Biogeochemical versus ecological consequences of modeled ocean physics

Clayton, Sophie; Dutkiewicz, Stephanie; Jahn, Oliver; Hill, Christopher; Heimbach, Patrick; Follows, Michael J.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-2877-2017

Articles | Volume 14, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-2877-2017

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-2877-2017

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

Articles | Volume 14, issue 11

Research article

|

16 Jun 2017

Research article |

| 16 Jun 2017

Biogeochemical versus ecological consequences of modeled ocean physics

Sophie Clayton, Stephanie Dutkiewicz, Oliver Jahn, Christopher Hill, Patrick Heimbach, and Michael J. Follows

Download

Final revised paper (published on 16 Jun 2017)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 01 Sep 2016)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of Clayton et. al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Oct 2016
RC2: 'Review of Clayton et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Nov 2016
RC3: 'Review of Clayton et al., BGD', Anonymous Referee #3, 02 Dec 2016
AC1: 'Response to reviewers', Sophie Clayton, 01 Mar 2017

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (01 Mar 2017) by Caroline P. Slomp

AR by Sophie Clayton on behalf of the Authors (07 Apr 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (10 Apr 2017) by Caroline P. Slomp

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (21 Apr 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Overall, I find the manuscript much improved from the last version. Some critical details, such as a better description of the model set-up, have been added and the explanations for the model differences are now much more concrete. However, I still think that the key messages of the paper could be improved. There is only a relatively brief discussion (2 short paragraphs) in the conclusion section on what the implications are and it would be nice if the authors spent more time on this. For example, what do their results mean for those developing the next generation of models? Where specifically should limited resources be directed? Can they recommend "optimal" model configurations for different types of investigations, e.g., biogeochemical vs. ecological focused studies, given that researches have limited computational resources and time? Surely this study has given the authors more insight into the implications than the rather generalized statements that they've written. If the key messages and implications can be articulated in a better manner, and some minor recommendations followed (see below), I would recommend publication.

Specific comments:

Please include the CR results as supplementary material. It is essential to have the absolute values available somewhere for reference if only difference plots are in the main text.

I prefer Fig. R2 over Fig. 4. I would recommend that Fig. R2 be the one that appears in the published version.

In Section 3.1 (Pg. 5 line 17) can the authors include the globally integrated primary production rates for the models rather than just saying that they are "similar", i.e., make a quantitative comparison rather than a qualitative one.

Figure 6, the Hovmoller diagrams of the seasonal evolution of key model variables, is an improvement that makes it easier to understand section 4.2. However, I would recommend that the authors not throw out Fig. 7 from the original version, as it's nice to also see the comparison of monthly-integrated values. Perhaps this older figure can be kept as a supplemental figure?

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (26 Apr 2017)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (04 May 2017) by Caroline P. Slomp

AR by Sophie Clayton on behalf of the Authors (09 May 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (10 May 2017) by Caroline P. Slomp

AR by Sophie Clayton on behalf of the Authors (10 May 2017) Manuscript

Download

Article (7517 KB)
Full-text XML