<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">BG</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Biogeosciences</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">BG</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Biogeosciences</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1726-4189</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/bg-17-5043-2020</article-id><title-group><article-title>The role of sediment-induced light attenuation on primary production during Hurricane Gustav (2008)</article-title><alt-title>Sediment-induced light attenuation during Hurricane Gustav</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Sediment-induced light attenuation during Hurricane Gustav}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{Z.~Zang~et~al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff6">
          <name><surname>Zang</surname><given-names>Zhengchen</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6777-1836</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2 aff3">
          <name><surname>Xue</surname><given-names>Z. George</given-names></name>
          <email>zxue@lsu.edu</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff3">
          <name><surname>Xu</surname><given-names>Kehui</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3 aff4">
          <name><surname>Bentley</surname><given-names>Samuel J.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>Qin</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6540-8758</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff3">
          <name><surname>D'Sa</surname><given-names>Eurico J.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Le</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Ou</surname><given-names>Yanda</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, Louisiana State University, 70803 Baton Rouge, LA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Center for Computation and Technology, Louisiana State University, 70803 Baton Rouge, LA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Coastal Studies Institute, Louisiana State University, 70803 Baton Rouge, LA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Department of Geology and Geophysics, Louisiana State University, 70803 Baton Rouge, LA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University, 02115 Boston, MA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>a</label><institution>now at: Department of Biology, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 02543 Woods Hole, MA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Z. George Xue (zxue@lsu.edu)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>20</day><month>October</month><year>2020</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>17</volume>
      <issue>20</issue>
      <fpage>5043</fpage><lpage>5055</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>17</day><month>February</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>24</day><month>August</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>26</day><month>July</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>25</day><month>March</month><year>2020</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2020 Zhengchen Zang et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2020</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/5043/2020/bg-17-5043-2020.html">This article is available from https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/5043/2020/bg-17-5043-2020.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/5043/2020/bg-17-5043-2020.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/5043/2020/bg-17-5043-2020.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e179">We introduced a sediment-induced light attenuation algorithm into a biogeochemical model of the Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere–Wave–Sediment Transport (COAWST) modeling system. A fully coupled ocean–atmospheric–sediment–biogeochemical simulation was carried out to assess the impact of
sediment-induced light attenuation on primary production in the northern Gulf of Mexico during the passage of Hurricane Gustav in 2008. When
compared with model results without sediment-induced light attenuation, our new model showed a better agreement with satellite data on both the
magnitude of nearshore chlorophyll concentration and the spatial distribution of offshore bloom. When Hurricane Gustav approached, resuspended sediment shifted the inner shelf ecosystem from a nutrient-limited one to a light-limited one. Only 1 week after Hurricane Gustav's landfall, accumulated nutrients and a favorable
optical environment induced a posthurricane algal bloom in the top 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the water column, while the productivity in the lower water column was still light-limited due to slow-settling sediment. Corresponding with the elevated offshore <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> flux
(38.71 mmol N m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and decreased chlorophyll flux (43.10 mg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), the outer shelf posthurricane bloom should have resulted from the cross-shelf nutrient supply instead of the lateral dispersed
chlorophyll. Sensitivity tests indicated that sediment light attenuation efficiency affected primary production when sediment concentration was
moderately high. Model uncertainties due to colored dissolved organic matter and parameterization of sediment-induced light attenuation are also discussed.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e259">Light, nutrients and temperature play a vital role in photosynthesis and marine ecosystems. The vertical structure of light availability in an aquatic
environment is mainly modulated by the shading effects of chlorophyll, colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM), detritus and sediment (Cloern, 1987;
Devlin et al., 2008; Ganju et al., 2014; McSweeney et al., 2017; Schaeffer et al., 2011). The optical environment in river-dominated shelves are more
complex due to the interaction between riverine inputs and regional hydrodynamics (Bierman et al., 1994; Lin et al., 2009; Zhu et al., 2009). As the largest river in North America, the Mississippi–Atchafalaya river system delivers 380 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of freshwater and 115 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Mt</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of sediments each
year into the northern Gulf of Mexico (nGoM; Meade and Moody, 2010; Allison et al., 2012). Along the Louisiana–Texas shelf in the nGoM, suspended
sediment concentration (SSC) in the water column exhibits strong seasonality, i.e., high in the winter and spring seasons due to strong sediment resuspension and high fluvial sediment discharge, while largely reduced in summer and fall owing to the relatively low river inputs and weak resuspension (Zang et al., 2019). Episodic hurricane events in summer<?pagebreak page5044?> and fall can disturb vertical stratification and resuspend large amount of shelf sediment (D'Sa et al., 2011; Xu et al., 2016; Zang et al., 2018). Enhanced resuspension during a hurricane might greatly change the shelf ecosystem via modifying light availability. In addition, enhanced organic matter remineralization in the bottom boundary layer could also introduce sharp changes to the ecosystem (Hurst et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2013). Yet studies of the impact from hurricane-induced resuspension are still limited due to the challenge of in situ data collection under extreme weather conditions.</p>
      <p id="d1e281">As an alternative tool to fill in the spatial and temporal gaps in the in situ data sets, coupled physical–biogeochemical models have been widely applied to the Gulf of Mexico (GoM; e.g., Fennel et al., 2008; Laurent et al., 2012; Xue et al., 2013; Yu et al., 2015; Gomez et al., 2018). In these models, photosynthetically available radiation was estimated using a similar method, namely light availability decreasing exponentially with water depth and the concentrations of light absorbers (e.g., sediment and CDOM) in the overlying water column. Due to the lack of long-term observations of CDOM, however, its impact on the optical environment was either not included (e.g., Fennel et al., 2006; Gomez et al., 2018) or simply expressed as a
function of salinity (Justić and Wang, 2014). Although most of these studies considered sediment-induced light attenuation when estimating primary
production, the related parameterization was uniform over the entire research domain and did not vary with sediment dynamics (e.g., Zhou et al., 2017;
Thewes et al., 2020). Such an oversimplified treatment of sediment-induced light attenuation could substantially impact a model's robustness in
river-dominated shelves that encompass a wide range of SSC. In the nGoM, Justić and Wang (2014) tentatively employed a new scheme by connecting
sediment-induced light attenuation with river discharge (salinity) and hydrodynamics (bottom shear stress). However, the horizontal distribution of
SSC in a realistic environment is not necessarily correlated with that of the freshwater plume, and the contribution of resuspension to SSC at
different depths might be significantly different (Xu et al., 2011, 2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e284">Hurricane Gustav (hereafter, Gustav) was the first major hurricane that made a landfall in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina (2005). It passed through the center of GoM and landed near Cocodrie, Louisiana, on 1 September 2008 as a category 2 hurricane (Forbes et al., 2010). Sediment resuspension and transport were strong during the passage of Gustav, and thick posthurricane deposition (up to 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) was simulated on the inner shelf (Zang et al., 2018) and in the bays (Liu et al., 2018). Korobkin et al. (2009) identified a post-Gustav algal bloom around the Mississippi delta on satellite images. High respiration and stratification after the landfall of Gustav was reported to be connected with possible hypoxia development on the shelf (McCarthy et al., 2013).</p>
      <p id="d1e295">In this study, we introduce a new biogeochemical model, with sediment-induced light attenuation, to the three-way coupled
(atmospheric–wave–ocean–sediment transport) Gustav model (Zang et al., 2018). While sediment dynamics can also impact nutrient dynamics via changing
the intensity of remineralization near the bottom (Moriarty et al., 2018), the scope of this study is to investigate the influence of suspended
sediment on the optical environment and, thus, primary production. The impact from elevated remineralization of resuspended particular organic matter
during hurricane events is not considered as being detailed processes because relevant parameterizations are still largely unknown. The objectives of this
paper are to (1) evaluate the impact of sediment-induced light attenuation on the spatiotemporal variation in nutrient-phytoplankton dynamics during
a hurricane event, (2) explore the driving mechanism of the posthurricane bloom on the shelf and (3) investigate the response of primary production
to sediment optical characteristics.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Model description</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Physical, sediment and biogeochemical models</title>
      <p id="d1e313">Our model covered the entire GoM (Fig. 1a) and was built on the Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere–Wave–Sediment Transport (COAWST) modeling system (Warner
et al., 2008, 2010). COAWST is an open-source model platform that consists of three numerical models, namely the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model (Skamarock et al., 2008), the Regional Ocean Modeling System (ROMS; Shchepetkin and McWilliams, 2005; Haidvogel et al., 2008) and the Simulating WAves Nearshore (SWAN) model (Booij et al., 1999). The Community Sediment Transport Modeling System (CSTMS) is included in ROMS to simulate sediment
transport, stratigraphy and geomorphology. The model coupling toolkit (MCT; Jacob et al., 2005) enables the interaction among these three models. The
details of the model setup and validation of the three-way coupled hydrodynamic-sediment transport model (WRF–ROMS–SWAN–CSTMS) were described in Zang et al. (2018), where four types of sediment (two cohesive and two noncohesive) were defined with different grain diameters and settling
velocities. There were 40 sediment layers on the sea floor with a total thickness of 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to resolve sediment bed erosion and deposition. The
driving force of sediment resuspension was determined by bottom shear stress induced by wave and current. Readers are referred to Zang et al. (2018)
