the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 28 Aug 2025
Evolution of biogeochemical properties inside poleward undercurrent eddies in the southeast Pacific Ocean
Lenna Ortiz-Castillo
Marcela Cornejo-D'Ottone
Boris Dewitte
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 28 Aug 2025)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 05 Jun 2024)
- Supplement to the preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1290', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Sep 2024
First, let me apologize for the delay in providing my comment for the manuscript, which greatly affects the review process. Please accept my sincere apology.
In this manuscript, by employing a high-resolution coupled simulation of the Southeast Pacific, Ortiz and colleagues characterized the variabilities in internal biogeochemistry, disparities with external properties, and processes influencing the dissolved oxygen (O2) budget of Poleward Undercurrent Eddies (PUDDIES) and scrutinized eddy dynamics and biogeochemical processes associated with the nitrogen cycle in those PUDDIES during their transit to oceanic waters. Specifically, they documented the evolution of water mass properties and processes inside PUDDIES with contrasting initial characteristics (suboxic versus hypoxic) in order to evaluate the role of these properties in the maintenance of oxygen minimum zones (OMZs). They found that Puddies capture a biogeochemical signal contingent upon their formation location, particularly associated with the core of the Peru-Chile Undercurrent at the core of the OMZs. Furthermore, they found that while permeability at the periphery facilitates exchange with external waters, the core signal retains negative O2 anomalies and positive anomalies of other biogeochemical tracers. These disturbances contribute significantly to average properties that exceed background conditions in the open ocean. The main process controlling O2 input into, or output from the eddy core entails lateral and vertical advection, with vertical mixing supplying O2 to a lesser degree. Biological activity consumes O2 inside PUDDIES for around 6 to 12 months, especially intensely for the first 100 days, thus facilitating the persistence of low O2 conditions and extending the lifetime of biogeochemical anomalies within the core. The authors suggested that by representing more complex biogeochemical and physical processes in ocean models, future studies will be able to quantify the effects of other SMS processes within Puddies that are not yet considered in their study. Validation and supplementary statistics of Puddies through further observations are urgently needed.
The manuscript is well written and the method and model setup are well-designed. The authors also did a thorough job on the transformations and transport of biogeochemical elements inside PUDDIES. I have learned a lot and have enjoyed reading the manuscript. My only reservation regarding the manuscript is that I feel the authors can do a better job on producing Figures. Some figures (especially figure 1) are small with a bad color scheme that makes it difficult for readers to see and interpret the (sometimes) dense information that the authors try to convey.
Other detailed comments.
Line 17: Please change to: “Oceanic eddies are ubiquitous features of the circulation thought to be involved…”
Lines 30 - 31: “These disturbances likely contribute to average properties that exceed the 90th percentile threshold in the open ocean, contrasting with the formation zone where they surpass 50th percentile levels.” Please consider adding a clear definition of the percentile threshold levels here.
Line 37: What do you mean by “out of time”?
Figure 1: Please consider improving the quality of Figure 1: Bigger size, bigger font for texts, different color scale other than the rainbow, clearly distinguish between black lines and black contour, clearly show the yellow dots tracking the Puddies… They are all very hard to see now.
Line 189-190: Please change to “which is a scalar”
Line 201: Is the Score defined as density core? Please clarify (I know you defined it later but it should be defined clearly earlier).
Line 237: Please change to N2O production
Line 369-370: Please change “The correlation coefficients varied between 112.5 and 457.45” to “The slope values…”
Line 490 and Line 493: please add < 0 or > 0 delta O2/delta z here.
Table 6: Probably a naive question, and please excuse my ignorance, but can you clarify what are x and y used here to calculate the decay rate k?
Line 614: Please change to: “affected also by the southward reduction in contribution of ESSW”
Line 624: Please replace Table XX here with the correct table.
