor to the intermediate layer (Cardin et al., 2025a).” Here we learn that sensors recorded observations at depth. Why not using these data to get a view of the variability of the MLD and subsurface data to better interpret the surface pCO2 changes ?
C-12 Line 174: “A detailed description of the dataset used here and the quality control procedures applied to the data are available in Dentico et al. (2025).” Dentico et al (2025) not in reference. I suspect this is Dentico et al (2026). Same on Line 213.
C-13 Line 226: “The EU Copernicus Marine Service (CMEMS) provides regular and systematic information on the ocean physics and biogeochemistry for the global ocean”. The CMEMS also provides reconstructed fields of pCO2, AT, CT, pH and air-sea CO2 fluxes (Chau et al, 2024) including in the region investigated here. It might be interesting to use this product available for 1985-2024 to compare with the data and the simulations and discuss the differences.
C-14 Line 228: “the European regional seas (Le Treon et al. 2019).” Correct Name Le Traon et al.
C-15 Line 295: “where, mean refers to yearly mean values of sea surface temperature (SST, °C),” What not using the mean over the full period ?
C-16 Line 308: “However, during winter convection, vertical mixing increased surface pCO2sw, as shown by the pCO2_NT component (Fig. 2a).” Is it also seen in the model ?
C-17 Line 314: “The post-convection periods (usually from March to May-June) were characterised by a phytoplankton bloom (Fig. 2e), but its direct effect on pCO2sw was less clear as few data were available in these periods.” Again, would the model help to interpret the impact of the bloom on pCO2 ?
C-18 Line 322: “Independent measurements from an Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV) operating in the area in July 2019 during the ATL2MED experiment (Martellucci et al., 2025) further confirmed this pattern, showing coherent short-term variations with the EMSO-E2M3A time series.” It would be interesting to add the data from this USV when it was close to the mooring. This could be added in Figure 2 for July 2019 to complete the time-series.
C-19 Line 324: “Interestingly, higher pCO2sw values were recorded in summer 2022, with a peak in July 2022, coinciding with the occurrence of a Mediterranean Marine Heatwave (MHW).” This is in line with results in the western Mediterranean Sea (Metzl et al, 2025).
C-20 Line 327: “Thus, the elevated pCO2sw observed in this period might be linked to the MHW, although further analyses, for instance in relation to wind change patterns (e.g., Pecci et al., 2024) would be required to confirm this hypothesis.” Pecci et al not yet published ?
C-21 Line 333: “…promoting an efficient exchange between bottom and surface pCO2sw.” Would be interesting to show vertical profiles of DIC in the SAd near the mooring (see for example data available in CARIMED, Álvarez et al, 2025). The DIC profiles are also available in the CMEMS model you used.
C-22 Line 338: “In the SAd the effect of biological activity was less clear because of data gaps.” But the CMEMS model could help to investigate this process.
C-23 Line 341: “… as highlighted in previous studies (Socal et al., 2012; Cerino et al., 2012).” Socal et al not in reference.
C-24 Line 367: Figure 2 caption “Modified from Dentico et al. (2025).” Correct Dentico et al. (2026). Note that Dentico et al. (2026) also show the wind speed.
C-25 Table 2: Would be nice to present a figure of the flux from table 2
C-26: To compare with other studies, what is the integrated annual flux (sum of monthly fluxes in molC/m2/yr) ?
C-27 Line 415: “Further, these results confirm the role of dense water formation sites as primary drivers of carbon sequestration”. Maybe I missed a point but I don’t think the description of the air-sea CO2 fluxes in this section support this conclusion.
C-28: Section “4.3 Estimated uncertainties in FCO2”. Please introduce the aim of this section. Is this section 4.3 really important ? I would suggest move this sensitivity analysis in Supplementary Material.
C-29 Figure 4 is not very clear: only a table would be useful to list the results of this sensitivity analysis.
C-30 Line 481: “Sensor based pCO2sw not always met the manufacturer and the ICOS or SOCAT accuracies (Steinhoff et al., 2025).” Steinhoff et al (2025) not in reference.
C-31 Line 483: “As shown in Dentico et al., (2025) the measured values by Pro-Oceanus membrane sensor can report higher (>10 μatm) differences with pCO2sw calculated from discrete seawater samples.” Recall that discrete samples were dedicated to pH and TALK measurements ?
