Analytical solution of the nitracline with the evolution of subsurface chlorophyll maximum in stratified water columns

Gong, Xiang; Jiang, Wensheng; Wang, Linhui; Gao, Huiwang; Boss, Emmanuel; Yao, Xiaohong; Kao, Shuh-Ji; Shi, Jie

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-2371-2017

Articles | Volume 14, issue 9

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-2371-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-2371-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 14, issue 9

Research article

|

10 May 2017

Research article |

| 10 May 2017

Analytical solution of the nitracline with the evolution of subsurface chlorophyll maximum in stratified water columns

Xiang Gong, Wensheng Jiang, Linhui Wang, Huiwang Gao, Emmanuel Boss, Xiaohong Yao, Shuh-Ji Kao, and Jie Shi

Download

Final revised paper (published on 10 May 2017)
Preprint (discussion started on 18 Aug 2016)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of "Analytical solution of nitracline with the evolution of subsurface chlorophyll maximum in stratified water columns"', Anne Willem Omta, 21 Sep 2016
- AC1: 'Response to Dr. Jack Middelburg', Xiang Gong, 29 Dec 2016
RC2: 'Some clarification is needed: the Analytical solutions are valid only for estimates of z$_m $, h, and $\sigma$ that are consistent with the model's numerical steady state solution', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Nov 2016
- AC2: 'Response to feferee #2', Xiang Gong, 29 Dec 2016

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (29 Dec 2016) by Jack Middelburg

AR by Xiang Gong on behalf of the Authors (31 Mar 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (04 Apr 2017) by Jack Middelburg

Dear Dr. Gong:

Thank you for submitting this revision to Biogeosciences. I have read the last version of your paper and the rebuttal, and I am happy to inform you that your paper is now accepted for publication pending technical corrections. While reading I identified the need for further language correction and the need for many technical corrections which I list below.

Line 56: water-column stratification
Line 65: replace on the other hand with however
Line 87: physical-biological
Line 115: it is unclear where respectively refers to.
Line 142: Trichodesmium
Line 142: if they are at the surface
Line 145 and other places: you present alfa is a recycling rate. Is this correct? I believe it should be a recycling efficiency given the equation and also because of its unit. See also below for further areas that need to be corrected because of this.
Line 163: replace depths with depth, same in line 166.
Line 179: the Dirichlet or fixed concentration boundary condition
Line 189: within an
Line 254: a big technical challenge
Line 255: measurable or quantifiable?
Line 272: version of eq. 2 reduces
Line 276: Put in this study at beginning of sentence not at end.
Line 280: starts sentence with nine rather than 9
Line 308: becomes
Line 326: unclear, reformulate
Line 329: unclear sentence, reformulate
Line 411: as follows:
Line 430: why this ‘also’?
Line 446: numerical study of Mellard et al (2011)… experimental test of …
Line 448: Here it is critical what alfa is: a rate parameter or efficiency. I guess the latter and then I would reformulate here along the line: because recycling processes are never 100 % efficient (alfa not equal 1)…
Line 492: Letelier I presume
Line 561: why this indeed?
Line 567: unclear sentence: rewrite
Line 620: nitrate becomes smaller
Line 621: (alfa). This implies that…
Line 622: reformulate in terms of consumption exceeds supply. Eating holes is not scientific use.
Line 635: independent of density
Line 638: concentration
Line 641: reduces
Line 686: write SCS in full for readability
Line 715-717: rewrite, it is unclear.
Line 726-727: the last sentence is not needed and might need revision given my remarks on alfa.

With best regards, Jack Middelburg Associate editor

Hide

AR by Xiang Gong on behalf of the Authors (11 Apr 2017) Manuscript

Short summary

The subsurface chlorophyll maximum layer (SCML) forms near the nitracline. By incorporating a piecewise function for the approximate Gaussian vertical profile of chlorophyll, we derive analytical solutions of a specified nutrient–phytoplankton model. Nitracline depth is deeper than SCML depth, and a thinner SCML corresponds to a steeper nitracline. A higher light attenuation coefficient leads to a shallower but steeper nitracline. Nitracline steepness is independent of surface light intensity.