Line 690: This is the first instance in the text that I see the acronym CARS. Please define it.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1290-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Lenna Ortiz, 31 Jan 2025
In this manuscript, by employing a high-resolution coupled simulation of the Southeast Pacific, Ortiz and colleagues characterized the variabilities in internal biogeochemistry, disparities with external properties, and processes influencing the dissolved oxygen (O2) budget of Poleward Undercurrent Eddies (PUDDIES) and scrutinized eddy dynamics and biogeochemical processes associated with the nitrogen cycle in those PUDDIES during their transit to oceanic waters. Specifically, they documented the evolution of water mass properties and processes inside PUDDIES with contrasting initial characteristics (suboxic versus hypoxic) in order to evaluate the role of these properties in the maintenance of oxygen minimum zones (OMZs). They found that Puddies capture a biogeochemical signal contingent upon their formation location, particularly associated with the core of the Peru-Chile Undercurrent at the core of the OMZs. Furthermore, they found that while permeability at the periphery facilitates exchange with external waters, the core signal retains negative O2 anomalies and positive anomalies of other biogeochemical tracers. These disturbances contribute significantly to average properties that exceed background conditions in the open ocean. The main process controlling O2 input into, or output from the eddy core entails lateral and vertical advection, with vertical mixing supplying O2 to a lesser degree. Biological activity consumes O2 inside PUDDIES for around 6 to 12 months, especially intensely for the first 100 days, thus facilitating the persistence of low O2 conditions and extending the lifetime of biogeochemical anomalies within the core. The authors suggested that by representing more complex biogeochemical and physical processes in ocean models, future studies will be able to quantify the effects of other SMS processes within Puddies that are not yet considered in their study. Validation and supplementary statistics of Puddies through further observations are urgently needed.
The manuscript is well written and the method and model setup are well-designed. The authors also did a thorough job on the transformations and transport of biogeochemical elements inside PUDDIES. I have learned a lot and have enjoyed reading the manuscript. My only reservation regarding the manuscript is that I feel the authors can do a better job on producing Figures. Some figures (especially figure 1) are small with a bad color scheme that makes it difficult for readers to see and interpret the (sometimes) dense information that the authors try to convey.
We appreciate all the suggestions and the constructive comments. Following the recommendations we have improved the presentation of the figures.
Other detailed comments.
Line 17: Please change to: “Oceanic eddies are ubiquitous features of the circulation thought to be involved…”
Done in line 17
Lines 30 - 31: “These disturbances likely contribute to average properties that exceed the 90th percentile threshold in the open ocean, contrasting with the formation zone where they surpass 50th percentile levels.” Please consider adding a clear definition of the percentile threshold levels here.
The statement was clarified as follows:
“These anomalous conditions result in tracer values exceeding the 90th percentile of their distribution in the open ocean, in contrast to the formation zones, where anomalies only surpass the 50th percentile. This indicates that puddies may play a role in modulating the average properties of the open ocean”
Line 37: What do you mean by “out of time”?
It was changed to: earlier
Figure 1: Please consider improving the quality of Figure 1: Bigger size, bigger font for texts, different color scale other than the rainbow, clearly distinguish between black lines and black contour, clearly show the yellow dots tracking the Puddies… They are all very hard to see now.
Thanks for your suggestion. Figure 1 was modified following the recommendations and it now only includes two panels allowing for a bigger size and font.
Line 189-190: Please change to “which is a scalar”
Done
Line 201: Is the Score defined as density core? Please clarify (I know you defined it later but it should be defined clearly earlier).
We changed the text for clarify: “is centered at a density surface of 𝜎𝜃 = 26.6 kg m-3 (Score)”
Line 237: Please change to N2O production
Done
Line 369-370: Please change “The correlation coefficients varied between 112.5 and 457.45” to “The slope values…”
Done
Line 490 and Line 493: please add < 0 or > 0 delta O2/delta z here.
Done
Table 6: Probably a naive question, and please excuse my ignorance, but can you clarify what are x and y used here to calculate the decay rate k?
We have added a brief definition of the model in the description (Table 6 changed to Table 4): “It was calculated using an exponential fit, y=Ae-kx, where x represents the distance from the formation zone to the oceanic zone (delimited in Figure 1 - left panel, brown boxes), y is the concentration of the biogeochemical tracer, k is the decay rate, and A is the initial biogeochemical concentration before exponential decay or growth (not shown). At 25°S and 30°S, the zonal distance was 1,445 km, while at 36°S, it was 1,334 km (shown in degrees in Figure 8). Coefficients were obtained with 95% confidence”.
Line 614: Please change to: “affected also by the southward reduction in contribution of ESSW”
Done
Line 624: Please replace Table XX here with the correct table.
We have added a new figure with the percentiles information (new Figure 5) and the Table was moved to the Supplementary material (Table S2).
Line 690: This is the first instance in the text that I see the acronym CARS. Please define it.
