On biotic and abiotic drivers of the microphytobenthos seasonal cycle in a temperate intertidal mudflat: a modelling study

Savelli, Raphaël; Dupuy, Christine; Barillé, Laurent; Lerouxel, Astrid; Guizien, Katell; Philippe, Anne; Bocher, Pierrick; Polsenaere, Pierre; Le Fouest, Vincent

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-7243-2018

Articles | Volume 15, issue 23

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-7243-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-7243-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 23

Research article

|

06 Dec 2018

Research article |

| 06 Dec 2018

On biotic and abiotic drivers of the microphytobenthos seasonal cycle in a temperate intertidal mudflat: a modelling study

Raphaël Savelli, Christine Dupuy, Laurent Barillé, Astrid Lerouxel, Katell Guizien, Anne Philippe, Pierrick Bocher, Pierre Polsenaere, and Vincent Le Fouest

Download

Final revised paper (published on 06 Dec 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 10 Jul 2018)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of Savelli et al', Perran Cook, 20 Jul 2018
- AC1: 'Answer to RC1', Raphaël Savelli, 18 Sep 2018
RC2: 'Review comments', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Aug 2018
- AC2: 'Answer to RC2', Raphaël Savelli, 18 Sep 2018
RC3: 'Comments for the authors', Anonymous Referee #3, 05 Aug 2018
- AC3: 'Answer to RC3', Raphaël Savelli, 18 Sep 2018

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (21 Sep 2018) by Jack Middelburg

AR by Raphaël Savelli on behalf of the Authors (12 Oct 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (18 Oct 2018) by Jack Middelburg

RR by Perran Cook (19 Oct 2018)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (08 Nov 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Review of: 'On biotic and abiotic drivers of the microphytobenthos seasonal cycle in a temperate intertidal mudflat: a modelling study' by Savelli et al.

General comments.
I found the manuscript significantly improved. The most substantial remaining issue is the full sensitivity analysis as presented in Figure 11. It is unclear why the vast majority of the simulations resulted in vanishing primary production (one would not expect this from looking at Fig 12), and for which combinations/regions of the parameter settings. It would also be interesting to know for which combinations/regions of parameter settings the high and low ends of the sustained primary production cases were achieved. If the authors add this, and address the minor points below, the manuscript can be published.

Detailed comments.
p. 3, l. 30. Pertuis Charentais sea: is this the proper name for this area ('sea' seems a bit of an exaggeration)?
p. 5, l. 10: corrected for atmospheric effects
p. 5, l. 24: MST: first occurrence (?), write out.
p. 6, l. 28: Table A3: Table 3? Please provide the default values in addition to the ranges.
p. 6, l. 32-33: winter-spring, summer-fall: it's not clear why these periods were defined.
p. 6, l. 33: 18.3 degrees C: why is this important?
p. 8, l. 6: linear loss term: linear with respect to what? More detail and/or a reference is needed to be able to understand/reproduce this.
p. 10, l. 23: KE correlated with primary production. Please consider cause and effect. It's the other way around. Please carefully check through the manuscript: there are many similar instances.
p. 12, l. 15: unlikely that the nutrient limitation is responsible
p. 12, l. 29: Such a value...etc: grammatically incorrect.
p. 13, l. 7: heat inertia: really? Is this not caused by the water temperature?
p. 14, l. 6-10. Salinity. This is really ugly. Two wrongs do not make one right.
p. 14, l. 22. neap tides. Please check; should this not be spring tides?
p. 16, l. 11. transport P. ulvae individuals horizontally
p. 16, l. 15. What about P. ulvae mobility? Can't they move horizontally to where the food is?

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (16 Nov 2018) by Jack Middelburg

AR by Raphaël Savelli on behalf of the Authors (23 Nov 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (28 Nov 2018) by Jack Middelburg

AR by Raphaël Savelli on behalf of the Authors (28 Nov 2018) Author's response Manuscript

Download

Article (7549 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

We simulate the benthic microalgae seasonal cycle on a temperate intertidal mudflat by combining a physical–biological coupled model with remotely sensed and in situ data. While optimal light and temperature conditions lead to a spring bloom, thermo-inhibition and grazing result in a summer depression of biomass. The model ability to infer mechanisms driving the seasonal cycle could open the door to the contribution of productive intertidal biofilms to the coastal carbon cycle.