for a detailed hydrodynamic and sediment validation.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{ht}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e326">Model domains applied in this study. The entire panel <bold>(a)</bold> is the WRF model domain (6 km resolution) overlaid with water depth (colored shading). The black box represents the model grid used by ROMS and SWAN, with a 5 km resolution. The black box with a dashed line (27–31<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 94–86<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W) covers the northern Gulf of Mexico (nGoM). More details on the nGoM are shown in <bold>(b)</bold>. The thick purple and red lines indicate the locations of 50 m isobath transect and transect D (Rabalais et al., 2001), respectively.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/5043/2020/bg-17-5043-2020-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e359">Given the importance of diatom in the phytoplankton community in the nGoM (Zhao and Quigg, 2014), it is necessary to have both nitrogen and silicon cycles in the model. The biogeochemical model in this study was largely built on the North Pacific Ecosystem Model for Understanding Regional Oceanography
(NEMURO; Kishi et al., 2007), which incorporated both nitrogen and silicon flows. There were 11 state variables included in the model, namely<?pagebreak page5045?> nitrate,
ammonium, two types of phytoplankton (small and large), three types of zooplankton (microzooplankton, mesozooplankton and predatory zooplankton),
particulate and dissolved nitrogen, particulate silica, and silicic acid concentration. River nutrient discharge during the hurricane was retrieved
from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Water Data for the Nation website (<uri>http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov</uri>; station no. 07374000). The growth of phytoplankton was driven by water temperature, light availability and nutrient concentration. Instantaneous remineralization of particulate
organic nitrogen at the bottom was estimated following Fennel et al. (2006). Our model did not include phosphate because its limitation on primary
production in the nGoM was mainly between May and July (Laurent et al., 2012; Laurent and Fennel, 2014). We incorporated two types of chlorophyll
corresponding to the large and small phytoplankton tracers, respectively. Following Fennel et al. (2006), chlorophyll dynamics was derived from a
phytoplankton equation by multiplying the ratio of chlorophyll to phytoplankton biomass. To obtain an ideal parameterization set and a stable initial condition for the biogeochemical variables, we first conducted a 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (1993–2012) coupled physical–biogeochemical simulation using only the ROMS model, where WRF and SWAN were disabled to achieve a feasible computation load (step 1 in Fig. 2). The atmospheric forcing was provided by the 6 h, 38 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> horizontal resolution Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR; Saha et al., 2010, 2011; <uri>http://cfs.ncep.noaa.gov</uri>). The physical setup of the 20 year simulation was the same as Zang et al. (2019). The biogeochemical parameterizations (Table S1 in the Supplement) were largely adapted after a recent GoM biogeochemical modeling study by Gomez et al. (2018). Since this study focused on the response of the biogeochemical process to hurricane events, details of the 20 year simulation setup and model observation comparison were provided in the Supplement. Once validated, the biogeochemical variables were extracted from the 20 year model on 30 August 2008 as the initial condition for this Gustav simulation (Step 2 in Fig. 2).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{ht}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e387">Flow chart of long-term (20 years) and hurricane (11 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) simulations. In step 1 we only run ocean (ROMS) and biogeochemical (NEMURO) models, which provide initial inputs for the next step. Step 2 couples ocean (ROMS), wave (SWAN), atmosphere (WRF), sediment (CSTMS) and new biogeochemical (NEMURO) models with the new sediment-induced light attenuation term.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/5043/2020/bg-17-5043-2020-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e404">The light available for photosynthesis (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) is estimated using the following equation (McSweeney et al., 2017):
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M17" display="block"><mml:mtable class="split" rowspacing="0.2ex" columnspacing="1em" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mtext>par</mml:mtext><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mtext>exp</mml:mtext><mml:mfenced close="" open="{"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close="" open="["><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>chl</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:munderover><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>PSn</mml:mtext><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mtext>PLn</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="" close="}"><mml:mfenced open="" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:munderover><mml:mtext>SSC</mml:mtext><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the light intensity at the surface layer, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the water depth. par is the fraction of light available for photosynthesis (specified as 0.43). <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>chl</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the light attenuation coefficients of sea water and chlorophyll,<?pagebreak page5046?> respectively. PSn and PLn represent concentrations of small and large phytoplankton. Compared with the original biogeochemical model, we added a new sediment-induced light attenuation term in this equation. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the light attenuation coefficient due to suspended sediment, and SSC is total suspended sediment concentration in the respective layer. We performed a benchmark run
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.059</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; McSweeney et al., 2017) to represent the scenarios with sediment-induced light attenuation. The simulation period was from 30 August to 10 September 2008.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Sensitivity tests</title>
      <p id="d1e586">High turbidity in the Mississippi River delta due to fluvial sediment discharge and resuspension suggested the vital role of sediment in the
underwater optical environment. To quantitatively evaluate the importance of suspended sediment in light attenuation, we conducted a sensitivity test
(test 1) without sediment-induced light attenuation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Since the physical properties of a sediment particle (e.g., size, shape,
roughness and color) determine its light attenuation efficiency (Baker and Lavelle, 1984; Storlazzi et al., 2015), a wide range of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.025–0.075) has been reported in previous studies (e.g., Pennock, 1985; Van Duin et al., 2001; Arndt et al., 2007; McSweeney et al., 2017). Here, we increased or decreased the benchmark <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(0.059) by 20 % and 40 % to examine the sensitivity of primary production to sediment-induced light attenuation (tests 2–5). The rest of the model setup was the same between the benchmark run and sensitivity tests (tests 1–5). The deviation due to the chaotic nature of turbulence was not
considered in this study.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Model validation</title>
      <p id="d1e635">Direct measurements of ocean conditions during the passage of a hurricane are still challenging. In Zang et al. (2018) we validated the physical
model's performance against the air pressure, sea level and wave heights recorded at available buoy stations. The sediment model's performance was
evaluated against satellite images. In this study, we used the 5 d composites of SeaWiFS chlorophyll data (OC4) obtained before (25–29 August)
and after (5–9 September) Gustav's landing to calibrate our biogeochemical model's initial condition and results. Surface chlorophyll distribution
during initial condition (Fig. 3a) was similar to that in the prehurricane composite imagery (Fig. 3b), with a high chlorophyll concentration
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) located around the bird-foot delta and the Atchafalaya inner shelf and values declined seaward to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mg</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{ht}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e688">Initial condition of surface chlorophyll extracted from a 20 year simulation <bold>(a)</bold> and 5 d composite of surface chlorophyll concentration in the year 2008. <bold>(b)</bold> SeaWiFS data before Hurricane Gustav (25–29 August). <bold>(c)</bold> SeaWiFS data after Gustav (5–9 September). <bold>(d)</bold> Benchmark run result (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.059</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) after Gustav. <bold>(e)</bold> Test 1 result (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) after Gustav. White coloring in <bold>(b)</bold> and <bold>(c)</bold> represents no data. The magenta curve shows the hurricane track in <bold>(b–d)</bold>. Note: BD – bird-foot Mississippi delta; AS – Atchafalaya shelf.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/5043/2020/bg-17-5043-2020-f03.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e752">Compared with the prehurricane composite imagery, the posthurricane composite showed a higher chlorophyll concentration around the bird-foot delta and
on the Atchafalaya shelf (Fig. 3b and c). Another major increase was identified in waters between the 50 and 200 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> isobaths off the
Atchafalaya Bay with the chlorophyll concentration increasing from 1 to 4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mg</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> after Gustav, indicating a possible posthurricane algal
bloom on the outer shelf. When comparing with the model run without sediment-induced attenuation, the intensity of the offshore bloom was better
reproduced (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mg</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) with the new sediment-induced light attenuation algorithm (see the difference between Fig. 3d and e). To
quantitatively evaluate the model's performance, we calculated the root mean square error (RMSE) and correlation coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) between
model-simulated and satellite-derived chlorophyll concentrations over the inner shelf (water depth <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Fig. 4). The reduced RMSE
in the benchmark run in comparison to sensitivity test (2.33 to 1.91) suggested improved model performance with sediment-induced light
attenuation. However, with only marginal differences in the correlation coefficients between the two experiments (0.82 and 0.81), the spatial
distributions of chlorophyll were comparable (Fig. 4). Nevertheless, the model's performance in the high-productivity waters (both simulated and
observed chlorophyll concentrations <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mg</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) was significantly improved (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> increased from 0.55 to 0.61 and RMSE decreased from 5.93 to 3.97; Fig. 4). The improvement in model results confirmed the importance of sediment-induced light attenuation in biogeochemical cycling
during a hurricane event, particularly in coastal regions where chlorophyll concentration was high.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Results and discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Temporal variability of biogeochemical variables</title>
      <p id="d1e873">To examine the temporal variation in biogeochemical variables during the passage of Gustav, we plotted the time series of spatially averaged net
primary production (NPP; growth of phytoplankton minus the respiratory losses), surface chlorophyll concentration, surface <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
concentration, SSC, downward solar shortwave radiation and sea surface temperature (SST) over the nGoM inner shelf (Fig. 5; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> water
depth). NPP exhibited strong diel variation, and the peaks were strongly correlated with shortwave radiation maximum (Fig. 5a and e). Such a diel cycle could also be found in chlorophyll concentration but with a 3 to 4 h delay (Fig. 5b). Before the arrival of Gustav, daily averaged NPP was around
0.05 g C m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the differences in NPP and chlorophyll concentration between the benchmark run and test 1 were minor (Fig. 5a and b).</p>
      <p id="d1e926">Following Gustav's landfall along coastal Louisiana at 16:00 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on 1 September, surface SSC increased to 3.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> because
of strong seabed resuspension (Fig. 5d). Daily averaged NPP reduced to 0.03 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in test 1. Once sediment-induced light