“CARS” stands for “CSIRO Atlas of Regional Seas” but was changed to “climatological observations” for clarity.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Lenna Ortiz, 31 Jan 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1290', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Nov 2024
Review of Ortiz et al. "Evolution of biogeochemical Properties Inside Poleward Undercurrent Eddies in the Southeast Pacific Ocean"
The paper by Ortiz et al. aims to characterize the biogeochemical evolution of poleward undercurrent eddies (PUDDIES) generated in the Southeast Pacific OMZ. To do so, the authors use 9 years (2000-2008) of output of a physical-biogeochemical coupled model (ROMS+BioEBUS) run on mesoscale resolving grid (1/12 degree resolution ~8km) and saved as 3-day means. The authors distinguish between the evolution of PUDDIES characterized by initial hypoxic conditions and those with initial suboxic conditions, contrast the evolution of water mass properties inside and outside of the eddies and focus on a few case studies to determine changes in the eddy properties along their trajectories. The authors use Reynolds decomposition and eddy tracking methods to study the impact of the PUDDIES on the oxygen and nutrient fields.
General comment
The topic and idea of the paper are interesting, but I’m not convinced by many of the choices made by the authors and I find the paper difficult to read and its results difficult to interpret. I have decided not to go into the details of the results for this reason, but to comment on the methods at this stage. I think this manuscript and its related research needs major revisions before being published. I’ll be happy to provide a more detailed review on the results once the methods are better justified.
Many of the choices in the methods need to be clarified. The domains in which the region of study is split (8 domains) seem odd and not well justified in the methods (especially the latitudinal boundary, which seems arbitrary). Some of these domains are very narrow and coastal (H) where the authors state the algorithm has trouble identifying eddies (lines 299-307), some mix coastal and offshore zones (G,F), some are very wide (E). All have irregular shape and mix zones at a variety distances from the coast (where eddies are generated). This makes for a statistical and geographical nightmare in understanding and interpreting the data. This is a major problem for me, because all the results are presented in terms of averages across these oddly shaped and dishomogeneous regions.
The authors interpolate 37 vertical layers of model output to a regular grid of 160 vertical layers generating a lot of “fake data” for their analysis. The choice of “reference average” for the Reynolds decomposition is unclear. The authors say that they use a circular eddy mask to extract the eddy properties, when the Faghmous algorithm provides the actual shape of the eddy contous, which provides a more accurate definition of the eddy core properties. A lot of these choices need to be better justified and a few probably should be revised.
The authors also use 9 years of model output at 3-day mean resolution, but then only use two eddy tracks (among likely tens or maybe hundreds found by the employed algorithm) as “case studies”. There is no proof that the two tracks are representative of the eddy populations. Why not building an average of the eddies in time along their tracks so that eddies of the same age are averaged together? This was successfully done in previous studies (https://doi.org/10.5194/os-15-1111-2019 ) and it would allow to use a statistical approach that really takes advantage of the large amount of information provided by the model data. The model data available for the study is so abundant that the current approach seems reductive.
I have brought up many of these concerns also in the detailed comments.
The paper is also difficult to read due to the Methods section being poorly organised and missing important detail and the figures not having appropriate labelling, so the reader has to note what the figures represent by hand (impossible to do if reading the paper online). The Supplement is currently unreadable, see more comment below.
Detailed comments
1. Line 49: “Under these conditions, heterotrophic metabolic processes prevail” - what conditions? Prevalence of heterotrophic processes is mostly due to being at depth and hence below the sun-lit layer.
2. Line 60: “where anoxic conditions can even be observed” - this piece of sentence need revising, it doesn’t read correctly in English
3. Line 67: “through the global warming” - please remove “the”
4. Line 72: “turbulent dynamics” - I’d be careful here using the word “turbulent” since turbulence is a very broad term that in physical oceanography describes a large variety of scales of physical processes down to sub-meter scales. I would rather use “meso- and submesoscale” instead, which is more in line with the topic of the paper. Some processes such as “turbulent mixing” are most likely parameterised in models, but this isn’t what the authors refer to.
5. Lines 72-55: I would add some support to the claim of the importance of mesoscales in the OMZ representation in models, currently unsupported in the paper. Literature suggestion: https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS003158
6. Lines 117-118: Unclear sentence
7. Line 196: What about zooplankton respiration?
8. Line 203: The authors interpolate the model output to a regular grid of 5m of vertical spacing between 0-800 m depth. This means interpolating to 160 vertical levels! The model output has only 37 vertical levels, of which 13 are found “in the deep ocean”, hence possibly only 24 model grid levels are in the range of interest. Why generating so much artificial data?
9. Line 204: “In the deep ocean (~4000 m depth) typically 13 of the 37 vertical levels fall within this depth range.” - You need to indicate the specific depth range, ~4000 m is not a range.