C-32: Section “4.4. pCO2sw and FCO2: in situ data and model comparison”. To explain the pCO2 differences between data and models authors show that this is not linked to SST and salinity. As there are systematic low pCO2 in the models in winter would that be linked to MLD (less import of DIC-rich from subsurface in the models) ?
C-33: Are the MHW discussed on lines 323-325 identified in the models ?
C-34: I think maps of the annual or seasonal CO2 flux from the model in the Adriatic are missing (see for example Cossarini et al 2021, Figure 11). This would help identifying the distribution of the fluxes regarding the location of the mooring.
C-35 Line 540: “Even if these estimations should be considered with caution, they further confirm that the southern Adriatic acted as a moderate carbon sink over the last decade.” I think authors should conclude this section with results of annual fluxes (sum of monthly values in molC/m2/yr) to compare with other studies.
C-36 Line 551: “In winter, average pCO2sw were around 380 μatm, with marked increase especially during wintertime convection periods when CO2-rich intermediate and deep water were upwelled to the surface.” This is probably correct (import of CO2-rich water), but not quantified. It might be useful to look at the MLD from the models to quantify this process. Again, I think vertical profiles of properties such as DIC and TALK from the model would help to interpret the observed pCO2 seasonality.
C-37 Line 558: “One of the key results of this study was to demonstrate that over the past decade the
SAd acted as a moderate carbon sink.” This is a conclusion for the annual flux and it would be useful to list the annual value (in molC/m2/yr) and indicate if the sink was always moderate or if there any trend (increasing sink ?) as observed in other regions.
C-38 Line 589: Cardin et al, 2025: 2025 a or 2025b or both ?
C-39 Line 607: Acknowledgements: Should you add CMEMS ?
C-40: Figure S6: Caption: correct color code (data and model in black and blue, difference in grey).
;;;;;;;;;;; Reference added in this review not listed in the manuscript
Álvarez, M., et al (2023). Chapter 11 - Mediterranean Sea general biogeochemistry, Editor(s): Katrin Schroeder, Jacopo Chiggiato, Oceanography of the Mediterranean Sea, Elsevier, Pages 387-451, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823692-5.00004-2.
Álvarez, M., et al, CARIMED (CARbon, tracers, and ancillary data In the MEDiterranean Sea): A ship-based data synthesis product – overview and quality control procedures, Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-759, in review, 2025.
Bakker, D. C. E., et al: A multi-decade record of high-quality fCO2 data in version 3 of the Surface Ocean CO2 Atlas (SOCAT), Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 8, 383-413, doi:10.5194/essd-8-383-2016, 2016
Bégovic, M. and C. Copin-Montégut: Processes controlling annual variations in the partial pressure of CO2 in surface waters of the central northwestern Mediterranean Sea (Dyfamed site), Deep Sea Res. II, 49, 2031–2047, 2002
Chau, T.-T.-T., et al.,: CMEMS-LSCE: a global, 0.25°, monthly reconstruction of the surface ocean carbonate system, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 121–160, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-121-2024, 2024.
Dentico, C., Rubino, A., Civitarese, G., Giani, M., Siena, G., Kuchler, S., Le Meur, J., Corbo, A., and Cardin, V.: Surface pCO2 and hydrography in the dense water formation area of the southern Adriatic, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 18, 2119–2131, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-18-2119-2026, 2026.
Hood, E. M. and Merlivat, L.: Annual and interannual variations of fCO2 in the northwestern Mediterranean Sea: Results from hourly measurements made by CARIOCA buoys, 1995–1997, J.Mar. Res., 59, 113–131, 2001.
Metzl, N., et al: An updated synthesis of ocean total alkalinity and dissolved inorganic carbon measurements from 1993 to 2023: the SNAPO-CO2-v2 dataset, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 1075–1100, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-1075-2025, 2025
Steinhoff, T., et al,: The ICOS OTC P CO2 instrument intercomparison, Limnology and Oceanography Methods, 23, 924–948, https://doi.org/10.1002/lom3.10727, 2025.
Tsiaras K, Frangoulis C and Stamataki N (2024) Carbonate system variability in the Mediterranean Sea: a modelling study. Front. Mar. Sci. 11:1347990. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2024.1347990
Wimart-Rousseau, C., Wagener, T., Bosse, A., Raimbault, P., Coppola, L., Fourrier, M., Ulses, C., and Lefèvre, D.: Assessing seasonal and interannual changes in carbonate chemistry across two timeseries sites in the North Western Mediterranean Sea., Front. Mar. Sci., 10, 1281003,
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1281003, 2023.
;;;;;;;;; end review