attenuation was included, daily averaged NPP further declined to 0.01 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, suggesting that light availability severely
limited short-term productivity on the<?pagebreak page5047?> inner shelf. Chlorophyll concentrations in the benchmark run and test 1 were reduced by 40 % as Gustav
approached. Hurricane-related surface cooling, together with decreased light (Fig. 5e and f), contributed to the reductions in both chlorophyll and
NPP.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e1020">Simulated 5 d composite (5–9 September) of surface chlorophyll concentration after Gustav compared to the corresponding SeaWiFS-derived surface chlorophyll results over the nGoM inner shelf (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) for model results based on <bold>(a)</bold> benchmark (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.059</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <bold>(b)</bold> test 1 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) runs.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=239.00315pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/5043/2020/bg-17-5043-2020-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{ht}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1091">Time series of spatially averaged (inner shelf; water depth <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) net primary production <bold>(a)</bold>, surface chlorophyll concentration <bold>(b)</bold>, surface <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration <bold>(c)</bold>, surface suspended sediment concentration <bold>(d)</bold>, solar shortwave radiation <bold>(e)</bold> and sea surface temperature <bold>(f)</bold>. In <bold>(a–c)</bold>, blue represents the benchmark run (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.059</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and red represents test 1 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Dots in <bold>(a)</bold> are the daily averaged net primary production. The black dashed line shows the time of the Gustav landfall.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/5043/2020/bg-17-5043-2020-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1182">The difference in daily averaged NPP between the benchmark run and test 1 maximized on 2 September due to light limitation modulated by
resuspended sediment (Fig. 5a and d). On 3 September, daily averaged NPP of test 1 recovered to 0.04 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and remained
steady through the end of our simulation (Fig. 5a). For the benchmark run, however, the recovery of NPP was much slower; daily averaged NPP was lower
than that of test 1 until 7 September when most of the suspended sediment settled back onto the seabed. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration went up gradually between 2 and 7 September in the benchmark run (Fig. 5c) as the nutrient consumption was constrained by the decline in photosynthetic activity. Accumulated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, together with the improved optical environment due to low SSC, resulted in higher NPP and algal bloom after 7 September (Fig. 5a and b).</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Vertical structure of biogeochemical variables</title>
      <p id="d1e1252">We extracted concentrations of chlorophyll, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, sediment and water density anomaly along transect D in Rabalais et al. (2001; see Fig. 1b
for transect D location) at three<?pagebreak page5048?> time points (31 August, 2 September and 10 September) to represent pre-, during and posthurricane stages,
respectively (Figs. 6 and 7). Before the approach of Gustav, offshore water was well stratified (Fig. 7d). Chlorophyll concentration decreased seaward
from 5 to 0.3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mg</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 6a and d). Sediment-induced light attenuation did not alter the vertical structure of the chlorophyll and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> much (Fig. 6a, d, g and j) owing to low SSC in the water column (Fig. 7a). On 2 September, strong vertical mixing increased the SSC to
more than 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over the entire water column (Fig. 7b and e). Chlorophyll concentration in waters <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the benchmark
run was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, lower than that in test 1 due to sediment-induced light attenuation (Fig. 6b and e). Higher <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
concentration in the benchmark run was a result of the weakened primary production and nutrient consumption (Fig. 6h and k). The most striking
differences in chlorophyll and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between the two simulations were in water shallower than 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{ht}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1383">Model-simulated chlorophyll and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> along transect D on 31 August (first column), 2 September (second column) and 10 September (third column). <bold>(a–f)</bold> Chlorophyll concentration of the test 1 and benchmark run, respectively (note that the color scale is different from Fig. 3). <bold>(g–l)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration of test 1 and benchmark run, respectively.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/5043/2020/bg-17-5043-2020-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{ht}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e1422"><bold>(a–c)</bold> Model-simulated suspended sediment concentration (SSC) and <bold>(d–f)</bold> water density anomaly along transect D on 31 August <bold>(a, d)</bold>, 2 September <bold>(b, e)</bold> and 10 September <bold>(c, f)</bold>, respectively.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/5043/2020/bg-17-5043-2020-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1446">In test 1, chlorophyll concentration during the posthurricane stage was lower than that of the prehurricane stage (Fig. 6a and c), in contrast to
the condition captured by satellite imagery (Fig. 3b and c). The benchmark run, however, successfully reproduced the magnitude and seaward extension
of the posthurricane bloom (Fig. 6f). High chlorophyll concentration (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Fig. 6f) with low <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 6l) was
simulated in the top 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the water column where stratification partially recovered (Fig. 7f) and sediment concentration was low after the
passage of Gustav (Fig. 7c). At water deeper than 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the chlorophyll concentration dropped drastically to less than 0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, while the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration further increased to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mmol</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The synchronized high turbidity and low chlorophyll concentration implied that, 9 d after Gustav's landfall, the primary production in deeper water could still be constrained by light availability. A similar vertical structure (high SSC and low chlorophyll at the bottom) was also simulated in the Delaware estuary, where near-bottom productivity was constrained by the estuarine turbidity maximum (McSweeney et al., 2017). Such a stratified water column with high and/or low productivity at the surface and/or bottom is generally favorable for bottom oxygen depletion. The elevated surface phytoplankton growth following the hurricane could thus result in increased particulate organic matter (POM) whose remineralization contributes to bottom water hypoxia (Wiseman et al., 1997). Meanwhile, the posthurricane stratification recovery in the summer and fall seasons would have likely prevented oxygen ventilation to the bottom. The high respiration rate caused by resuspended POM could further lower the oxygen level (Bianucci et al., 2018). McCarthy et al. (2013) reported a post-Gustav respiration peak associated with organic matter resuspension in the bottom boundary layer. A recent numerical model study also simulated a substantial increase in near-bottom oxygen consumption due to resuspended POM remineralization during moderate resuspension events (Moriarty et al., 2018). These past studies and the new finding of this study suggest that particulate matter (both organic and inorganic) dynamics might substantially contribute to bottom oxygen depletion and hypoxia development following a hurricane passage. More in situ observations of oxygen dynamics in the bottom boundary
layer are needed.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page5050?><sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <label>4.3</label><title>The posthurricane offshore bloom</title>
      <p id="d1e1562">Posthurricane blooms have been widely observed in the mid- and low-latitude oceans (Davis and Yan, 2004; Miller et al., 2006; Pan et al., 2017; D'Sa
et al., 2019). A bloom in the open ocean was usually isolated and patchy, and its formation was mainly related to nutrients supplied from deep waters
via vertical mixing (Pan et al., 2017; Walker et al., 2005). The mechanism of the bloom formation on the outer shelf, however, was more complex due to
possible impacts from the inner shelf water. Strong post-Gustav cross-shelf transport has been reported by previous studies (Korobkin et al., 2009;
Zang et al., 2018). The seaward dispersal of higher nutrient and chlorophyll coastal waters could have potentially contributed to the outer shelf
bloom, but their respective contributions remained unclear. To quantify the cross-shore exported nutrient and chlorophyll, we estimated
depth-integrated offshore (seaward) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and chlorophyll flux along the 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> isobath transect (Fig. 1b; Table 1). Compared with
test 1 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> – 7.35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mmol</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; chlorophyll – 66.88 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), the benchmark run estimated a higher
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> flux (38.71 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mmol</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and a lower chlorophyll flux (43.10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The differences in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and chlorophyll fluxes between the two simulations could be explained by nutrient accumulation and NPP reduction on the inner shelf
associated with resuspended sediment (Fig. 5a and c). Given the better offshore bloom intensity reproduced by the benchmark run (Fig. 3d and e), we
conclude that the posthurricane offshore bloom was mainly triggered by nutrients exported from the inner shelf water.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1747">Offshore fluxes of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and chlorophyll along the 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> isobath transect (see location in Fig. 1b).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Model runs</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Net offshore <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> flux</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Net offshore Chl flux</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mmol</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mg</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Benchmark run (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.059</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">38.71</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">43.10</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Test 1 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7.35</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">66.88</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4">
  <label>4.4</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Sensitivity to sediment light attenuation coefficient ($\alpha _{\text{sed}}$)}?><title>Sensitivity to sediment light attenuation coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</title>
      <p id="d1e1955">A wide range of particle physical properties (e.g., size, shape, roughness and color) influence sediment light attenuation efficiency, which
contributes to the difficulty in the parameterization of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over a large region such as the nGoM (Baker and Lavelle, 1984; Storlazzi
et al., 2015). To examine the sensitivity of primary production to sediment light attenuation efficiency, the results of sensitivity tests with
different <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (tests 2–5) were compared against the benchmark run.</p>
