Phytoplankton growth response to Asian dust addition in the northwest Pacific Ocean versus the Yellow Sea

Zhang, Chao; Gao, Huiwang; Yao, Xiaohong; Shi, Zongbo; Shi, Jinhui; Yu, Yang; Meng, Ling; Guo, Xinyu

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-749-2018

Articles | Volume 15, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-749-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-749-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 3

Research article

|

07 Feb 2018

Research article |

| 07 Feb 2018

Phytoplankton growth response to Asian dust addition in the northwest Pacific Ocean versus the Yellow Sea

Chao Zhang, Huiwang Gao, Xiaohong Yao, Zongbo Shi, Jinhui Shi, Yang Yu, Ling Meng, and Xinyu Guo

Download

Final revised paper (published on 07 Feb 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 30 Jun 2017)
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 Zhang et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Aug 2017
- AC2: 'Author comments to Referee #1', Chao Zhang, 06 Nov 2017
RC2: 'Review othe manuscript "Phytoplankton growth responses to Asian dust additions in the Northwest Pacific Ocean versus Yellow Sea"', Anonymous Referee #3, 21 Aug 2017
- AC3: 'Author comments to Referee #2', Chao Zhang, 06 Nov 2017
RC3: 'Review of “Phytoplankton growth responses to Asian dust additions in the Northwest Pacific Ocean versus the Yellow Sea” by Chao Zhang et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Aug 2017
- AC4: 'Author comment for Referee#3', Chao Zhang, 06 Nov 2017
AC1: 'Interactive comment on “Phytoplankton growth responses to Asian dust additions in the Northwest Pacific Ocean versus the Yellow Sea” by Chao Zhang et al.', Chao Zhang, 21 Sep 2017

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (06 Oct 2017) by Manmohan Sarin

AR by Chao Zhang on behalf of the Authors (05 Nov 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (07 Nov 2017) by Manmohan Sarin

RR by Anonymous Referee #4 (14 Dec 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The supply of nutrients to the ocean surface layer via dust deposition, and the consequences for phytoplankton growth, have attracted a great deal of attention in recent years. This study focuses on coastal waters that receive dust from the Gobi desert, and compares incubations with added nutrients and incubations with dust that has been treated to mimic the conditions encountered during atmospheric transport. The five stations studied show differing responses, and quantitative interpretation of the results is very challenging.

The authors have revised the manuscript after review, and have responded satisfactorily to most of the points raised. As Reviewer #2 points out, the observations of co-limitation are not surprising (but do add to the volume of observations on this topic). More interesting is the conclusion that the addition of the modified dust contributed to the mobilisation of otherwise unavailable organic phosphorus. The evidence for this is indirect, and the argument in section 4.3 is not easy to follow. In order to clarify the argument, I suggest that the authors provide a graphical presentation of the numbders presented in lines 440-451. The conclusion of phosphorus mobilisation must be treated as speculative since no measurements of organic phosphorus (DOP and POP) were made; this should emerge as a recommendation for future studies so that this question can be investigated more fully.

Reviewers #2 and #3 have in different ways questioned the discussions on trace metals given that only very limited data are available. The discussion of the potential role for Co in phosphorus mobilisation at the end of section 4.3 is unduly speculative at this stage since this process remains to be clearly identified. This discussion should be deleted. In this context, the statement in the abstract that “other micro-constituents” contribute to phytoplankton growth following AM-dust addition is not supported by the experimental results, and should be deleted.

An important question raised by Reviewer #1 is the meaning of “successive increase”. This term is introduced in section 2.6, without explaining exactly what is meant. In Figure S1, the dotted lines identify the “successive increase during the incubation period”. These are placed on different days at each station, and are not consistently placed at the maximum chlorophyll value in any individual treatment. The definition of this “successive increase” period is clearly of great importance, since the subsequent data analysis focuses on this period. The authors must provide a clear definition of the term “successive increase”.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (22 Dec 2017) by Manmohan Sarin

AR by Chao Zhang on behalf of the Authors (26 Dec 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (05 Jan 2018) by Manmohan Sarin

AR by Chao Zhang on behalf of the Authors (08 Jan 2018) Author's response Manuscript

Download

Article (4880 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

This study compares the response of phytoplankton growth in the northwest Pacific to those in the Yellow Sea. In general, larger positive responses of phytoplankton induced by combined nutrients (in the subtropical gyre of the northwest Pacific) than those induced by a single nutrient (in the Kuroshio Extension and the Yellow Sea) from the dust are observed. We also emphasize the importance of an increase in bioavailable P stock for phytoplankton growth following dust addition.