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1360-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Carlotta Dentico, 27 May 2026
  
  We thank the reviewer for the valuable and constructive comments provided. Please find attached our detailed responses.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1360-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-1360', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Apr 2026

Please find attached the review of the manuscript.
Best regards.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1360-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Carlotta Dentico, 27 May 2026
  
  We thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments provided. Please find attached our detailed responses.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1360-AC2
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-1360', Anonymous Referee #3, 13 Apr 2026

General comments
This paper presents a surface ocean pCO₂ time series, along with other parameters, measured in the Southern Adriatic Sea (SAd), from April 2015 to May 2024. This time series had already been presented in Dentico et al., 2026 and this is the continuity of that work. In this more recent paper, a valuable addition was added: the CO₂ flux. The CO₂ flux estimated from these in situ observations was compared to the CO₂ flux estimated using an ocean reanalysis (referred to as model data) and the estimated uncertainties from different methods were discussed. Additionally, the pCO_2sw was separated into its thermal and non-thermal components, and the source-sink dynamics for summer-winter, in the SAd were discussed. Two seasonal phases were identified but unfortunately gaps in the dataset prevented further investigation on the role of certain processes, such as the impact of bloom phases in summer on the pCO_2sw. Nonetheless, this analysis offers valuable insight on the processes governing air-sea CO₂ exchanges in that region.
Although the authors gave a detailed comparison of their study to surface ocean pCO₂ variability in the surrounding regions of the Mediterranean Sea, a more quantitative comparison would have been useful. Some values are mentioned for dense water formation sites, for instance the flux in the northern Adriatic Sea and the carbon sequestration rate in the Gulf of Lion, but this comparison could have been deepened.
Once some minor modifications are made, this works merits publication. Indeed, this study provides useful, recent, CO₂ flux estimates, discusses systematic uncertainties and enables a model (reanalysis and forecast) sea surface pCO₂ validation in that region. While I have no doubt that these results should be published, I still have some questions and I have suggested minor modifications, listed below.
Minor comments and modifications
Section 1: Introduction
Lines 41-48: In the introduction, there is a detailed description on ocean acidification, and while it might be useful to give the general context, there is no further mention on ocean acidification later, this part could be condensed to one or two sentences.
The references should be updated, SOCATv2022 is cited instead of the latest version.
Similarly, a more recent version should be cited: Bakker, D. C., Alin, S. R., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Feely, R. A., and Gritzalis, T. (2023). SOCAT version 2023- An alarming decline in the ocean CO2 observing capacity.
Lines 67-70: “The latest estimates from Roobaert et al. (2024) quantified the global coastal CO2 flux equal to -2.2 GtCO2 yr-1 (-0.6 PgC yr-1) which represent around 21% of the total current CO2 flux from the atmosphere to the ocean (10.5 GtCO2; Friedlingstein et al., 2025).” Is 2024 really the latest estimate?
Lines 92-101: “The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the study area, Section 3 describes the data used and the thermodynamic calculation performed to estimate carbon flux. Results are presented and discussed in section 4. Conclusions are provided in Section 5.” Is that necessary? I suggest removing this.
Section 2 - Study area: Some paragraphs on the study area are taken from Dentico et al., 2026, section 2.2, it should be cited appropriately.
Although there is a mention of Dentico et al., 2025 (to be corrected to 2026) in section 3, it should be clear from the start that this study is the continuity of a previous, already published, work. The abstract is misleading (lines 18-20): “In this study, a newly validated, decade-long (2015-2024) high-resolution time series of CO2 … has been analysed.”
Legend of figure 1: I don’t see the red lines.
Legend of figure 2: Correct to Dentico et al., 2026 (not 2025). Same comment for the rest of the paper.
Figure 3a: There are a lot of gaps in FCO₂ estimated from in situ observations, and this FCO₂_EMSO-E2M3Adoesn’t seem to compare well with the reanalysis FCO₂_RD.Considering this, can it be concluded with certainty that this region acted as a mean sink for the 2015-2024 period?
Line 409: “March data were available only in 2024” – on figure 3b should the mean be shown? If there was data available only in March, showing the “mean” here is misleading.
Which method does figure 3b use, M1 or M2?
Line 415-416: “Further, these results confirm the role of dense water formation sites as primary drivers of carbon sequestration.” The results show a negative CO₂ flux at the surface, but this doesn’t necessarily indicate carbon export. This only indicates exchanges at the surface, not storage at depth. I suggest rephrasing that sentence.
432-434: “The use of 6-hourly wind speed averages is widely adopted as it smooths extreme values, …” Add a reference.
Lines 482-485: “As shown in Dentico et al., (2025) the measured values by Pro-Oceanus membrane sensor can report higher (>10 μatm) differences with pCO2sw calculated from discrete seawater samples. Here, it was not possible to compute a statistically robust measure of this uncertainty.” Was there no drift of the Pro-Oceanus CO₂ sensor?
Line 506: “Finally, in autumn and spring the mean differences were smaller (+5.13 μatm and -16.12 μatm, respectively). » This sentence should be moved to the end of the paragraph.
Section 4.4, lines 500-509: Why was pCO_2sw from the probe higher than the reanalysis data in 2022, was the reanalysis product not able to simulate the Marine Heatwave?
Figure 5: Why use AF, a forecast, if RD, a reanalysis is already available?
Lines 533-541: Again, on figure 6, there seems to be a large discrepancy between FCO₂ estimated from measurements and FCO₂ RD. I’m not convinced by this last paragraph, given those discrepancies, there is no guarantee that the model reanalysis bias would be the same as the observation’s bias.
Line 538-539: “-4.9 mmol m^-2 day^-1 and -4.5 mmol m^-2 day^-1, respectively for the two M1 and M2 methods” Is this for the whole period? If so, what would be the mean flux (estimated from observations) obtained using only days with observations, without B? What is the value of B and what is the mean flux using FCO₂ RD? What is the difference with (lines 559-560): “These calculations resulted in a mean sink flux of -1.15 mmol m^-2 day^-1 (M1) and - 0.76 mmol m^-2 day^-1 (M2) in the period 2015-2024”? This is not very clear.
I understand that to be robust M1 and M2 are compared, but I feel that this might have been better in supplementary. Why not choose one method? Otherwise, it can be confusing, the reader must go back again, to check which method is M1 and which one is M2.
In general, there are a lot of acronyms, which are described only once, and it can be difficult to follow at times.
The highest uncertainty on FCO₂ due to U (section 4.3) is around 3 mmol m^-2 day^-1, which is considerable considering the mean values. Considering these uncertainties, I’m not convinced on the affirmation that this region was a net sink on the 2015-2024 period.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1360-RC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Carlotta Dentico, 27 May 2026
  
  We are grateful to the reviewer for the evaluation of our work and for the comments and suggestions provided. Please find attached our detailed responses.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1360-AC3

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-1360', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Apr 2026