      <p id="d1e1980">Ahead of Gustav's landfall, the difference in primary production between the benchmark run and sensitivity tests was limited (Fig. 8a), which
suggested that the nGoM ecosystem was mainly limited by nutrients rather than light (Fennel et al., 2011). A total of 2 d after the landfall
(1–3 September), high SSC suppressed photosynthesis in the entire water column, which overwhelmed the response associated with different
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> settings. As such, primary production was not sensitive to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from 1 to 3 September, although the nGoM ecosystem
was also light limited. After 3 September, the differences in primary production and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration increased among the sensitivity tests
through 8 September (Fig. 8). Primary production became more sensitive to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> than SSC, which largely decreased due to settling
(Fig. 5d). In the last 2 d of our simulation, the primary production differences reduced again to prehurricane conditions as the nGoM ecosystem
shifted back to a nutrient-limited system.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{ht}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e2029">Comparison of spatially averaged (inner shelf; water depth <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) net primary production <bold>(a)</bold> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration <bold>(b)</bold> between benchmark run (blue) and sensitivity tests with different <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Note: test 2 – cyan; test 3 – orange; test 4 – black; and test 5 – magenta. The black dashed line shows the time of the Gustav landfall.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=312.980315pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/5043/2020/bg-17-5043-2020-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2083">In general, the influence of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is significant when underwater light is limited by sediment and SSC was moderately high. The optical
environment over the muddy inner Louisiana shelf is dominated by CDOM and chlorophyll under normal conditions (D'Sa and Miller, 2003). During energetic
events (e.g., hurricanes and cold fronts), however, high concentrations of resuspended sediment become the most important light absorber. Given the high
frequency of cold fronts in winter (once every 3–7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and energetic hurricanes in summer (Keim et al., 2007; Walker and Hammack, 2000), it is
reasonable to speculate that the ecosystem along coastal Louisiana would be sensitive to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, not only on an event scale but also on
seasonal to annual scales. The role of long-term sediment dynamics in water clarity and marine ecology has been reported in other regions (Capuzzo
et al., 2015; Dupont and Aksnes, 2013; Wilson and Heath, 2019). To prove this hypothesis in the nGoM, we need a long-term biogeochemical simulation
that explicitly includes sediment-induced light attenuation effects in the future.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS5">
  <label>4.5</label><title>Model uncertainties</title>
      <p id="d1e2125">The optical environment over the muddy Louisiana shelf is dominated by phytoplankton, suspended sediment, CDOM and detritus particles (Le et al.,
2014). The model presented in this study only includes the light attenuation due to the former two constituents, and the potential influence from CDOM
and detritus warrants future study. Light attenuation due to CDOM was simply parameterized using salinity in a previous model study (Justić and
Wang, 2014), yet few biogeochemical models incorporate dissolved and/or detritus-induced light attenuation. In the nGoM, CDOM plays an indispensable role in modulating the optical properties of inner shelf waters (D'Sa and Miller, 2003; D'Sa et al., 2018); thus, including CDOM-induced light attenuation would likely lower the threshold of sediment resuspension above which the nGoM
ecosystem would be light limited. To estimate the importance of CDOM-induced light attenuation in the biogeochemical models, a long-term CDOM
climatology is desired in the future.</p>
      <p id="d1e2128">We use SeaWiFS-derived chlorophyll concentrations to evaluate model performance. However, deriving high-quality chlorophyll data during hurricanes is still a challenge because (1) the presence of thick clouds limits the availability and quality of satellite images (Huang et al., 2011), (2) the uncertainty of chlorophyll estimation can be amplified by strong CDOM absorption (D'Sa et al., 2006; D'Sa and Miller, 2003), and (3) conducting
chlorophyll measurements during a hurricane to calibrate bio-optical algorithms is limited by cost and safety. Given the rapid change in and a wide range of sediment and chlorophyll concentrations after<?pagebreak page5051?> hurricanes, the algorithms based on observations under normal conditions might incur a bias. To achieve high-quality satellite-derived chlorophyll data, it is essential to optimize an algorithm based on field observations during hurricane
events.</p>
      <p id="d1e2131">In this study we simplified <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as a constant over the entire GoM. When water is highly turbid, the availability of light for
photosynthesis could be more related to sediment concentration rather than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (McSweeney et al., 2017). Thus, using a constant to
represent the sediment light attenuation coefficient when sediment concentration is high should not introduce considerable bias. The optical
characteristics of sediment particles, however, could greatly modify light availability underwater when SSC is relatively low (Storlazzi et al.,
2015). Our sensitivity tests also suggest the importance of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in photosynthesis and primary production, as resuspended sediment settles back on the sea floor. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a spatially explicit <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mtext>sed</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to better parameterize the sediment's impact on light attenuation in future work.</p>
      <p id="d1e2178">Organic matter remineralization in sediment can dramatically increase nutrient concentration in the bottom boundary layer during strong resuspension (Couceiro et al., 2013). Field measurements after hurricanes Gustav and Ike suggested that the resuspension can expose the organic material in sediment to a more favorable environment for respiration (McCarthy et al., 2013). Nevertheless, so far most biogeochemical models either neglect or simply parameterize this process (Chai et al., 2007; Fennel et al., 2006; Kishi et al., 2007). Moriarty et al. (2018) developed a particulate organic matter resuspension model and found that the remineralization intensity increased by an order of magnitude during moderate resuspension events in the nGoM. Given the strong storm-driven resuspension during hurricanes, nutrient dynamics can be modified greatly by remineralization after the storm passage as well. Thus, incorporating organic matter resuspension and remineralization, in conjunction with the light attenuation effects addressed in this study, will help to improve our understanding of a hurricane's impact on the biogeochemical cycling in shelf waters.</p>
      <p id="d1e2182">Our biogeochemical model includes freshwater and terrestrial nutrient input via a river channel. Du et al. (2019) estimated the freshwater budget during
hurricane Harvey and found that surface runoff and groundwater accounted for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 34 % of the total freshwater load during the
hurricane. Although our understanding of the nutrient flux associated with<?pagebreak page5052?> these two types of freshwater inputs is still limited, excluding surface runoff and groundwater flux in the model implies our underestimation of terrestrial nutrient discharge from the land. Coupling groundwater and hydrology models with an ocean model is a feasible way of achieving a comprehensive assessment of a hurricane's impact on the coastal and shelf ecosystem. In addition, water heating due to light absorption can also impact the ecosystem (Cahill et al., 2008; Mobley et al., 2015), but it has yet to be considered in our model.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e2202">We introduced a sediment-induced light attenuation algorithm to the ROMS biogeochemical model. The new model reproduced the biogeochemical cycling during Hurricane Gustav in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Improved model performance suggested that suspended sediment can play an important role in the underwater optical environment and primary production. During the passage of Gustav, the high SSC changed the inner shelf from a nutrient-limited environment to a light-limited one. NPP reduced from 0.05 to 0.01 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">C</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, then recovered to prehurricane conditions after 1 week of hurricane landfall. As the sediment further settled back on the seabed, nutrient accumulation and increased light availability incurred a strong surface posthurricane bloom on the inner shelf. A total of 9 d after Gustav's arrival, NPP below a 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> water depth was still light limited due to the slow settling of sediment. The posthurricane bloom on the outer shelf was significantly enhanced by the laterally transported nutrients from the inner to the outer shelf. Suspended sediment affected primary production when SSC was moderately high after Gustav's landfall. For aquatic environments with great spatiotemporal variation in SSC (e.g., estuaries and lagoons), an optimal parameterization of sediment-induced light attenuation is imperative to better evaluate a hurricane's impact on coastal productivity and biogeochemical cycling.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e2253">Data requests can be sent to the corresponding author via <uri>http://www.oceanography.lsu.edu/xuelab</uri>.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e2259">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5043-2020-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5043-2020-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e2268">ZZ did the model setup, experiment design and data analysis and wrote the paper. ZGX supervised the project, was responsible for the funding acquisition and assisted with the review and editing of the paper, with input from KX, SJB, QC and EJD. SJB assisted with the conceptualization of the project, while LZ and YO were responsible for the model setup, data analysis and validation.</p>
  </notes><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e2275">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e2281">We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments. Computational support was provided by the High Performance Computing Cluster facility (SuperMike II) at Louisiana State University (LSU). Model results used in this study are archived on a data server maintained at the LSU Center for Computation and Technology.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e2286">This research has been supported by the National Science Foundation (grant nos. CCF-1856359, EnvS-1903340, OCE-1635837 and EAR-1427389), NASA (grant no. NNH17ZHA002C), the Louisiana Board of Regents (grant no. NASA/LEQSF(2018-20)-Phase3-11) and the LSU Foundation Billy and Ann Harrison Endowment for Sedimentary Geology.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e2292">This paper was edited by Stefano Ciavatta and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Allison, M. A., Demas, C. R., Ebersole, B. A., Kleiss, B. A., Little, C. D., Meselhe, E. A., Powell, N. J., Pratt, T. C., and Vosburg, B. M.:
A water and sediment budget for the lower Mississippi–Atchafalaya River in flood years 2008–2010: Implications for sediment discharge to the oceans and coastal restoration in Louisiana,
J. Hydrol.,
432–433, 84–97, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.02.020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.02.020</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 2?><mixed-citation>Arndt, S., Vanderborght, J., and Regnier, P.:
Diatom growth response to physical forcing in a macrotidal estuary: Coupling hydrodynamics, sediment transport, and biogeochemistry,
J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
112, C05045, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JC003581" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JC003581</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 3?><mixed-citation>Baker, E. T. and Lavelle, J. W.:
Effect of Particle Size on the Light Attenuation Coefficient of Natural Suspensions,
J. Geophys. Res.,
89, 8197–8203, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JC089iC05p08197" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/JC089iC05p08197</ext-link>, 1984.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 4?><mixed-citation>Bianucci, L., Balaguru, K., Smith, R. W., Leung, L. R., and Moriarty, J. M.:
