the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Current Dynamics, Drivers, and Vertical Thermal Structure around Sir Bu Nair Island (Arabian/Persian Gulf)
Abstract. Sir Bu Nair Island (SBN) in the central Arabian Gulf is one of the last locations in the UAE’s Gulf waters to retain extensive and well developed coral reefs, whereas many nearshore environments have experienced severe degradation following recurrent marine heatwaves. Although tides, winds and subtidal circulation are thought to influence reef-level thermal conditions at SBN, the local physical processes governing circulation and temperature variability have not previously been resolved from in situ observations. Here, we analyse a 17-month record (May 2021–October 2022) of currents, sea level, and temperature from bottom-mounted ADCPs and multi-depth temperature moorings, complemented by reanalysis of winds. Currents at SBN are strongly anisotropic and aligned along a dominant principal axis, reflecting topographic steering around the island. At the more exposed northwest site, upper-layer along-axis velocities commonly reach ~0.6 m s−1, with episodic peaks approaching 0.8–1.0 m s−1, while at the southern site, flows are weaker, with typical upper-layer velocities of ~0.3 m s−1 and peaks of ~0.5–0.7 m s−1. Tidal forcing dominates the instantaneous flow, explaining up to ~80 % of the along-axis current variance at the northwest site but substantially less in the cross-axis direction and at the southern site, leaving significant subtidal variability. Wind–current coupling is strongest at subtidal timescales, with rapid (0–2 h) responses consistent with local barotropic adjustment to wind forcing. Temperature observations reveal pronounced seasonal variability, with summer surface temperatures exceeding 35 °C and annual excursions of more than 15 °C across the water column. A persistent seasonal thermocline develops during late spring and summer, with vertical temperature differences of 2–4 °C. This stratification is repeatedly disrupted by rapid mixing events lasting 2–3 days, during which the water column becomes nearly homogeneous. Spectral and variance analyses show that stratification variability is dominated by diurnal processes, with additional modulation at synoptic (2–4 day) timescales. The results indicate that tidal mixing alone is insufficient to suppress stratification and that episodic destratification arises from the combined influence of wind forcing and subtidal variability acting on a preconditioned water column. These findings provide the first integrated observational description of circulation and thermal structure at SBN, demonstrating how topographic control, tides, winds, and subtidal variability interact to regulate stratification, vertical exchange and transport processes around an isolated reef system in the central Gulf.
- Preprint
(2641 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 03 Sep 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3183', Bernhard Riegl, 14 Aug 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Geórgenees Cavalcante, 18 Aug 2026
reply
Reviewer 1:
General comments: The paper is a novel and timely contribution to the literature concerning the oceanography of the Persian Gulf. It is not only useful for the narrow field of physical oceanography itself, but also very useful and informative for neighboring sciences, such as the biological ones. The paper is very well written and there are only trivial changes to make. It is very strong in methodology. This paper should find enthusiastic uptake by the research community.
R: We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment of our manuscript and for highlighting its relevance to both physical oceanography and related biological research. We greatly appreciate the encouraging comments regarding the novelty, methodology, and potential contribution of the study to the wider research community.
Specific comments: The paper is well-written, but still a bit verbose in some parts. If the authors choose to leave it that way, it's ok (it is not painful to read) but some more shortening would make some statements more concise and the text shorter.
R: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We reviewed the manuscript throughout and shortened several passages, particularly in the Results and Discussion, to reduce repetition and improve concision while retaining the information needed to describe the analyses and their interpretation.
In the results, the tenses are mixed. I would suggest going over the results section and making sure that everything is in the "past tense". Mixing tenses is not a factual, or fatal, flaw - but the paper will read better if this is addressed. There is presently little logic as to when and where the present and the past tenses alternate. On the bright side, the fact that this is my major beef with this manuscript underlines its scientific quality.
R: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We reviewed the results section throughout and adjusted all tense inconsistency, to make sure all the Results are predominantly in the “past tense”.
Line 32: "...leaving significant subtidal variability...": is this really "subtidal" (as in the depth below the tidal range), or is this really "non-tidal" (for lack of a better word) influence? The question arises from the sentence stating that tidal forcing is important ... and then saying the rest of the forcing is subtidal. But wind-forcing would not be necessarily subtidal...
R: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this ambiguity. Here, “subtidal” was used in its physical-oceanographic sense to refer to variability at frequencies below the tidal band, which can include wind-driven variability. However, we agree that the original wording could incorrectly imply that all variance not explained by the tidal analysis is necessarily subtidal. We have therefore replaced “subtidal variability” with “residual current variability” in this sentence. We retain “subtidal” where it specifically refers to the low-frequency component isolated by filtering.