;;;;;;;;;; General comment:
In this manuscript authors describe and interpret new pCO2 data in the Adriatic in 2015-2024. These data were recently presented in detail and published (Dentico et al, 2026). Here authors used the pCO2 data first to separate the drivers (only thermal and non-thermal terms are quantified); the data are then used to calculate CO2 fluxes. As the data were not continuously acquired, two approaches (M1 and M2) are presented to derive CO2 fluxes (synthetized in Table 2) and authors also addressed the uncertainty of the fluxes depending the wind (synthetized in Figure 4). They found that the region is a CO2 sink in October-April and a CO2 source in May-September. The seasonality of pCO2 is mainly control by temperature as observed in previous work in the western Mediterranean Sea (e.g. Bégovic and Copin-Montégut 2002; Hood and Merlivat, 2001; Wimart-Rousseau et al, 2023; Tsiaras et al 2024). The discussion on drivers of pCO2 appears limited to the temperature effect although biological processes and winter mixing are also likely driving the pCO2 temporal variations. Interestingly authors also compare the pCO2 data and derived fluxes with models results (Cossarini et al 2021, available at CMEMS) suggesting that models reproduce the pCO2 time-series excepted in winter (simulated pCO2 lower than observations). The comparison also suggests that simulations are not able to reproduce large anomalies such as in summer 2022. Consequently the large CO2 source observed in summer 2022 (up to 100 mmolC/m2/d) is not simulated and the annual flux from the model probably not correct. These are very interesting results but the processes that explain the differences between data and model are not fully discussed. Would that be linked to the mixed-layer/stratification not well simulated? I think the analysis should extend the discussion to inform what should be corrected in the model. For example, it would be interesting to present and discuss the DIC and TALK profiles from the model. On the other hand, in the title the term “Decadal” suggests that the trend of the CO2 flux would be explored. Is the CO2 sink increase or decrease in the Adriatic ? This is not addressed in the paper although I think authors have in hand the data (E2M3A mooring and models) to explore this topic. In the southern Adriatic Cossarini et al (2021) estimate an increase of the CO2 sink of around 0.1 mmolC/m2/d/yr over 1999–2019. How this is compared with the new results obtained in 2015-2024. This could be also compared with reconstruct pCO2 and air-sea CO2 fluxes also available at CMEMS (Chau et al 2024). Finally, in the introduction authors mentioned the carbon sequestration and ocean acidification. However, this is not discussed although authors have in hand pCO2 data, some discrete TALK data, as well as pH data for 2015-2016 to investigate this topic and to compare with the model. Authors might try to calculate DIC and pH using TALK and pCO2, the time-series of TALK being deduced from TALK/Salinity relation. This could be compared with pH trend deduced from a Neural Network method (pH trend over 2014-2024 = -0.023/decade at the mooring location, Chau et al, 2024). In addition, to complement the mooring data (recently described by Dentico et al, 2026), the authors may add data from SOCAT (in 2014-2020) near the location of the E2M3A mooring. I also strongly recommend send their new pCO2 data to SOCAT. References in this manuscript are adapted and I suggest add few others.
The manuscript is suitable for publication after revision. Specific and minor comments are listed below.
;;;;;;;; Specific comments
C-01: Title: “Air–sea CO2 exchange in the Southern Adriatic Sea: assessing its role as a moderate carbon sink over the last decade”. I suggest specify the period 2015-2024. “Last decade” is somehow general and maybe not appropriate for future readers in 2030, 2035, 2040… Suggestion: “Air–sea CO2 exchange in the Southern Adriatic Sea: assessing its role as a moderate carbon sink in 2015-2024” or “Air–sea CO2 exchange in the Southern Adriatic Sea: an analysis over 2015-2024.”
C-02 Line 20: “The results showed that seasonal temperature variability and winter convection were the main processes driving the dynamics of surface partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2sw).” In winter is it convection or mixing in top layers ? Biological processes are not driving pCO2 in this region ?
C-03: Line 32: Gulev et al., (2021), not in references
C-04: Line 38-48: Authors introduced the ocean acidification but this is not discussed in the results (see also general comment).
C-05: Line 53: Authors write: “in more than 30 million observations in the Surface Ocean CO2 Atlas (SOCAT) V2022 release.” In the most recent version V2025 there are now more than 40 million observations. Please add reference to Bakker et al (2016). Note that version V2026 should be soon available (June 2026).
C-06: Line 55: “….and the amount of new observations per year in the open ocean has decreased since 2017 (Bakker et al., 2023).” This is correct but for this paper focused in the Adriatic is it really useful to recall that in the introduction? Maybe specify that few fCO2 data in SOCAT are available in the Adriatic (and only since 2014).