Contribution of hurricane-induced sediment resuspension to coastal oxygen dynamics,
Sci. Rep.-UK,
8, 15740, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-33640-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41598-018-33640-3</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 5?><mixed-citation>
Bierman, V. J., Hinz, S. C., Zhu, D., Wiseman, W. J., Rabalais, N. N., and Turner, R. E.:
A preliminary mass balance model of primary productivity and dissolved oxygen in the Mississippi River plume/inner Gulf Shelf region,
Estuaries,
17, 886–899, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 6?><mixed-citation>
Booij, N., Ris, R. C., and Holthuijsen, L. H.:
A third-generation wave model for coastal regions: 1. Model description and validation,
J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
104, 7649–7666, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 7?><mixed-citation>Cahill, B., Schofield, O., Chant, R., Wilkin, J., Hunter, E., Glenn, S., and Bissett, P.:
Dynamics of turbid buoyant plumes and the feedbacks on near-shore biogeochemistry and physics,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
35, 1–6, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL033595" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008GL033595</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 8?><mixed-citation>Capuzzo, E., Stephens, D., Silva, T., Barry, J., and Forster, R. M.:
Decrease in water clarity of the southern and central North Se<?pagebreak page5053?>a during the 20th century,
Glob. Change Biol.,
21, 2206–2214, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12854" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.12854</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 9?><mixed-citation>Chai, F., Jiang, M. S., Chao, Y., Dugdale, R. C., Chavez, F., and Barber, R. T.:
Modeling responses of diatom productivity and biogenic silica export to iron enrichment in the equatorial Pacific Ocean,
Global Biogeochem. Cy.,
21, 1–16, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GB002804" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006GB002804</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 10?><mixed-citation>
Cloern, J. E.:
Turbidity as a control on phytoplankton biomass and productivity in estuaries,
Cont. Shelf Res.,
7, 1367–1381, 1987.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 11?><mixed-citation>Couceiro, F., Fones, G. R., Thompson, C. E. L., Statham, P. J., Sivyer, D. B., Parker, R., Kelly-Gerreyn, B. A., and Amos, C. L.:
Impact of resuspension of cohesive sediments at the Oyster Grounds (North Sea) on nutrient exchange across the sediment-water interface,
Biogeochemistry,
113, 37–52, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-012-9710-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10533-012-9710-7</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 12?><mixed-citation>D'Sa, E. J. and Miller, R. L.:
Bio-optical properties in waters influenced by the Mississippi River during low flow conditions,
Remote Sens. Environ.,
84, 538–549, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00163-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00163-3</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 13?><mixed-citation>
D'Sa, E. J., Miller, R. L., and Del Castillo, C.:
Bio-optical properties and ocean color algorithms for coastal waters influenced by the Mississippi River during a cold front,
Appl. Opt.,
45, 7410–7428, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 14?><mixed-citation>D'Sa, E. J., Korobkin, M., and Ko, D. S.:
Effects of Hurricane Ike on the Louisiana–Texas coast from satellite and model data,
Remote Sens. Lett.,
2, 11–19, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2010.489057" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/01431161.2010.489057</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 14?><mixed-citation>
D'Sa, E. J., Joshi, I., and Liu, B.: Galveston Bay and Coastal Ocean Optical-Geochemical Response to Hurricane Harvey From VIIRS Ocean Color, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 10579–10589, doi:10.1029/2018GL079954, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 15?><mixed-citation>Davis, A. and Yan, X. H.:
Hurricane forcing on chlorophyll-a concentration off the northeast coast of the U.S.,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
31, 4–7, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020668" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004GL020668</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 16?><mixed-citation>Devlin, M. J., Barry, J., Mills, D. K., Gowen, R. J., Foden, J., Sivyer, D., and Tett, P.:
Relationships between suspended particulate material, light attenuation and Secchi depth in UK marine waters,
Estuar. Coast. Shelf S.,
79, 429–439, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2008.04.024" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ecss.2008.04.024</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 17?><mixed-citation>Du, J., Park, K., Dellapenna, T. M., and Clay, J. M.:
Dramatic hydrodynamic and sedimentary responses in Galveston Bay and adjacent inner shelf to Hurricane Harvey,
Sci. Total Environ.,
653, 554–564, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.403" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.403</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 18?><mixed-citation>Dupont, N. and Aksnes, D. L.:
Centennial changes in water clarity of the baltic sea and the north sea,
Estuar. Coast. Shelf S.,
131, 282–289, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.08.010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ecss.2013.08.010</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 19?><mixed-citation>Fennel, K., Wilkin, J., Levin, J., Moisan, J., O'Reilly, J., and Haidvogel, D.:
Nitrogen cycling in the Middle Atlantic Bight: Results from a three-dimensional model and implications for the North Atlantic nitrogen budget,
Global Biogeochem. Cy.,
20, 1–14, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GB002456" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005GB002456</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 20?><mixed-citation>Fennel, K., Wilkin, J., Previdi, M., and Najjar, R.:
Denitrification effects on air-sea <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> flux in the coastal ocean: Simulations for the northwest North Atlantic,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
35, 1–5, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036147" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008GL036147</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 21?><mixed-citation>Fennel, K., Hetland, R., Feng, Y., and DiMarco, S.: A coupled physical-biological model of the Northern Gulf of Mexico shelf: model description, validation and analysis of phytoplankton variability, Biogeosciences, 8, 1881–1899, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-8-1881-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-8-1881-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 22?><mixed-citation>Forbes, C., Luettich, R. A., Mattocks, C. A., and Westerink, J. J.:
A Retrospective Evaluation of the Storm Surge Produced by Hurricane Gustav (2008): Forecast and Hindcast Results,
Weather Forecast.,
25, 1577–1602, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222416.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2010WAF2222416.1</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 23?><mixed-citation>Ganju, N. K., Miselis, J. L., and Aretxabaleta, A. L.: Physical and biogeochemical controls on light attenuation in a eutrophic, back-barrier estuary, Biogeosciences, 11, 7193–7205, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-7193-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-11-7193-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 24?><mixed-citation>Gomez, F. A., Lee, S.-K., Liu, Y., Hernandez Jr., F. J., Muller-Karger, F. E., and Lamkin, J. T.: Seasonal patterns in phytoplankton biomass across the northern and deep Gulf of Mexico: a numerical model study, Biogeosciences, 15, 3561–3576, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-3561-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-15-3561-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 25?><mixed-citation>Haidvogel, D. B., Arango, H., Budgell, W. P., Cornuelle, B. D., Curchitser, E., Di Lorenzo, E., Fennel, K., Geyer, W. R., Hermann, A. J., Lanerolle, L., Levin, J., McWilliams, J. C., Miller, A. J., Moore, A. M., Powell, T. M., Shchepetkin, A. F., Sherwood, C. R., Signell, R. P., Warner, J. C., and Wilkin, J.:
Ocean forecasting in terrain-following coordinates: Formulation and skill assessment of the Regional Ocean Modeling System,
J. Comput. Phys.,
227, 3595–3624, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2007.06.016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jcp.2007.06.016</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 26?><mixed-citation>Huang, W., Mukherjee, D., and Chen, S.:
Assessment of Hurricane Ivan impact on chlorophyll-a in Pensacola Bay by MODIS 250 m remote sensing,
Mar. Pollut. Bull.,
62, 490–498, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.12.010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.12.010</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 27?><mixed-citation>Hurst, N. R., White, J. R., Xu, K., and Ren, M.:
Nitrate reduction rates in sediments experiencing turbulent flow conditions,
Ecol. Eng.,
128, 33–38, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.12.027" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.12.027</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 28?><mixed-citation>Jacob, R., Larson, J., and Everest, O.:
M <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> N Communication and Parallel Interpolation in Community Climate System Model Version 3 Using the Model Coupling Toolkit,
Int. J. High Perform. C.,
19, 293–307, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1094342005056116" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1177/1094342005056116</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 29?><mixed-citation>Justić, D. and Wang, L.:
Assessing temporal and spatial variability of hypoxia over the inner Louisiana-upper Texas shelf: Application of an unstructured-grid three-dimensional coupled hydrodynamic-water quality model,
Cont. Shelf Res.,
72, 163–179, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2013.08.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.csr.2013.08.006</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 30?><mixed-citation>Keim, B. D., Muller, R. A., and Stone, G. W.:
Spatiotemporal patterns and return periods of tropical storm and hurricane strikes from Texas to Maine,
J. Climate,
20, 3498–3509, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI4187.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI4187.1</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 31?><mixed-citation>
Kishi, M. J., Kashiwai, M., Ware, D. M., Megrey, B. A., Eslinger, D. L., Werner, F. E., Noguchi-Aita, M., Azumaya, T., Fujii, M., and Hashimoto, S.:
NEMURO – a lower trophic level model for the North Pacific marine ecosystem,
Ecol. Modell.,
202, 12–25, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 32?><mixed-citation>Korobkin, M., D'Sa, E., and Ko, D. S.:
Satellite observations and NCOM assessment of the Mississippi-Louisiana-Texas coast following hurricanes Gustav and Ike,
OCEANS 2009, Biloxi, MS, 1–4, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.23919/OCEANS.2009.5422213" ext-link-type="DOI">10.23919/OCEANS.2009.5422213</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page5054?><ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 33?><mixed-citation>Laurent, A. and Fennel, K.:
Simulated reduction of hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico due to phosphorus limitation,
Elementa,
2, 1–12, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.12952/journal.elementa.000022</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 34?><mixed-citation>Laurent, A., Fennel, K., Hu, J., and Hetland, R.: Simulating the effects of phosphorus limitation in the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River plumes, Biogeosciences, 9, 4707–4723, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-4707-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-9-4707-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 35?><mixed-citation>
Le, C., Lehrter, J. C., Hu, C., Murrell, M. C., and Qi, L.:
Spatiotemporal chlorophyll-a dynamics on the Louisiana continental shelf derived from a dual satellite imagery algorithm,
J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
119, 7449–7462, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 36?><mixed-citation>
Lin, S., Zou, T., Gao, H., and Guo, X.:
The vertical attenuation of irradiance as a function of turbidity: a case of the Huanghai (Yellow) Sea in spring,
Acta Oceanol. Sin.,
28, 66–75, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 37?><mixed-citation>Liu, K., Chen, Q., Hu, K., Xu, K., and Twilley, R. R.:
Modeling hurricane-induced wetland-bay and bay-shelf sediment fluxes,