10. Lines 207-212: I don’t understand the need to split the domain at 30°S. Is there a reason why this exact latitude is significant?
11. Line 211: “Pudies” - Puddies? Also, the choice of acronym must be homogenized across the manuscript: all capital (PUDDIES) as in the abstract, or capital P only (Puddies) as here?
12. Lines 213-214 and Figure 1c: If the first 100 km are such a relevant range for the formation of Puddies, why not looking at zones that have boundaries at equal distance from the coast, so that the 0-100 km zone is the formation zone across the whole system and then more offshore zones can be defined?
13. Lines 217-228: What is your definition of mean state? This must be made explicit here. Is it an overall mean across your 9 years of simulation? In this case, seasonal variability will contribute to the “fluctuations” as it will be part of the residual field. Or else, is it something like interpolated seasonal or monthly climatological means? Please specify.
14. Line 261: Did the algorithm identify eddies larger than 300 km of diameter, and if so how many? This seems very large and surprising to be identified as eddy for the Faghmous et al. 2015 algorithm run on an 8km grid.
15. Line 262: “every three days” - does this simply refer to the fact that the model output was saved as 3-day means? If so, please rephrase, since a 3-day mean is different from “every three days” output, which might mean a simple snapshot of the model every three days.
16. Lines 247-264: How many eddies were identified in total by the algorithm over the model output? How many independent tracks did they correspond to? This is important information to be included here.
17. Lines 265-271: I’m puzzled by this choice of only analyzing the tracks of only 2 Puddies when the authors have 9 years of model output available at three days mean output resolution, which most likely allows the authors to analyze tens or maybe hundreds of eddy tracks. Is there any reason why these two tracks should be particularly relevant or representative of the mean eddy for the northern and southern subregions?
18. Lines 286-290: Why do you apply a circular mask that will surely miss part of the eddy shape and likely include part of non-eddy waters (eddies are rarely perfect circles), when the Faghmous et al. 2015 algorithm already provides the identified eddy perimeter mask?
19. Line 300 – how do you define a “puddy profile”?
20. Lines 304-307: This seems like an important caveat and it needs better clarification. What does “slightly overestimated” mean in numbers? Please provide a number of how many identified Puddies are actually not Puddies but coastal trapped waves or other structures. In other studies, coastal eddies in the first life stages have been excluded from the analysis just because the Faghmous et al. 2015 algorithm was having difficulty identifying them.
21. Figure 2: Please add labels to this figure, what does each line represent? It’s not enough to have it in the caption, it makes the figure really difficult to understand.
22. Table 1: Number of pixels? What does it mean?
23. Tables (in general), Results and Methods: I’m really not convinced by having these 8 different regions. It makes the results overly complicated to understand. I think the authors should rethink this analysis almost entirely and use more regular domains, for example defined by offshore distance bands.
24. Tables (in general): These tables are heavy to read. They need to be summarized into figures, bar plots, or something that makes it possible to the reader to grasp the results.
The supplement is currently unreadable. It’s impossible to revise a document where figures and captions are provided separately in different PDFs. I had to copy by hand the text onto a word document and then screenshot the figures and stich them on top of the correct captions in the word document, to be able to understand what I was looking at. The quality of the supplement should be at least checked by the journal upon submission. The supplement should be revised entirely to make it clear to the reader. There are also typos in the supplement’s captions and figure axes miss titles and key information.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1290-RC2 - AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Lenna Ortiz, 31 Jan 2025
-
EC1: 'Peer-review report #3 (EGUSPHERE-2024-1290)', Olivier Sulpis, 07 Nov 2024
Dear authors,
Please find below a third review for your manuscript. This review arrived after the discussion period was closed, so I am posting it here. Please reply to all three reviewers in your final response.
Best regards
Olivier Sulpis
_________________
Review of: “Evolution of biogeochemical Properties Inside Poleward Undercurrent Eddies in the Southeast Pacific Ocean” by Ortiz et al.
The manuscript combines a comprehensive observational dataset and physical-biogeochemical numerical simulations to analyze the origin of Poleward Undercurrent Eddies (Puddies) and their transports of biogeochemical properties in the Southeast Pacific Ocean. The topic is interesting and relevant. The manuscript is well structured and presents enlightening results about the subsurface mesoscale structures formed in the Peru-Chile Upwelling System. In my opinion, the manuscript can be published after addressing the minor comments listed below.
MAJOR COMMENT
- Some of the most important results are based on the definition of the isopycnal surfaces that bound the OMZ. This should be justified. Although they can be supported by the literature, these values might not be adequate for your model data.