Line 36: " ...a persistent seasonal thermocline..."; at what depth?
R: We agree that the term “thermocline” implies identification of the depth range containing the strongest vertical temperature gradient. Because our fixed-depth temperature measurements resolve the development and breakdown of vertical thermal stratification but do not provide sufficient vertical resolution to define thermocline depth continuously, we have replaced “seasonal thermocline” with the more precise term “vertical thermal stratification.” We now describe its magnitude in terms of the observed temperature difference between the upper and lower water column.
Line 54: "...cyclonic gyre currents"....remove the "s" from surrents.
R: Done.
Line 87: introduce blank before "may"
R: Done.
Line 737 and 748: "Acropora" should be italics
R: Done.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3183-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Geórgenees Cavalcante, 18 Aug 2026
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3183', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Aug 2026
reply
This manuscript aims at understanding the local physical processes governing circulation and temperature variability in the Sir Bu Nair Island (SBN) of the Gulf. To do so, it mainly analyzes observed currents, temperature, and sea level from bottom-mounted ADCPs and multi-depth temperature moorings, and analyzes ERA5 reanalysis wind.
This manuscript is interesting and well-structured, making it easy to follow the stream of thoughts. It addresses the scientific question of better understanding the drivers of temperature and circulation variability in the SBN how it could affect the coral reefs in the region.
I have two major comments and a few minor remarks which I think should be addressed before publication.
Major comment:
My first major comment is the lack of analysis to assess the spatial extent to which observations at the SBN reflect currents and thermal condition away from the Island, and the lack of analysis to determine the temporal stability of the observed data (i.e., do these relatively short observations represent a typical year? What is the interannual variability of the variables analysed?). The first part of this comment shows the spatial extent for the interpreted results, while the second shows whether the interpretation of the obtained results are recurring or anomalous.
I suggest that the authors include these analyses, both of which can be done using the same technique already applied in the paper for wind.
My second major comment is about the proposed mechanism of de-stratification, a combination of rapid mechanical mixing and oscillatory advection (line 570–571). In my opinion, the manuscript does not provide enough evidence to establish these processes as drivers of the rapid collapse of stratification. The authors co-relate several variables at differing frequencies, finding differing contributions of the variables to delta T variance in the north and south observation sites. However, the operating mechanism of the advection and/or wind that removes the vertical stratification across the whole column is not clear to me. What are the temporal characteristics of the synoptic wind or advective process? Given the proximity to land, are these wind/advective processes regional or local to the SBN? The proposed mechanism for de-stratification could be valid but should be presented with more care if they are not demonstrated more convincingly. It would be possible to strengthen this hypothesis through the analysis of salinity, which may be viewed as a tracer particularly at the short time scales relevant here.
Related to this, the one-month period that is used for the analysis of stratification (line 474–475) may be unsuitable for this purpose because of the strong seasonality in the Gulf.
Minor comments:
Line 248: SBN, not the Gulf
Figure 5: Perhaps, it can be plotted differently, the temperature curve at different depths and the rolling envelop are difficult to distinguish.
Line 720: is the Shamal wind event a seasonal or a diurnal event?
Line 209, and throughout the manuscript: please re-write for clarity and conciseness.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3183-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 41 | 33 | 5 | 79 | 1 | 3 |
- HTML: 41
- PDF: 33
- XML: 5
- Total: 79
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General comments: The paper is a novel and timely contribution to the literature concerning the oceanography of the Persian Gulf. It is not only useful for the narrow field of physical oceanography itself, but also very useful and informative for neighboring sciences, such as the biological ones. The paper is very well written and there are only trivial changes to make. It is very strong in methodology. This paper should find enthusiastic uptake by the research community.
Specific comments: The paper is well-written, but still a bit verbose in some parts. If the authors choose to leave it that way, it's ok (it is not painful to read) but some more shortening would make some statements more concise and the text shorter.
In the results, the tenses are mixed. I would suggest going over the results section and making sure that everything is in the "past tense". Mixing tenses is not a factual, or fatal, flaw - but the paper will read better if this is addressed. There is presently little logic as to when and where the present and the past tenses alternate. On the bright side, the fact that this is my major beef with this manuscript underlines its scientific quality.
Line 32: "...leaving significant subtidal variability...": is this really "subtidal" (as in the depth below the tidal range), or is this really "non-tidal" (for lack of a better word) influence? The question arises from the sentence stating that tidal forcing is important ... and then saying the rest of the forcing is subtidal. But wind-forcing would not be necessarily subtidal...
Line 36: " ...a persistent seasonal thermocline..."; at what depth?
Line 54: "...cyclonic gyre currents"....remove the "s" from surrents.
Line 87: introduce blank before "may"
Line 737 and 748: "Acropora" should be italics