Coast. Eng.,
135, 77–90, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2017.12.014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.coastaleng.2017.12.014</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 38?><mixed-citation>McCarthy, M. J., Carini, S. A., Liu, Z., Ostrom, N. E., and Gardner, W. S.:
Oxygen consumption in the water column and sediments of the northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone,
Estuar. Coast. Shelf S.,
123, 46–53, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.02.019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ecss.2013.02.019</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 39?><mixed-citation>McSweeney, J. M., Chant, R. J., Wilkin, J. L., and Sommerfield, C. K.:
Suspended-Sediment Impacts on Light-Limited Productivity in the Delaware Estuary,
Estuar. Coast.,
40, 977–993, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-016-0200-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s12237-016-0200-3</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 40?><mixed-citation>
Meade, R. H. and Moody, J. A.:
Causes for the decline of suspended-sediment discharge in the Mississippi River system, 1940–2007,
Hydrol. Process.,
24, 35–49, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 41?><mixed-citation>Miller, W. D., Harding, L. W., and Adolf, J. E.:
Hurricane Isabel generated an unusual fall bloom in Chesapeake Bay,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
33, 2–5, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL025658" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005GL025658</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 42?><mixed-citation>
Mobley, C. D., Chai, F., Xiu, P., and Sundman, L. K.:
Impact of improved light calculations on predicted phytoplankton growth and heating in an idealized upwelling-downwelling channel geometry,
J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
120, 875–892, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 44?><mixed-citation>Moriarty, J. M., Harris, C. K., Friedrichs, M. A. M., Fennel, K., and Xu, K.:
Impact of seabed resuspension on oxygen and nitrogen dynamics in the northern Gulf of Mexico: A numerical modeling study,
J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,  123, 7237–7263, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC013950" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018JC013950</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 45?><mixed-citation>Pan, G., Chai, F., Tang, D. L., and Wang, D.:
Marine phytoplankton biomass responses to typhoon events in the South China Sea based on physical-biogeochemical model,
Ecol. Modell.,
356, 38–47, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.04.013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.04.013</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 46?><mixed-citation>
Pennock, J. R.:
Chlorophyll distributions in the Delaware estuary: regulation by light-limitation,
Estuar. Coast. Shelf S.,
21, 711–725, 1985.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 47?><mixed-citation>
Rabalais, N. N., Turner, R. E., and Wiseman, W. J.:
Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico,
J. Environ. Qual.,
30, 320–329, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 48?><mixed-citation>
Saha, S., Moorthi, S., Pan, H. L., Wu, X., Wang, J., Nadiga, S., Tripp, P., Kistler, R., Woollen, J., and Behringer, D.:
NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis (CFSR) 6-hourly products, January 1979 to December 2010,
Res. Data Arch., Natl. Cent. Atmos. Res., Comput. Inf. Syst. Lab., Boulder, CO, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 49?><mixed-citation>
Saha, S., Moorthi, S., Wu, X., Wang, J., Nadiga, S., Tripp, P., Behringer, D., Hou, Y. T., Chuang, H., and Iredell, M.:
NCEP climate forecast system version 2 (CFSv2) 6-hourly products,
Res. Data Arch., Natl. Cent. Atmos. Res., Comput. Inf. Syst. Lab., 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 50?><mixed-citation>Schaeffer, B. A., Sinclair, G. A., Lehrter, J. C., Murrell, M. C., Kurtz, J. C., Gould, R. W., and Yates, D. F.:
An analysis of diffuse light attenuation in the northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone using the SeaWiFS satellite data record,
Remote Sens. Environ.,
115, 3748–3757, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.09.013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2011.09.013</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 51?><mixed-citation>Shchepetkin, A. F. and McWilliams, J. C.:
The regional oceanic modeling system (ROMS): A split-explicit, free-surface, topography-following-coordinate oceanic model,
Ocean Model.,
9, 347–404, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2004.08.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2004.08.002</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 52?><mixed-citation>
Skamarock, W. C., Klemp, J. B., Dudhia, J., Gill, D. O., Barker, D. M., Duda, M. G., Huang, X.-Y., Wang, W., and Powers, J. G.: A description of the Advanced Research WRF version 3, in NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-475+ STR, Natl. Cent. for Atmos. Res, Boulder, Colo., 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 53?><mixed-citation>Storlazzi, C. D., Norris, B. K., and Rosenberger, K. J.:
The influence of grain size, grain color, and suspended-sediment concentration on light attenuation: Why fine-grained terrestrial sediment is bad for coral reef ecosystems,
Coral Reefs,
34, 967–975, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-015-1268-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00338-015-1268-0</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><?label 54?><mixed-citation>Thewes, D., Stanev, E. V., and Zielinski, O.: Sensitivity of a 3D Shelf Sea Ecosystem Model to Parameterizations of the Underwater Light Field, Front. Mar. Sci., 6, 816, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00816" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/fmars.2019.00816</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><?label 55?><mixed-citation>
Van Duin, E. H. S., Blom, G., Los, F. J., Maffione, R., Zimmerman, R., Cerco, C. F., Dortch, M., and Best, E. P. H.: Modeling underwater light climate in relation to sedimentation, resuspension, water quality and autotrophic growth, Hydrobiologia, 444, 25–42, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><?label 56?><mixed-citation>
Walker, N. D. and Hammack, A. B.:
Impacts of winter storms on circulation and sediment transport: Atchafalaya–Vermilion Bay region, Louisiana, USA,
J. Coast. Res., 16, 996–1010, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><?label 57?><mixed-citation>Walker, N. D., Leben, R. R., and Balasubramanian, S.:
Hurricane-forced upwelling and chlorophyll a enhancement within cold-core cyclones in the Gulf of Mexico,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
32, 1–5, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023716" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005GL023716</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><?label 58?><mixed-citation>Warner, J. C., Sherwood, C. R., Signell, R. P., Harris, C. K., and Arango, H. G.:
Development of a three-dimensional, regional, coupled wave, current, and sediment-transport model,
Comput. Geosci.,
34, 1284–1306, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2008.02.012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.cageo.2008.02.012</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><?label 59?><mixed-citation>Warner, J. C., Armstrong, B., He, R., and Zambon, J. B.:
Development of a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere-Wave-Sediment Transport (COAWST) Modeling System,
Ocean Model.,
35, 230–244, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2010.07.010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2010.07.010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><?label 60?><mixed-citation>Wilson, R. F., Fennel, K., and Paul Mattern, J.:
Simulating sediment-water exchange of nutrients and oxygen: A comparative assessment of models against mesocosm observations,
Cont. Shelf Res.,
63, 69–84, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2013.05.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.csr.2013.05.003</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><?label 61?><mixed-citation>Wilson, R. J. and Heath, M. R.: Increasing turbidity in the North Sea during the 20th century due to changing wave climate, Ocean Sci., 15, 1615–1625, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/os-15-1615-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/os-15-1615-2019</ext-link>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><?label 62?><mixed-citation>
Wiseman, W. J., Rabalais, N. N., Turner, R. E., Dinnel, S. P., and MacNaughton, A.:
Seasonal and interannual variability within the Louisiana coastal current: stratification and hypoxia,
J. Mar. Syst.,
12, 237–248, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><?label 63?><mixed-citation>Xu, K., Harris, C. K., Hetland, R. D., and Kaihatu, J. M.:
Dispersal of Mississippi and Atchafalaya sediment on the Texas-Louisiana shelf: Model estimates for the year 1993,
Cont. Shelf Res.,
31, 1558–1575, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2011.05.008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.csr.2011.05.008</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><?label 64?><mixed-citation>Xu, K., Mickey, R. C., Chen, Q., Harris, C. K., Hetland, R. D., Hu, K., and Wang, J.:
Shelf sediment transport during hurricanes Katrina and Rita,
Comput. Geosci.,
90, 24–39, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.10.009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.cageo.2015.10.009</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><?label 65?><mixed-citation>Xue, Z., He, R., Fennel, K., Cai, W.-J., Lohrenz, S., and Hopkinson, C.: Modeling ocean circulation and biogeochemical variability in the Gulf of Mexico, Biogeosciences, 10, 7219–7234, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-7219-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/bg-10-7219-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><?label 66?><mixed-citation>Yu, L., Fennel, K., and Laurent, A.: A modeling study of physical controls on hypoxia generationin the northern Gulf of Mexico, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 120, 5019–5039, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JC010634" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014JC010634</ext-link>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><?label 67?><mixed-citation>Zang, Z., Xue, Z. G., Bao, S., Chen, Q., Walker, N. D., Haag, A. S., Ge, Q., and Yao, Z.:
Numerical study of sediment dynamics during hurricane Gustav,
Ocean Model.,
126, 29–42, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2018.04.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2018.04.002</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><?label 68?><mixed-citation>Zang, Z., Xue, Z. G., Xu, K., Bentley, S. J., Chen, Q., D'Sa, E. J., and Ge, Q.: A Two Decadal (1993–2012) Numerical Assessment of Sediment Dynamics in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, Water, 11, 938, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/w11050938" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/w11050938</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><?label 69?><mixed-citation>Zhao, Y. and Quigg, A.: Nutrient limitation in Northern Gulf of Mexico (NGOM): Phytoplankton communities and photosynthesis respond to nutrient pulse, PLoS One, 9, e88732, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088732" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1371/journal.pone.0088732</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><?label 70?><mixed-citation>Zhou, F., Chai, F., Huang, D., Xue, H., Chen, J., Xiu, P., Xuan, J., Li, J., Zeng, D., Ni, X., and Wang, K.:
Investigation of hypoxia off the Changjiang Estuary using a coupled model of ROMS-CoSiNE,
Prog. Oceanogr.,
159, 237–254, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2017.10.008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.pocean.2017.10.008</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><?label 71?><mixed-citation>
Zhu, Z., Ng, W., Liu, S., Zhang, J., Chen, J., and Wu, Y.:
Estuarine phytoplankton dynamics and shift of limiting factors: A study in the Changjiang (Yangtze River) Estuary and adjacent area,
Estuar. Coast. Shelf S.,
84, 393–401, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>The role of sediment-induced light attenuation on primary production during Hurricane Gustav (2008)</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>We introduced a sediment-induced light attenuation algorithm into a biogeochemical model of the Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere–Wave–Sediment Transport (COAWST) modeling system. A fully coupled ocean–atmospheric–sediment–biogeochemical simulation was carried out to assess the impact of
sediment-induced light attenuation on primary production in the northern Gulf of Mexico during the passage of Hurricane Gustav in 2008. When
compared with model results without sediment-induced light attenuation, our new model showed a better agreement with satellite data on both the