MINOR COMMENTS
- Pg1, L22: PUDDIES, Puddies, use only one convention.
- Pg4, L119: puddies, Puddies.
- Pg4, L134: Mention the resolution here (by the way, that is not that high).
- Pg4, L138: were, was.
- Pg4, L144-145: “…resolution of… 37 levels… suitable for resolving mesoscale features”, please discuss briefly about this.
- Pg4, L147: 20°, 20°S.
- Figure 1: Dots of the trajectories of the Puddies are too small.
- Pg5, L154: “Black lines…”, where? In panel (b)?
- Pg5, L157: “Yellow dots”, where?
- Pg5, L160: “the possibility that the same eddy…”, has you considered using an eddy-tracking method to avoid accounting for the same eddies at the same grid cell?
- Pg5, L178-179: “Phytoplankton biomass was estimated…”, what about the one from the model?
- Pg6, L195-196: “For O2, the source…”, any reference?
- Pg6, L199: “…is centered at a density surface of …”, how is this assumption supported?
- Pg6, L202: “…the 1000 m and 500 m depth isobaths”, where?
- Pg6, L211: Pudies, Puddies.
- Pg7, L225: “…with annual and interannual variability”, and seasonal?
- Pg7, L229: Define AOU, <Delta>NO3, <Delta>N2O.
- Pg7, L235: Substitute “Eq. (3)” by “relation” or “equation”.
- Pg7, L236: Explain what subscripts “sat” and “obs” mean.
- Pg7, L237: Sarmiento, Sarmiento’s.
- Pg7, L238: Delete “Eq. (4)”.
- Pg7, L240: Delete “Eq. (5)”.
- Pg8, L253: How are “S_upper” and “S_lower” defined?
- Pg8, L254-258: A scheme would be useful.
- Pg8, L266-270: What about uncertainty?
- Pg9, L286: Can a polygon be circular?
- Pg9, L304-306: What about a second criterion (for example, Okubo-Weiss parameter or so) to better define the eddies?
- Pg9, L305: Eddies? Eddy signals? Eddy-like features? Define what you mean exactly.
- Pg11, L334: Puddies profiles, Puddie profiles.
- Pg11, L335: The number, The numbers.
- Table 1: Depths are usually defined as positive, in contrast with the vertical coordinate. The total area (and not just the number of pixels) can be interesting.
- Pg12, L352: between, among.
- Table 3: Define “R”.
- Figure 3: You should move the labels “(a), (b),…” out of the small boxes, and also make them bigger.
- Pg14, L382: Corresponding, correspond.
- Pg14, L384-385: “Vertical error bars… of O2”, unnecessary. It could be something like: Error bars correspond to the standard deviations.
- Pg15, L409: “()”, underbars?
- Pg15, L410: “()’”, primes?
- Pg16, L429-431: “…the variability of… with oxygenation”, dispersion of the eddy trajectories?
- Pg17, L436-437: “Vertical error bars… of O2”, unnecessary. It could be something like: Error bars correspond to the standard deviations.
- Pg18, L451: “denoted by PHYS”, where? Do you mean “referred to as”?
- Pg19, L508: positive vorticity, anticyclonic?
- Pg 21, L544: puddy, Puddy.
- Pg21, L550: positive vorticity, anticyclonic?
- Figure 7: Labels of the color bars are too small.
- Figure 8: Add numbers in the horizontal axes at the two upper rows. Background grids in the plots would be useful.
- Pg23, L574: puddies, Puddies.
- Pg24, L589: Delete “on”.
- Pg25, L596: Insert comma after “waters”.
- Pg26, L665: “within eddies”, surface eddies?
- Pg27, L681: due additional, due to additional.
- Pg27, L682: by-products, byproducts.
- Pg27, L697: Mention the resolution.
- Figures A7 and A8: The points of the results are too small, use different colors between each other for more clarity. Avoid overlapping of the points’ labels.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1290-EC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Lenna Ortiz, 11 Nov 2024
Dear Handling editor,
I appreciate your response and the reviewers, we are working on their observations.
We will send the response as soon as possible.
Best regards,
The authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1290-AC1 -
AC4: 'Reply on EC1', Lenna Ortiz, 31 Jan 2025
The manuscript combines a comprehensive observational dataset and physical-biogeochemical numerical simulations to analyze the origin of Poleward Undercurrent Eddies (Puddies) and their transports of biogeochemical properties in the Southeast Pacific Ocean. The topic is interesting and relevant. The manuscript is well structured and presents enlightening results about the subsurface mesoscale structures formed in the Peru-Chile Upwelling System. In my opinion, the manuscript can be published after addressing the minor comments listed below.