C-07: Line 58: “However, generating a coupled physical-biogeochemical reanalysis remains a complex challenge (Park et al., 2018), due to uncertainties in the representation of interactions between physical and biogeochemical processes,…“. I guess the comparison of pCO2 presented in figure 5 offers very interesting results to highlight processes not well represented in the model (e.g. winter mixing ?).
C-08: Line 89: Authors write: “..hereafter EMSO-E2M3A, is presented”. I guess you can refer to Dentico et al (2026).
C-09: The introduction is somehow long and, regarding the analysis, might be focused on uncertainty of CO2 flux in the marginal seas and recall Mediterranean Sea specificities such as high salinity and low Revelle factor (see a review in Álvarez et al 2023). For the CO2 data, in addition to SOCAT, you can also refer to the CARIMED data-base (Álvarez et al 2025).
C-10 Line 115: Figure 1 Caption: “…are also displayed and highlighted by the two red lines.” There is no red line in this figure.
C-11 Line 157: “The secondary mooring line is composed of an instrument chain with sensors at different depths for physical and chemical measurements from the seafloor to the intermediate layer (Cardin et al., 2025a).” Here we learn that sensors recorded observations at depth. Why not using these data to get a view of the variability of the MLD and subsurface data to better interpret the surface pCO2 changes ?
C-12 Line 174: “A detailed description of the dataset used here and the quality control procedures applied to the data are available in Dentico et al. (2025).” Dentico et al (2025) not in reference. I suspect this is Dentico et al (2026). Same on Line 213.
C-13 Line 226: “The EU Copernicus Marine Service (CMEMS) provides regular and systematic information on the ocean physics and biogeochemistry for the global ocean”. The CMEMS also provides reconstructed fields of pCO2, AT, CT, pH and air-sea CO2 fluxes (Chau et al, 2024) including in the region investigated here. It might be interesting to use this product available for 1985-2024 to compare with the data and the simulations and discuss the differences.
C-14 Line 228: “the European regional seas (Le Treon et al. 2019).” Correct Name Le Traon et al.
C-15 Line 295: “where, mean refers to yearly mean values of sea surface temperature (SST, °C),” What not using the mean over the full period ?
C-16 Line 308: “However, during winter convection, vertical mixing increased surface pCO2sw, as shown by the pCO2_NT component (Fig. 2a).” Is it also seen in the model ?
C-17 Line 314: “The post-convection periods (usually from March to May-June) were characterised by a phytoplankton bloom (Fig. 2e), but its direct effect on pCO2sw was less clear as few data were available in these periods.” Again, would the model help to interpret the impact of the bloom on pCO2 ?
C-18 Line 322: “Independent measurements from an Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV) operating in the area in July 2019 during the ATL2MED experiment (Martellucci et al., 2025) further confirmed this pattern, showing coherent short-term variations with the EMSO-E2M3A time series.” It would be interesting to add the data from this USV when it was close to the mooring. This could be added in Figure 2 for July 2019 to complete the time-series.
C-19 Line 324: “Interestingly, higher pCO2sw values were recorded in summer 2022, with a peak in July 2022, coinciding with the occurrence of a Mediterranean Marine Heatwave (MHW).” This is in line with results in the western Mediterranean Sea (Metzl et al, 2025).
C-20 Line 327: “Thus, the elevated pCO2sw observed in this period might be linked to the MHW, although further analyses, for instance in relation to wind change patterns (e.g., Pecci et al., 2024) would be required to confirm this hypothesis.” Pecci et al not yet published ?
C-21 Line 333: “…promoting an efficient exchange between bottom and surface pCO2sw.” Would be interesting to show vertical profiles of DIC in the SAd near the mooring (see for example data available in CARIMED, Álvarez et al, 2025). The DIC profiles are also available in the CMEMS model you used.
C-22 Line 338: “In the SAd the effect of biological activity was less clear because of data gaps.” But the CMEMS model could help to investigate this process.
C-23 Line 341: “… as highlighted in previous studies (Socal et al., 2012; Cerino et al., 2012).” Socal et al not in reference.
C-24 Line 367: Figure 2 caption “Modified from Dentico et al. (2025).” Correct Dentico et al. (2026). Note that Dentico et al. (2026) also show the wind speed.
C-25 Table 2: Would be nice to present a figure of the flux from table 2
C-26: To compare with other studies, what is the integrated annual flux (sum of monthly fluxes in molC/m2/yr) ?
C-27 Line 415: “Further, these results confirm the role of dense water formation sites as primary drivers of carbon sequestration”. Maybe I missed a point but I don’t think the description of the air-sea CO2 fluxes in this section support this conclusion.
C-28: Section “4.3 Estimated uncertainties in FCO2”. Please introduce the aim of this section. Is this section 4.3 really important ? I would suggest move this sensitivity analysis in Supplementary Material.
C-29 Figure 4 is not very clear: only a table would be useful to list the results of this sensitivity analysis.
