the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Exploring iron processes in the California Current System through a regional dataset of dissolved iron and organic ligands measurements
Abstract. The micronutrient iron (Fe) regulates productivity across vast regions of the ocean. Along continental margins, dissolved Fe (dFe) concentrations reflect interactions between external sources and internal cycling. Benthic and riverine inputs, together with stabilization by organic ligands, counterbalance biological uptake, scavenging, and precipitation. However, the balance among these processes remains poorly constrained, particularly with respect to the roles of ligands and authigenic Fe precipitation. Here, we compile 3,990 dFe measurements from 29 studies (1987–2024) and 473 measurements of different ligand classes from 7 studies along the U.S. West Coast (USWC), a mostly Fe-limited yet highly productive upwelling system. Most dFe measurements were collected within the upper 50 m, primarily along the central USWC and during summer. dFe concentrations exhibit a strong cross-shore gradient, declining from as much as ∼10 nM near the coast to ∼0.1 nM at 100 km offshore. This pattern is consistent with riverine and benthic inputs nearshore and rapid scavenging and precipitation along the shelf-to-basin pathway. Seasonal variability differs regionally: concentrations are higher in the northern USWC during summer, consistent with upwelling, while higher concentrations in the central and southern regions during winter likely reflect riverine inputs and/or enhanced vertical mixing. Concurrent Fe and ligand measurements are strongly correlated, suggesting a central role for ligands in stabilizing dFe. Positive correlations between dFe and macronutrients highlight the importance of biological uptake and remineralization, whereas negative correlations with oxygen indicate enhanced benthic fluxes under hypoxic conditions. Despite the value of the dataset’s coast-wide coverage, gaps in spatial and temporal sampling, along with methodological differences among studies, limit a comprehensive understanding of Fe variability and underlying processes. Improved intercalibration and high-quality measurements of Fe speciation and riverine inputs are needed to better constrain particulate Fe dynamics and coastal dFe enrichment. In addition, sustained long-term time series are essential to resolve the full seasonal cycle of Fe in this highly dynamic region.
- Preprint
(3210 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4452 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4502', Anh Pham, 25 Aug 2026
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4502', Léo Mahieu, 11 Sep 2026
The manuscript titled ‘Exploring iron processes in the California Current System through a regional dataset of dissolved iron and organic ligands measurements’ led by Dr. Anh Le-Duy Pham presents a valuable synthesis of a large effort of data compilation. The difference in spatiotemporal coverage of the compiled studies is well stated, and nevertheless, the synthesis effort lands on a precise discussion that provides further understanding of the processes driving iron cycling in the area. It also highlights the gaps to address moving forward. However, while the interest of the manuscript is manifest, several aspects need to be revised. First, I need to point out the formatting issue of the references, and I also suggest carefully checking the figures location within the text.
Most importantly, I have a problem with the interpretation of the ligand data. Indeed, the authors discuss the relationship between the concentration of dFe and of the different ligand classes and conclude on a strong relationship between the two. This is omitting the mathematical bias induced by the interpretation of the CLE-ACSV data, that incorporates dFe concentration within the ligand concentration following the assumption that all the dFe fraction is accessible for competitive ligand exchange with the added ligand. It is, therefore, mathematically logical that the relationship is strong, especially when a high range of dFe value is considered. This assumption is an important limitation to consider, especially in a coastal context, were large amounts of dFe could be inorganic and inert and/or sterically inaccessible for the added ligand. A more accurate way of interpreting this data would be to consider the truly titrated ligand fraction, the excess ligand : eL = L – dFe. An easy solution would be to use the variable already present in the published dataset Ltot = L1+ L2 + L3 + L4, and then look into the relation between dFe and eLtot = Ltot – dFe.
Despite the overall high quality of the manuscript, I believe the issues pointed out above require major revision before publication in egusphere, and hope my comments will help the authors in the preparation of their manuscript.
Specific comments:
l. 8: you mention a dFe max of 30 nM in the discussion, here it is 10 nM.
Introduction: maybe a map with general circulation arrows and current acronyms would help unfamiliar readers?
l. 12: statement about Fe and ligand relationship to be adjusted following the modification from the general comments.
l. 75 to 77: this is not necessary and should be deleted.
l. 92 to 107: introduce the notion of excess ligand here.
Section 3.2: this section is way longer than the other results subsection. You might want to split it, maybe as i) dFe vertical distribution, ii) dFe cross-shore distribution, and iii) ligand distribution. If done so, The current section 3.3. should be moved before description of ligands distribution.
Section 3.2.: you might want to consider adding a table describing the vertical and cross-shore variations of dFe, truly dissolved dFe, total dissolvable dFe, and ligands (split by classes or not). That would help the readers to take home a clear and concise piece of information.
l. 239 to 248: I globally agree with the comments on saturation of the stronger ligands and larger excess of weaker ligands, but I still want to see relationship with excess ligands.
l. 302: should be R = 0.7 – 1.0
l. 303: I disagree with the statement suggesting that siderophores are increasing with dFe. The siderophores increase is too small, and is the small of many detected siderophores of independent relationship to iron.
l. 302 to 312: to be corrected following general comments.
