On the barium–oxygen consumption relationship  in the Mediterranean Sea: implications for  mesopelagic marine snow remineralization

Jacquet, Stéphanie H. M.; Lefèvre, Dominique; Tamburini, Christian; Garel, Marc; Le Moigne, Frédéric A. C.; Bhairy, Nagib; Guasco, Sophie

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2205-2021

Articles | Volume 18, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2205-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2205-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 6

Research article

|

26 Mar 2021

Research article |

| 26 Mar 2021

On the barium–oxygen consumption relationship in the Mediterranean Sea: implications for mesopelagic marine snow remineralization

Stéphanie H. M. Jacquet, Dominique Lefèvre, Christian Tamburini, Marc Garel, Frédéric A. C. Le Moigne, Nagib Bhairy, and Sophie Guasco

Download

Final revised paper (published on 26 Mar 2021)
Preprint (discussion started on 07 Sep 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of the manuscript entitled "On the barium - oxygen consumption relationship in the Mediterranean Sea: implications for mesopelagic marine snow remineralisation"', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Sep 2020
- AC1: 'Reply to Referee #1', Stéphanie Jacquet, 01 Dec 2020
RC2: 'Review of "On the barium-oxygen consumption relationship in the Mediterranean Sea: implications for mesopelagic marine snow remineralisation"', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Oct 2020
- AC2: 'Response to referee 1', Stéphanie Jacquet, 01 Dec 2020

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (04 Dec 2020) by Carolin Löscher

AR by Stéphanie Jacquet on behalf of the Authors (04 Dec 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (14 Dec 2020) by Carolin Löscher

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (22 Dec 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

This new version is more complete and thus easier to read, thank you for taking into account our comments. I have some additional comments but they are minor.

Section 2.2. Sampling and Analyses.
• Line 134: Precise in which section you will discuss about the biogenic Ba fraction in more details. ‘Section 3.1’ instead of ‘see below’.

• Lines 151-156: The method for measuring PHP is still not explained. It would make it a lot easier for the reader if it was briefly explained, even if it is the same method than in Tamburini et al. (2002).

Section 3.1 Particulate Baxs vertical distribution
• Lines 163-164 and lines 169-170: Could you please mention that the main focus of this manuscript is on the mesopelagic layer and that having the biogenic Ba greater than 80% in this layer is essential for neglecting the lithogenic fraction here? As it is now, reading that the biogenic Ba range between 50 and 90% - or instead that the lithogenic fraction is up to 50% - still gives doubt on the Baxs estimation. Please, include in the text what you said in your replies.

Section 3.2 PHP
• Lines 195-198 (Figure 2b): I wonder how does the KEOPS2 correlation compare with a global correlation (ie, taking into account all data points, including KEOPS1, KEOPS2, ANTARES and PAP data)? Maybe you could use this global correlation instead of constraining to only KEOPS2? This would generalise your conclusions.

Section 3.4 Estimated particles remineralisation rates and implication
• Lines 253-259: It is not clear to what Ba fluxes correspond to. Are they downward export fluxes, Ba release fluxes? Why are the Ba fluxes in ANTARES so much lower than in DYFAMED or in the Alboran Sea?

• Lines 260: Are the fluxes from Speicher et al. (2006) from the Mediterranean Sea as well? Please, precise the location and also the POC fluxes (give numbers).

• Lines 263-264: You say ‘remineralisation rates in the Mediterranean Sea is far from being achieved’ but what does it mean? Is it about the spatial resolution, the seasonal changes, the global understanding? What else has to be done?

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (06 Jan 2021) by Carolin Löscher

AR by Stéphanie Jacquet on behalf of the Authors (03 Feb 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (14 Feb 2021) by Carolin Löscher

AR by Stéphanie Jacquet on behalf of the Authors (15 Feb 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (17 Feb 2021) by Carolin Löscher

AR by Stéphanie Jacquet on behalf of the Authors (17 Feb 2021) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

We present new data concerning the relation between biogenic barium (Ba_xs, a tracer of carbon remineralization at mesopelagic depths), O₂ consumption and prokaryotic heterotrophic production (PHP) in the Mediterranean Sea. The purpose of this paper is to improve our understanding of the relation between Ba_xs, PHP and O₂ and to test the validity of the Dehairs transfer function in the Mediterranean Sea. This relation has never been tested in the Mediterranean Sea.