C-30 Line 481: “Sensor based pCO2sw not always met the manufacturer and the ICOS or SOCAT accuracies (Steinhoff et al., 2025).” Steinhoff et al (2025) not in reference.
C-31 Line 483: “As shown in Dentico et al., (2025) the measured values by Pro-Oceanus membrane sensor can report higher (>10 μatm) differences with pCO2sw calculated from discrete seawater samples.” Recall that discrete samples were dedicated to pH and TALK measurements ?
C-32: Section “4.4. pCO2sw and FCO2: in situ data and model comparison”. To explain the pCO2 differences between data and models authors show that this is not linked to SST and salinity. As there are systematic low pCO2 in the models in winter would that be linked to MLD (less import of DIC-rich from subsurface in the models) ?
C-33: Are the MHW discussed on lines 323-325 identified in the models ?
C-34: I think maps of the annual or seasonal CO2 flux from the model in the Adriatic are missing (see for example Cossarini et al 2021, Figure 11). This would help identifying the distribution of the fluxes regarding the location of the mooring.
C-35 Line 540: “Even if these estimations should be considered with caution, they further confirm that the southern Adriatic acted as a moderate carbon sink over the last decade.” I think authors should conclude this section with results of annual fluxes (sum of monthly values in molC/m2/yr) to compare with other studies.
C-36 Line 551: “In winter, average pCO2sw were around 380 μatm, with marked increase especially during wintertime convection periods when CO2-rich intermediate and deep water were upwelled to the surface.” This is probably correct (import of CO2-rich water), but not quantified. It might be useful to look at the MLD from the models to quantify this process. Again, I think vertical profiles of properties such as DIC and TALK from the model would help to interpret the observed pCO2 seasonality.
C-37 Line 558: “One of the key results of this study was to demonstrate that over the past decade the
SAd acted as a moderate carbon sink.” This is a conclusion for the annual flux and it would be useful to list the annual value (in molC/m2/yr) and indicate if the sink was always moderate or if there any trend (increasing sink ?) as observed in other regions.
C-38 Line 589: Cardin et al, 2025: 2025 a or 2025b or both ?
C-39 Line 607: Acknowledgements: Should you add CMEMS ?
C-40: Figure S6: Caption: correct color code (data and model in black and blue, difference in grey).
;;;;;;;;;;; Reference added in this review not listed in the manuscript
Álvarez, M., et al (2023). Chapter 11 - Mediterranean Sea general biogeochemistry, Editor(s): Katrin Schroeder, Jacopo Chiggiato, Oceanography of the Mediterranean Sea, Elsevier, Pages 387-451, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823692-5.00004-2.
Álvarez, M., et al, CARIMED (CARbon, tracers, and ancillary data In the MEDiterranean Sea): A ship-based data synthesis product – overview and quality control procedures, Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-759, in review, 2025.
Bakker, D. C. E., et al: A multi-decade record of high-quality fCO2 data in version 3 of the Surface Ocean CO2 Atlas (SOCAT), Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 8, 383-413, doi:10.5194/essd-8-383-2016, 2016
Bégovic, M. and C. Copin-Montégut: Processes controlling annual variations in the partial pressure of CO2 in surface waters of the central northwestern Mediterranean Sea (Dyfamed site), Deep Sea Res. II, 49, 2031–2047, 2002
Chau, T.-T.-T., et al.,: CMEMS-LSCE: a global, 0.25°, monthly reconstruction of the surface ocean carbonate system, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 121–160, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-121-2024, 2024.
Dentico, C., Rubino, A., Civitarese, G., Giani, M., Siena, G., Kuchler, S., Le Meur, J., Corbo, A., and Cardin, V.: Surface pCO2 and hydrography in the dense water formation area of the southern Adriatic, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 18, 2119–2131, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-18-2119-2026, 2026.
Hood, E. M. and Merlivat, L.: Annual and interannual variations of fCO2 in the northwestern Mediterranean Sea: Results from hourly measurements made by CARIOCA buoys, 1995–1997, J.Mar. Res., 59, 113–131, 2001.
Metzl, N., et al: An updated synthesis of ocean total alkalinity and dissolved inorganic carbon measurements from 1993 to 2023: the SNAPO-CO2-v2 dataset, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 1075–1100, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-1075-2025, 2025
Steinhoff, T., et al,: The ICOS OTC P CO2 instrument intercomparison, Limnology and Oceanography Methods, 23, 924–948, https://doi.org/10.1002/lom3.10727, 2025.
Tsiaras K, Frangoulis C and Stamataki N (2024) Carbonate system variability in the Mediterranean Sea: a modelling study. Front. Mar. Sci. 11:1347990. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2024.1347990
Wimart-Rousseau, C., Wagener, T., Bosse, A., Raimbault, P., Coppola, L., Fourrier, M., Ulses, C., and Lefèvre, D.: Assessing seasonal and interannual changes in carbonate chemistry across two timeseries sites in the North Western Mediterranean Sea., Front. Mar. Sci., 10, 1281003,
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1281003, 2023.
;;;;;;;;; end review