magnitude of nearshore chlorophyll concentration and the spatial distribution of offshore bloom. When Hurricane Gustav approached, resuspended sediment shifted the inner shelf ecosystem from a nutrient-limited one to a light-limited one. Only 1 week after Hurricane Gustav's landfall, accumulated nutrients and a favorable
optical environment induced a posthurricane algal bloom in the top 20&thinsp;m of the water column, while the productivity in the lower water column was still light-limited due to slow-settling sediment. Corresponding with the elevated offshore NO<sub>3</sub> flux
(38.71&thinsp;mmol&thinsp;N&thinsp;m<sup>−1</sup>&thinsp;s<sup>−1</sup>) and decreased chlorophyll flux (43.10&thinsp;mg&thinsp;m<sup>−1</sup>&thinsp;s<sup>−1</sup>), the outer shelf posthurricane bloom should have resulted from the cross-shelf nutrient supply instead of the lateral dispersed
chlorophyll. Sensitivity tests indicated that sediment light attenuation efficiency affected primary production when sediment concentration was
moderately high. Model uncertainties due to colored dissolved organic matter and parameterization of sediment-induced light attenuation are also discussed.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Allison, M. A., Demas, C. R., Ebersole, B. A., Kleiss, B. A., Little, C. D., Meselhe, E. A., Powell, N. J., Pratt, T. C., and Vosburg, B. M.:
A water and sediment budget for the lower Mississippi–Atchafalaya River in flood years 2008–2010: Implications for sediment discharge to the oceans and coastal restoration in Louisiana,
J. Hydrol.,
432–433, 84–97, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.02.020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.02.020</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Arndt, S., Vanderborght, J., and Regnier, P.:
Diatom growth response to physical forcing in a macrotidal estuary: Coupling hydrodynamics, sediment transport, and biogeochemistry,
J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
112, C05045, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JC003581" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JC003581</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Baker, E. T. and Lavelle, J. W.:
Effect of Particle Size on the Light Attenuation Coefficient of Natural Suspensions,
J. Geophys. Res.,
89, 8197–8203, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/JC089iC05p08197" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/JC089iC05p08197</a>, 1984.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bianucci, L., Balaguru, K., Smith, R. W., Leung, L. R., and Moriarty, J. M.:
Contribution of hurricane-induced sediment resuspension to coastal oxygen dynamics,
Sci. Rep.-UK,
8, 15740, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-33640-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-33640-3</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Bierman, V. J., Hinz, S. C., Zhu, D., Wiseman, W. J., Rabalais, N. N., and Turner, R. E.:
A preliminary mass balance model of primary productivity and dissolved oxygen in the Mississippi River plume/inner Gulf Shelf region,
Estuaries,
17, 886–899, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Booij, N., Ris, R. C., and Holthuijsen, L. H.:
A third-generation wave model for coastal regions: 1. Model description and validation,
J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
104, 7649–7666, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Cahill, B., Schofield, O., Chant, R., Wilkin, J., Hunter, E., Glenn, S., and Bissett, P.:
Dynamics of turbid buoyant plumes and the feedbacks on near-shore biogeochemistry and physics,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
35, 1–6, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL033595" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL033595</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Capuzzo, E., Stephens, D., Silva, T., Barry, J., and Forster, R. M.:
Decrease in water clarity of the southern and central North Sea during the 20th century,
Glob. Change Biol.,
21, 2206–2214, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12854" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12854</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Chai, F., Jiang, M. S., Chao, Y., Dugdale, R. C., Chavez, F., and Barber, R. T.:
Modeling responses of diatom productivity and biogenic silica export to iron enrichment in the equatorial Pacific Ocean,
Global Biogeochem. Cy.,
21, 1–16, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GB002804" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GB002804</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Cloern, J. E.:
Turbidity as a control on phytoplankton biomass and productivity in estuaries,
Cont. Shelf Res.,
7, 1367–1381, 1987.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Couceiro, F., Fones, G. R., Thompson, C. E. L., Statham, P. J., Sivyer, D. B., Parker, R., Kelly-Gerreyn, B. A., and Amos, C. L.:
Impact of resuspension of cohesive sediments at the Oyster Grounds (North Sea) on nutrient exchange across the sediment-water interface,
Biogeochemistry,
113, 37–52, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-012-9710-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-012-9710-7</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
D'Sa, E. J. and Miller, R. L.:
Bio-optical properties in waters influenced by the Mississippi River during low flow conditions,
Remote Sens. Environ.,
84, 538–549, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00163-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00163-3</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
D'Sa, E. J., Miller, R. L., and Del Castillo, C.:
Bio-optical properties and ocean color algorithms for coastal waters influenced by the Mississippi River during a cold front,
Appl. Opt.,
45, 7410–7428, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
D'Sa, E. J., Korobkin, M., and Ko, D. S.:
Effects of Hurricane Ike on the Louisiana–Texas coast from satellite and model data,
Remote Sens. Lett.,
2, 11–19, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2010.489057" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2010.489057</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
D'Sa, E. J., Joshi, I., and Liu, B.: Galveston Bay and Coastal Ocean Optical-Geochemical Response to Hurricane Harvey From VIIRS Ocean Color, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 10579–10589, doi:10.1029/2018GL079954, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Davis, A. and Yan, X. H.:
Hurricane forcing on chlorophyll-a concentration off the northeast coast of the U.S.,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
31, 4–7, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020668" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020668</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Devlin, M. J., Barry, J., Mills, D. K., Gowen, R. J., Foden, J., Sivyer, D., and Tett, P.:
Relationships between suspended particulate material, light attenuation and Secchi depth in UK marine waters,
Estuar. Coast. Shelf S.,
79, 429–439, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2008.04.024" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2008.04.024</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Du, J., Park, K., Dellapenna, T. M., and Clay, J. M.:
Dramatic hydrodynamic and sedimentary responses in Galveston Bay and adjacent inner shelf to Hurricane Harvey,
Sci. Total Environ.,
653, 554–564, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.403" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.403</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Dupont, N. and Aksnes, D. L.:
Centennial changes in water clarity of the baltic sea and the north sea,
Estuar. Coast. Shelf S.,
131, 282–289, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.08.010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.08.010</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Fennel, K., Wilkin, J., Levin, J., Moisan, J., O'Reilly, J., and Haidvogel, D.:
Nitrogen cycling in the Middle Atlantic Bight: Results from a three-dimensional model and implications for the North Atlantic nitrogen budget,
Global Biogeochem. Cy.,
20, 1–14, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GB002456" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GB002456</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Fennel, K., Wilkin, J., Previdi, M., and Najjar, R.:
Denitrification effects on air-sea CO<sub>2</sub> flux in the coastal ocean: Simulations for the northwest North Atlantic,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
35, 1–5, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036147" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036147</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Fennel, K., Hetland, R., Feng, Y., and DiMarco, S.: A coupled physical-biological model of the Northern Gulf of Mexico shelf: model description, validation and analysis of phytoplankton variability, Biogeosciences, 8, 1881–1899, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-8-1881-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-8-1881-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Forbes, C., Luettich, R. A., Mattocks, C. A., and Westerink, J. J.:
A Retrospective Evaluation of the Storm Surge Produced by Hurricane Gustav (2008): Forecast and Hindcast Results,
Weather Forecast.,
25, 1577–1602, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222416.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WAF2222416.1</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Ganju, N. K., Miselis, J. L., and Aretxabaleta, A. L.: Physical and biogeochemical controls on light attenuation in a eutrophic, back-barrier estuary, Biogeosciences, 11, 7193–7205, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-7193-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-7193-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Gomez, F. A., Lee, S.-K., Liu, Y., Hernandez Jr., F. J., Muller-Karger, F. E., and Lamkin, J. T.: Seasonal patterns in phytoplankton biomass across the northern and deep Gulf of Mexico: a numerical model study, Biogeosciences, 15, 3561–3576, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-3561-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-3561-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Haidvogel, D. B., Arango, H., Budgell, W. P., Cornuelle, B. D., Curchitser, E., Di Lorenzo, E., Fennel, K., Geyer, W. R., Hermann, A. J., Lanerolle, L., Levin, J., McWilliams, J. C., Miller, A. J., Moore, A. M., Powell, T. M., Shchepetkin, A. F., Sherwood, C. R., Signell, R. P., Warner, J. C., and Wilkin, J.:
Ocean forecasting in terrain-following coordinates: Formulation and skill assessment of the Regional Ocean Modeling System,
J. Comput. Phys.,
227, 3595–3624, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2007.06.016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2007.06.016</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Huang, W., Mukherjee, D., and Chen, S.:
Assessment of Hurricane Ivan impact on chlorophyll-a in Pensacola Bay by MODIS 250&thinsp;m remote sensing,
Mar. Pollut. Bull.,
62, 490–498, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.12.010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.12.010</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Hurst, N. R., White, J. R., Xu, K., and Ren, M.:
Nitrate reduction rates in sediments experiencing turbulent flow conditions,
Ecol. Eng.,
128, 33–38, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.12.027" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.12.027</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Jacob, R., Larson, J., and Everest, O.:
M&thinsp; × &thinsp;N Communication and Parallel Interpolation in Community Climate System Model Version 3 Using the Model Coupling Toolkit,
Int. J. High Perform. C.,
19, 293–307, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1094342005056116" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1177/1094342005056116</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Justić, D. and Wang, L.:
Assessing temporal and spatial variability of hypoxia over the inner Louisiana-upper Texas shelf: Application of an unstructured-grid three-dimensional coupled hydrodynamic-water quality model,
Cont. Shelf Res.,
72, 163–179, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2013.08.006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2013.08.006</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Keim, B. D., Muller, R. A., and Stone, G. W.:
Spatiotemporal patterns and return periods of tropical storm and hurricane strikes from Texas to Maine,
J. Climate,
20, 3498–3509, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI4187.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI4187.1</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Kishi, M. J., Kashiwai, M., Ware, D. M., Megrey, B. A., Eslinger, D. L., Werner, F. E., Noguchi-Aita, M., Azumaya, T., Fujii, M., and Hashimoto, S.:
NEMURO – a lower trophic level model for the North Pacific marine ecosystem,
Ecol. Modell.,
202, 12–25, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Korobkin, M., D'Sa, E., and Ko, D. S.:
