Implications of sea-ice biogeochemistry for oceanic production and emissions of dimethyl sulfide in the Arctic

Hayashida, Hakase; Steiner, Nadja; Monahan, Adam; Galindo, Virginie; Lizotte, Martine; Levasseur, Maurice

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3129-2017

Articles | Volume 14, issue 12

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3129-2017

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

Special issue:

NETCARE (Network on Aerosols and Climate: Addressing Key Uncertainties...

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3129-2017

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

Articles | Volume 14, issue 12

Research article

|

27 Jun 2017

Research article |

| 27 Jun 2017

Implications of sea-ice biogeochemistry for oceanic production and emissions of dimethyl sulfide in the Arctic

Hakase Hayashida, Nadja Steiner, Adam Monahan, Virginie Galindo, Martine Lizotte, and Maurice Levasseur

Download

Final revised paper (published on 27 Jun 2017)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 04 Oct 2016)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of the sea ice DMS modelling paper of Hayashida et al, 2016', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Nov 2016
- AC1: 'response to anonymous referee #1', Hakase Hayashida, 03 Mar 2017
RC2: 'Review of Hayashida et al "Implications of sea-ice biogeochemistry for oceanic production and emissions of dimethylsulfide in the Arctic"', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Dec 2016
- AC2: 'response to anonymous referee #2', Hakase Hayashida, 03 Mar 2017
AC3: 'Revised manuscript attached', Hakase Hayashida, 03 Mar 2017
AC4: 'Revised manuscript showing the difference from the discussion paper', Hakase Hayashida, 03 Mar 2017
AC5: 'Supplemental material', Hakase Hayashida, 03 Mar 2017

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (19 Mar 2017) by Laurent Bopp

AR by Hakase Hayashida on behalf of the Authors (19 Mar 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (06 Apr 2017) by Laurent Bopp

RR by Martin Vancoppenolle (15 May 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Dear Editor, dear authors,

I’m now generally happy with the answer to my comments, which have been generally well addressed. I had initially been puzzled because I felt the reply not precise enough to evaluate their actions on the manuscript.

This is why I contacted the first author directly, to get the « track changes » manuscript and the paper of Mortenson et al., which is a key complement to this one. This also may explain why my review took a little bit longer than I wanted.

As a grandpa would, I recommend that you include such documents for your next submission, to make sure reviewers have all the required information to evaluate your work.

Because the topic is still characterized by very large uncertainties (and also somehow beyond my field of expertise), one cannot expect to get a final message with this study. Yet, in my opinion, there are still one or two issues of presentation and result interpretation. It is to the freedom of the authors to see if they want to take these issues further, or to keep the manuscript as is.

With my very best wishes,

Martin Vancoppenolle

—————

- Sulfur conservation: fine, I understand the argument. I guess what needs to be conserved is the total amount of sulphur fluxed into your ice-ocean system into either DMS or DMSp. Are you sure your model is conserving DMS+DMSp ?

- Mechanisms: Mechanisms are now better discussed. Your analysis highlights sulphur release by melting ice and subsequent potential emission through open water.

Yet your conclusions mention that sea ice sulfur cycle and ecosystems are important (abstract and conclusion).

1) As far as fluxes are concerned, I would say your figure 9 may tell the opposite. At least, you do not change the big picture if you don’t consider the sulphur cycle.

2) As far as stocks are concerned, there is no real evaluation of stocks: all fields are presented in nmol / L (both for ice and ocean) are used and not verticlaly integrated concentrations. eg Fig 2 is misleading because concentrations do not refer to the same reservoirs (3 cm for ice, 30 m for ice). This gives the impression that ice algae completely dominate biomass, which is actually the opposite. I’m afraid the same applies to DMS.

- The reference to Mortenson et al should be properly given.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (24 May 2017) by Laurent Bopp

AR by Hakase Hayashida on behalf of the Authors (30 May 2017) Manuscript

Download

Article (670 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

In remote regions, cloud conditions may be strongly influenced by oceanic source of dimethylsulfide (DMS) produced by plankton and bacteria. In the Arctic, sea ice provides an additional source of these aerosols. The results of this study highlight the importance of taking into account both the sea-ice sulfur cycle and ecosystem in the flux estimates of oceanic DMS near the ice margins and identify key uncertainties in processes and rates that would be better constrained by new observations.