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1360-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Carlotta Dentico, 27 May 2026
  
  We thank the reviewer for the valuable and constructive comments provided. Please find attached our detailed responses.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1360-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-1360', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Apr 2026

Please find attached the review of the manuscript.
Best regards.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1360-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Carlotta Dentico, 27 May 2026
  
  We thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments provided. Please find attached our detailed responses.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1360-AC2
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-1360', Anonymous Referee #3, 13 Apr 2026

General comments
This paper presents a surface ocean pCO₂ time series, along with other parameters, measured in the Southern Adriatic Sea (SAd), from April 2015 to May 2024. This time series had already been presented in Dentico et al., 2026 and this is the continuity of that work. In this more recent paper, a valuable addition was added: the CO₂ flux. The CO₂ flux estimated from these in situ observations was compared to the CO₂ flux estimated using an ocean reanalysis (referred to as model data) and the estimated uncertainties from different methods were discussed. Additionally, the pCO_2sw was separated into its thermal and non-thermal components, and the source-sink dynamics for summer-winter, in the SAd were discussed. Two seasonal phases were identified but unfortunately gaps in the dataset prevented further investigation on the role of certain processes, such as the impact of bloom phases in summer on the pCO_2sw. Nonetheless, this analysis offers valuable insight on the processes governing air-sea CO₂ exchanges in that region.
Although the authors gave a detailed comparison of their study to surface ocean pCO₂ variability in the surrounding regions of the Mediterranean Sea, a more quantitative comparison would have been useful. Some values are mentioned for dense water formation sites, for instance the flux in the northern Adriatic Sea and the carbon sequestration rate in the Gulf of Lion, but this comparison could have been deepened.
Once some minor modifications are made, this works merits publication. Indeed, this study provides useful, recent, CO₂ flux estimates, discusses systematic uncertainties and enables a model (reanalysis and forecast) sea surface pCO₂ validation in that region. While I have no doubt that these results should be published, I still have some questions and I have suggested minor modifications, listed below.
Minor comments and modifications
Section 1: Introduction
Lines 41-48: In the introduction, there is a detailed description on ocean acidification, and while it might be useful to give the general context, there is no further mention on ocean acidification later, this part could be condensed to one or two sentences.
The references should be updated, SOCATv2022 is cited instead of the latest version.
Similarly, a more recent version should be cited: Bakker, D. C., Alin, S. R., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Feely, R. A., and Gritzalis, T. (2023). SOCAT version 2023- An alarming decline in the ocean CO2 observing capacity.
Lines 67-70: “The latest estimates from Roobaert et al. (2024) quantified the global coastal CO2 flux equal to -2.2 GtCO2 yr-1 (-0.6 PgC yr-1) which represent around 21% of the total current CO2 flux from the atmosphere to the ocean (10.5 GtCO2; Friedlingstein et al., 2025).” Is 2024 really the latest estimate?
Lines 92-101: “The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the study area, Section 3 describes the data used and the thermodynamic calculation performed to estimate carbon flux. Results are presented and discussed in section 4. Conclusions are provided in Section 5.” Is that necessary? I suggest removing this.
Section 2 - Study area: Some paragraphs on the study area are taken from Dentico et al., 2026, section 2.2, it should be cited appropriately.
Although there is a mention of Dentico et al., 2025 (to be corrected to 2026) in section 3, it should be clear from the start that this study is the continuity of a previous, already published, work. The abstract is misleading (lines 18-20): “In this study, a newly validated, decade-long (2015-2024) high-resolution time series of CO2 … has been analysed.”
Legend of figure 1: I don’t see the red lines.
Legend of figure 2: Correct to Dentico et al., 2026 (not 2025). Same comment for the rest of the paper.
Figure 3a: There are a lot of gaps in FCO₂ estimated from in situ observations, and this FCO₂_EMSO-E2M3Adoesn’t seem to compare well with the reanalysis FCO₂_RD.Considering this, can it be concluded with certainty that this region acted as a mean sink for the 2015-2024 period?
Line 409: “March data were available only in 2024” – on figure 3b should the mean be shown? If there was data available only in March, showing the “mean” here is misleading.
Which method does figure 3b use, M1 or M2?
Line 415-416: “Further, these results confirm the role of dense water formation sites as primary drivers of carbon sequestration.” The results show a negative CO₂ flux at the surface, but this doesn’t necessarily indicate carbon export. This only indicates exchanges at the surface, not storage at depth. I suggest rephrasing that sentence.
432-434: “The use of 6-hourly wind speed averages is widely adopted as it smooths extreme values, …” Add a reference.
Lines 482-485: “As shown in Dentico et al., (2025) the measured values by Pro-Oceanus membrane sensor can report higher (>10 μatm) differences with pCO2sw calculated from discrete seawater samples. Here, it was not possible to compute a statistically robust measure of this uncertainty.” Was there no drift of the Pro-Oceanus CO₂ sensor?
Line 506: “Finally, in autumn and spring the mean differences were smaller (+5.13 μatm and -16.12 μatm, respectively). » This sentence should be moved to the end of the paragraph.
Section 4.4, lines 500-509: Why was pCO_2sw from the probe higher than the reanalysis data in 2022, was the reanalysis product not able to simulate the Marine Heatwave?
Figure 5: Why use AF, a forecast, if RD, a reanalysis is already available?
Lines 533-541: Again, on figure 6, there seems to be a large discrepancy between FCO₂ estimated from measurements and FCO₂ RD. I’m not convinced by this last paragraph, given those discrepancies, there is no guarantee that the model reanalysis bias would be the same as the observation’s bias.
Line 538-539: “-4.9 mmol m^-2 day^-1 and -4.5 mmol m^-2 day^-1, respectively for the two M1 and M2 methods” Is this for the whole period? If so, what would be the mean flux (estimated from observations) obtained using only days with observations, without B? What is the value of B and what is the mean flux using FCO₂ RD? What is the difference with (lines 559-560): “These calculations resulted in a mean sink flux of -1.15 mmol m^-2 day^-1 (M1) and - 0.76 mmol m^-2 day^-1 (M2) in the period 2015-2024”? This is not very clear.
I understand that to be robust M1 and M2 are compared, but I feel that this might have been better in supplementary. Why not choose one method? Otherwise, it can be confusing, the reader must go back again, to check which method is M1 and which one is M2.
In general, there are a lot of acronyms, which are described only once, and it can be difficult to follow at times.
The highest uncertainty on FCO₂ due to U (section 4.3) is around 3 mmol m^-2 day^-1, which is considerable considering the mean values. Considering these uncertainties, I’m not convinced on the affirmation that this region was a net sink on the 2015-2024 period.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1360-RC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Carlotta Dentico, 27 May 2026
  
  We are grateful to the reviewer for the evaluation of our work and for the comments and suggestions provided. Please find attached our detailed responses.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1360-AC3

Peer review completion

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

ED: Submit a revised manuscript (29 May 2026) by Hermann Bange

AR by Carlotta Dentico on behalf of the Authors (17 Jul 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes

EF by Svenja Lange (20 Jul 2026) Manuscript Supplement

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (20 Jul 2026) by Hermann Bange

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (22 Jul 2026)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

This is my second review of the paper submitted by Dentico et al. The authors have taken into account all the comments from the reviewers and replied satisfactory. I appreciate authors added the Saildrone and SOCAT data in Figure 2. The new Table 2 is also informative.