Satellite observations and NCOM assessment of the Mississippi-Louisiana-Texas coast following hurricanes Gustav and Ike,
OCEANS 2009, Biloxi, MS, 1–4, <a href="https://doi.org/10.23919/OCEANS.2009.5422213" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.23919/OCEANS.2009.5422213</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Laurent, A. and Fennel, K.:
Simulated reduction of hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico due to phosphorus limitation,
Elementa,
2, 1–12, <a href="https://doi.org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000022" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000022</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Laurent, A., Fennel, K., Hu, J., and Hetland, R.: Simulating the effects of phosphorus limitation in the Mississippi and Atchafalaya River plumes, Biogeosciences, 9, 4707–4723, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-4707-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-4707-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Le, C., Lehrter, J. C., Hu, C., Murrell, M. C., and Qi, L.:
Spatiotemporal chlorophyll-a dynamics on the Louisiana continental shelf derived from a dual satellite imagery algorithm,
J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
119, 7449–7462, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Lin, S., Zou, T., Gao, H., and Guo, X.:
The vertical attenuation of irradiance as a function of turbidity: a case of the Huanghai (Yellow) Sea in spring,
Acta Oceanol. Sin.,
28, 66–75, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, K., Chen, Q., Hu, K., Xu, K., and Twilley, R. R.:
Modeling hurricane-induced wetland-bay and bay-shelf sediment fluxes,
Coast. Eng.,
135, 77–90, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2017.12.014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2017.12.014</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
McCarthy, M. J., Carini, S. A., Liu, Z., Ostrom, N. E., and Gardner, W. S.:
Oxygen consumption in the water column and sediments of the northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone,
Estuar. Coast. Shelf S.,
123, 46–53, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.02.019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.02.019</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
McSweeney, J. M., Chant, R. J., Wilkin, J. L., and Sommerfield, C. K.:
Suspended-Sediment Impacts on Light-Limited Productivity in the Delaware Estuary,
Estuar. Coast.,
40, 977–993, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-016-0200-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-016-0200-3</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Meade, R. H. and Moody, J. A.:
Causes for the decline of suspended-sediment discharge in the Mississippi River system, 1940–2007,
Hydrol. Process.,
24, 35–49, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Miller, W. D., Harding, L. W., and Adolf, J. E.:
Hurricane Isabel generated an unusual fall bloom in Chesapeake Bay,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
33, 2–5, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL025658" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL025658</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Mobley, C. D., Chai, F., Xiu, P., and Sundman, L. K.:
Impact of improved light calculations on predicted phytoplankton growth and heating in an idealized upwelling-downwelling channel geometry,
J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
120, 875–892, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Moriarty, J. M., Harris, C. K., Friedrichs, M. A. M., Fennel, K., and Xu, K.:
Impact of seabed resuspension on oxygen and nitrogen dynamics in the northern Gulf of Mexico: A numerical modeling study,
J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,  123, 7237–7263, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC013950" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC013950</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Pan, G., Chai, F., Tang, D. L., and Wang, D.:
Marine phytoplankton biomass responses to typhoon events in the South China Sea based on physical-biogeochemical model,
Ecol. Modell.,
356, 38–47, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.04.013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.04.013</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Pennock, J. R.:
Chlorophyll distributions in the Delaware estuary: regulation by light-limitation,
Estuar. Coast. Shelf S.,
21, 711–725, 1985.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Rabalais, N. N., Turner, R. E., and Wiseman, W. J.:
Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico,
J. Environ. Qual.,
30, 320–329, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Saha, S., Moorthi, S., Pan, H. L., Wu, X., Wang, J., Nadiga, S., Tripp, P., Kistler, R., Woollen, J., and Behringer, D.:
NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis (CFSR) 6-hourly products, January 1979 to December 2010,
Res. Data Arch., Natl. Cent. Atmos. Res., Comput. Inf. Syst. Lab., Boulder, CO, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Saha, S., Moorthi, S., Wu, X., Wang, J., Nadiga, S., Tripp, P., Behringer, D., Hou, Y. T., Chuang, H., and Iredell, M.:
NCEP climate forecast system version 2 (CFSv2) 6-hourly products,
Res. Data Arch., Natl. Cent. Atmos. Res., Comput. Inf. Syst. Lab., 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Schaeffer, B. A., Sinclair, G. A., Lehrter, J. C., Murrell, M. C., Kurtz, J. C., Gould, R. W., and Yates, D. F.:
An analysis of diffuse light attenuation in the northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone using the SeaWiFS satellite data record,
Remote Sens. Environ.,
115, 3748–3757, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.09.013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.09.013</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Shchepetkin, A. F. and McWilliams, J. C.:
The regional oceanic modeling system (ROMS): A split-explicit, free-surface, topography-following-coordinate oceanic model,
Ocean Model.,
9, 347–404, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2004.08.002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2004.08.002</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Skamarock, W. C., Klemp, J. B., Dudhia, J., Gill, D. O., Barker, D. M., Duda, M. G., Huang, X.-Y., Wang, W., and Powers, J. G.: A description of the Advanced Research WRF version 3, in NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-475+ STR, Natl. Cent. for Atmos. Res, Boulder, Colo., 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Storlazzi, C. D., Norris, B. K., and Rosenberger, K. J.:
The influence of grain size, grain color, and suspended-sediment concentration on light attenuation: Why fine-grained terrestrial sediment is bad for coral reef ecosystems,
Coral Reefs,
34, 967–975, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-015-1268-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-015-1268-0</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Thewes, D., Stanev, E. V., and Zielinski, O.: Sensitivity of a 3D Shelf Sea Ecosystem Model to Parameterizations of the Underwater Light Field, Front. Mar. Sci., 6, 816, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00816" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00816</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Van Duin, E. H. S., Blom, G., Los, F. J., Maffione, R., Zimmerman, R., Cerco, C. F., Dortch, M., and Best, E. P. H.: Modeling underwater light climate in relation to sedimentation, resuspension, water quality and autotrophic growth, Hydrobiologia, 444, 25–42, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Walker, N. D. and Hammack, A. B.:
Impacts of winter storms on circulation and sediment transport: Atchafalaya–Vermilion Bay region, Louisiana, USA,
J. Coast. Res., 16, 996–1010, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Walker, N. D., Leben, R. R., and Balasubramanian, S.:
Hurricane-forced upwelling and chlorophyll a enhancement within cold-core cyclones in the Gulf of Mexico,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
32, 1–5, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023716" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023716</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Warner, J. C., Sherwood, C. R., Signell, R. P., Harris, C. K., and Arango, H. G.:
Development of a three-dimensional, regional, coupled wave, current, and sediment-transport model,
Comput. Geosci.,
34, 1284–1306, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2008.02.012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2008.02.012</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Warner, J. C., Armstrong, B., He, R., and Zambon, J. B.:
Development of a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere-Wave-Sediment Transport (COAWST) Modeling System,
Ocean Model.,
35, 230–244, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2010.07.010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2010.07.010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Wilson, R. F., Fennel, K., and Paul Mattern, J.:
Simulating sediment-water exchange of nutrients and oxygen: A comparative assessment of models against mesocosm observations,
Cont. Shelf Res.,
63, 69–84, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2013.05.003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2013.05.003</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Wilson, R. J. and Heath, M. R.: Increasing turbidity in the North Sea during the 20th century due to changing wave climate, Ocean Sci., 15, 1615–1625, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/os-15-1615-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/os-15-1615-2019</a>, 2019.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Wiseman, W. J., Rabalais, N. N., Turner, R. E., Dinnel, S. P., and MacNaughton, A.:
Seasonal and interannual variability within the Louisiana coastal current: stratification and hypoxia,
J. Mar. Syst.,
12, 237–248, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Xu, K., Harris, C. K., Hetland, R. D., and Kaihatu, J. M.:
Dispersal of Mississippi and Atchafalaya sediment on the Texas-Louisiana shelf: Model estimates for the year 1993,
Cont. Shelf Res.,
31, 1558–1575, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2011.05.008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2011.05.008</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Xu, K., Mickey, R. C., Chen, Q., Harris, C. K., Hetland, R. D., Hu, K., and Wang, J.:
Shelf sediment transport during hurricanes Katrina and Rita,
Comput. Geosci.,
90, 24–39, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.10.009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.10.009</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Xue, Z., He, R., Fennel, K., Cai, W.-J., Lohrenz, S., and Hopkinson, C.: Modeling ocean circulation and biogeochemical variability in the Gulf of Mexico, Biogeosciences, 10, 7219–7234, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-7219-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-7219-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Yu, L., Fennel, K., and Laurent, A.: A modeling study of physical controls on hypoxia generationin the northern Gulf of Mexico, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 120, 5019–5039, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JC010634" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JC010634</a>, 2015.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Zang, Z., Xue, Z. G., Bao, S., Chen, Q., Walker, N. D., Haag, A. S., Ge, Q., and Yao, Z.:
Numerical study of sediment dynamics during hurricane Gustav,
Ocean Model.,
126, 29–42, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2018.04.002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2018.04.002</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
Zang, Z., Xue, Z. G., Xu, K., Bentley, S. J., Chen, Q., D'Sa, E. J., and Ge, Q.: A Two Decadal (1993–2012) Numerical Assessment of Sediment Dynamics in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, Water, 11, 938, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/w11050938" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/w11050938</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
Zhao, Y. and Quigg, A.: Nutrient limitation in Northern Gulf of Mexico (NGOM): Phytoplankton communities and photosynthesis respond to nutrient pulse, PLoS One, 9, e88732, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088732" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088732</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
Zhou, F., Chai, F., Huang, D., Xue, H., Chen, J., Xiu, P., Xuan, J., Li, J., Zeng, D., Ni, X., and Wang, K.:
Investigation of hypoxia off the Changjiang Estuary using a coupled model of ROMS-CoSiNE,
Prog. Oceanogr.,
159, 237–254, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2017.10.008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2017.10.008</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>
Zhu, Z., Ng, W., Liu, S., Zhang, J., Chen, J., and Wu, Y.:
Estuarine phytoplankton dynamics and shift of limiting factors: A study in the Changjiang (Yangtze River) Estuary and adjacent area,
Estuar. Coast. Shelf S.,
84, 393–401, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