Fig. 8: first occurrence of the acronyms Lig1, Lig2, Lig3, Lig4, Side. This correlation table should also include Ltot and eLtot.
l. 324 to 340: you might want to integrate other references such as the following to discuss ligand production by bacteria in iron limited conditions:
Mellett, T., Monreal, P., Kunde, K. et al. Iron availability modulates bacteria carbon cycling in the mesopelagic. Sci Rep 16, 22360 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-49839-8
Bundy, R. M., K. N. Buck, B. D. Jenkins, et al. 2026. “Differences in Siderophore Production During the Growth of Phytoplankton in Southern Ocean Incubation Experiments Under High- and Low-Iron Conditions.” Environmental Microbiology 28, no. 9: e70410. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.70410.
Discussion and conclusion: I think this section would gain in readability being split into discussion subsections and a separate conclusion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4502-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4502', Randelle Bundy, 17 Sep 2026
General comments: The manuscript written by Anh Le-Duy Pham and coauthors called “Exploring iron processes in the California Current System through a regional dataset of dissolved iron and organic ligands measurements” discusses a compilation of iron and organic iron-binding ligand data from along the U.S. West Coast, primarily documenting the nearshore to offshore transport of iron and ligands. The paper was very well written and I enjoyed reading it. I have very minor comments highlighted below.
Specific comments:
It could just be something with the formatting of the online pdf, but the references are in a strange format which makes it difficult to tell what is an in-text citation.
Line 44: You could also cite this recent compilation of GEOTRACES ligand data (Whitby et al. 2024).
Line 68: I am assuming Undercurrent here means the California Undercurrent? If so, please specify.
Lines 75-77: I don’t think you need these lines, but that is more a personal preference and will leave it up to the authors.
Line 90: My only more major comment on the paper is that in the results section it was sometimes difficult to tell if you were talking about the dissolved Fe fraction or total dissolvable fraction. I think here, since you specify that you have lumped together the Fe datasets and will refer to them both as “dFe” throughout, you can focus your results and discussion on the combined dataset. Since you present the separated data in the supplement, I don’t think you need to dedicate as much space in the main text about where these two datasets agree or disagree, in order to avoid confusion for the reader. In some places I think you can keep it to a simple one or two sentence explanation as to why in some cases the trends you observe are driven by the total dissolvable fraction exclusively, but otherwise you can focus on the combined dataset.
Line 152: Here are you referring to the combined dFe dataset? I think you are, but it is not clear because sometimes you refer to dissolved Fe in the manuscript as “dFe”, sometimes “truly dissolved Fe” and sometimes “dissolved Fe”. It is also not clear if this difference in nomenclature is meant to mean you are talking about the combined dataset, or just the operational pool of Fe. My sense is you could simplify as mentioned above, but if you would like to the keep the manuscript as is, perhaps you can introduce slightly more specific nomenclature where if you are talking about dissolved Fe as an operational definition you use dFe, and if you are talking about the combined dataset of dissolved + total dissolvable Fe you can use something like dFedata or some other similar abbreviation.
Section 3.2: I wasn’t sure here either if the first paragraph is referring to the combined dataset, and then the subsequent paragraphs are talking more specifically about the different operational pools of Fe.
Figure 4: Could you perhaps note in the legend, or with some kind of horizontal line in Figure 4a, what the average bottom depth is for the stations < 50 km from the coast is? It would be interesting to know where the average bottom depth is in relation to that sub-surface feature in dFe.
Figure 6: I thought the seasonal analysis was really interesting, despite its limitations (this is just a comment I know, but it was interesting to see the difference seasonal trends in each region of the coast).
Line 323: In Boiteau et al. (2019) they also noted that some of their elevated siderophore concentrations were deeper in the water column where there were indicators that there could have been some lateral transport of sediment material (indicated by lower beam transmission). So it could also be that the negative siderophore correlation with oxygen is due in part from a shelf remineralization signature, rather than an in-situ remineralization signature.
References
Whitby, H., Park, J., Shaked, Y., Boiteau, R.M., Buck, K.N. and Bundy, R.M., 2024. New insights into the organic complexation of bioactive trace metals in the global ocean from the GEOTRACES era. Oceanography, 37(2), pp.142-155.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4502-RC2
Data sets
Exploring iron processes in the California Current System through a regional dataset of dissolved iron and organic ligands measurements Anh Le-Duy Pham https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11068852
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 197 | 93 | 39 | 329 | 61 | 33 | 30 |
- HTML: 197
- PDF: 93
- XML: 39
- Total: 329
- Supplement: 61
- BibTeX: 33
- EndNote: 30
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
There is a mistake in the authors’ affiliations for Claire Till and Raph Till in the preprint. The correct affiliation should be:
Chemistry Department, California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt, Arcata, CA, USA, 95521.
Anh Pham, on behalf of all co-authors.