The manuscript is suitable for publication in its present form after very few corrections. Specific comments listed below (all minor).

;;;;;;;;;; Specific comments

C-01, Line 60: “…resulting in 44 million observations in the Surface Ocean CO2 Atlas (SOCAT) V2026
release (Bakker et al., 2026).” Please refer also to Bakker et al (2016) as indicated in the SOCAT FAIR.

C-02 Line 346: Authors write: “The SOCAT observations in 2016 are located along the eastern side of the SAd, therefore, the discrepancies may reflect differences in the hydrographic conditions and water mass distribution between the two surveys, resulting in the sampling of waters with different physical and biogeochemical characteristics.” This is an interesting comparison. It would have been useful to add SST and salinity from SOCAT in Figure 2 (optional).

C-03 Line 387: Authors write: “First, the intensity and occurrence of convection in the SAd has varied
substantially among years (Fig. 2f).” Probably Figure 2e (for MLD).

C-04: Table 2: Typo: 6-ours… 6-Hours

C-05 Line 527: Authors write: “The comparison between daily pCO2sw from CMEMS (Sect. 3.4) and pCO2sw measured by the probe for a decade-long period highlighted a coherent temporal evolution (Fig. 5).” Should be Figure 4 now. Same for Line 544.

C-06 Line 553: Authors write: “The comparison between FCO2 derived from in situ data and from the model is presented in Fig. 6.” Should be Figure 5 now.

C-07 Line 572: Authors write: “The spatial distribution of the mean annual FCO2 further highlighted that spatial differences in the basin existed (Figure 7).” Should be Figure 6 now. Same for Line 576.

C-08 Line 630: Authors write: “The SAd, as many other regions in the Mediterranean Sea, is currently undergoing profound physical changes, including increasing sea surface temperature, rising salinity, and the potential intensification of extreme events”. Maybe add a reference on this urgent topic

C-09: Figure S3: Figure S1 and S2 present pCO2 in µatm. For Figure S3, correct units for pCO2 in µatm (not ppm).

;;;;;;;;; References added in this review

Bakker, D. C. E., et al: A multi-decade record of high-quality fCO2 data in version 3 of the Surface Ocean CO2 Atlas (SOCAT), Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 8, 383-413, doi:10.5194/essd-8-383-2016, 2016

;;;;;; end review

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (22 Jul 2026) by Hermann Bange

AR by Carlotta Dentico on behalf of the Authors (23 Jul 2026) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

04 Aug 2026

Air–sea CO₂ exchange in the Southern Adriatic Sea: assessing its role as a moderate carbon sink over the last decade (2015–2024)

Carlotta Dentico, Gianpiero Cossarini, Giuseppe Civitarese, Michele Giani, Angelo Rubino, and Vanessa Cardin

Biogeosciences, 23, 5399–5418, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-23-5399-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-23-5399-2026, 2026

Short summary

Carlotta Dentico, Gianpiero Cossarini, Giuseppe Civitarese, Michele Giani, Angelo Rubino, and Vanessa Cardin

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1360-supplement

Carlotta Dentico, Gianpiero Cossarini, Giuseppe Civitarese, Michele Giani, Angelo Rubino, and Vanessa Cardin

Viewed

Total article views: 759 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
517	191	51	759	91	35	43

HTML: 517
PDF: 191
XML: 51
Total: 759
Supplement: 91
BibTeX: 35
EndNote: 43

Views and downloads (calculated since 25 Mar 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2026	303	90	27	420
Apr 2026	139	60	12	211
May 2026	37	14	2	53
Jun 2026	12	6	3	21
Jul 2026	15	16	3	34
Aug 2026	11	5	4	20

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 25 Mar 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2026	303	90	27	420
Apr 2026	139	60	12	211
May 2026	37	14	2	53
Jun 2026	12	6	3	21
Jul 2026	15	16	3	34
Aug 2026	11	5	4	20

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 745 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 745 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 10 Aug 2026

Download

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

Preprint (1661 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising due to human activities. The ocean has absorbed almost 30 % of the total emissions and stored in deeper waters. We studied the southern Adriatic Sea, an area where dense water forms and sinks, helping move carbon from the surface to depth. Using a newly validated long-term dataset, we found that over the past decade this region acted as a net sink of carbon dioxide, highlighting its role in storing carbon in the Mediterranean Sea.


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

Air–sea CO2 exchange in the Southern Adriatic Sea: assessing its role as a moderate carbon sink over the last decade

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Interactive discussion

Interactive discussion

Peer review completion

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

Supplement

Viewed

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Air–sea CO₂ exchange in the Southern Adriatic Sea: assessing its role as a moderate carbon sink over the last decade