MAJOR COMMENT
- Some of the most important results are based on the definition of the isopycnal surfaces that bound the OMZ. This should be justified. Although they can be supported by the literature, these values might not be adequate for your model data.
We appreciate the comments and suggestions that have been helpful in this work.
The justification was presented in the text as follows:. “The separation of coastal, transitional, and oceanic zones considered the dominance of Equatorial Subsurface Water (ESSW; 12.5°C, 34.9) in the subsurface waters and its increasing oxygenation farther from the coast (Silva et al., 2009). Given the importance of ESSW in defining the study areas and as the primary water source enclosed in the Puddies, the isopycnal surface associated with the ESSW and OMZ core was used as a reference. Specifically, we focused on the isopycnal with a density of 26.6 kg m⁻³ (similar to the reference OMZ core for this model in Pizarro-Koch et al., 2019), which was employed in part of the statistical analysis”.
MINOR COMMENTS
- Pg1, L22: PUDDIES, Puddies, use only one convention.
Done
- Pg4, L119: puddies, Puddies.
corrected
- Pg4, L134: Mention the resolution here (by the way, that is not that high).
The model resolution was mentioned. It is 9 km.
- Pg4, L138: were, was
corrected
- Pg4, L144-145: “…resolution of… 37 levels… suitable for resolving mesoscale features”, please discuss briefly about this.
Mesoscale features are defined primarily based on their horizontal scale, not their vertical extent. Eddies, in particular, exhibit significant vertical dimensions, making the use of 37 vertical levels suitable for capturing their structure. Additionally, the model operates on a sigma-level grid, with most levels concentrated in the upper ocean, enabling the resolution of relatively small-scale 3D recirculation features effectively.
- Pg4, L147: 20°, 20°S.
corrected
- Figure 1: Dots of the trajectories of the Puddies are too small.
We have modified Figure 1 and improved its presentation. The trajectories are no longer shown.
- Pg5, L154: “Black lines…”, where? In panel (b)?
Figure 1 was modified
- Pg5, L157: “Yellow dots”, where?
Figure 1b has been removed, and the methodology has been adjusted to address the feedback provided by the other reviewers.
- Pg5, L160: “the possibility that the same eddy…”, has you considered using an eddy-tracking method to avoid accounting for the same eddies at the same grid cell?
Faghmous et al. (2015)’s algorithm is an eddy-tracking method but has some issues with the paths of the eddies. Subsurface eddies are difficult to track regardless of the method.
- Pg5, L178-179: “Phytoplankton biomass was estimated…”, what about the one from the model?
The estimated phytoplankton biomass is actually from the model. This was clarified in the text.
- Pg6, L195-196: “For O2, the source…”, any reference?
The reference is the following and was added in the text: “(Peña et al., 2010).”
The full reference: Pena, M. A., Katsev, S., Oguz, T., and Gilbert, D.: Modeling dissolved oxygen dynamics and hypoxia, Biogeosciences, 7(3), 933-957, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-933-2010, 2010.
- Pg6, L199: “…is centered at a density surface of …”, how is this assumption supported?
We clarified this assumption in the text: “following as reference the core of ESSW near coastal zones similar to that used by Pizarro-Koch et al., (2019; Figure 2, see Section 2.2)”.
- Pg6, L202: “…the 1000 m and 500 m depth isobaths”, where?
The lines 209-210 were changed as follows: “Near the slope, a deepening in Score is observed north of 30°S, where the slope is narrower whereas south of 30°S, it widens.”
- Pg6, L211: Pudies, Puddies.
Corrected
- Pg7, L225: “…with annual and interannual variability”, and seasonal?
Annual was meant to indicate the seasonal variability, but we agree that this is confusing. For clarity we now use the term seasonal to indicate the annual variability
- Pg7, L229: Define AOU, <Delta>NO3, <Delta>N2O.
The text has been changed to: “The apparent oxygen utilization (AOU), NO3- production (ΔNO3-), and N2O production (ΔN2O) provide an estimate of how much has been produced/consumed by biological processes since the water mass was formed in terms of oxygen, nitrate, and nitrous oxide respectively.”
Additionally, the text of Section 2.4 was expanded for clarity.
- Pg7, L235: Substitute “Eq. (3)” by “relation” or “equation”.
That’s the journal’s format for naming equations
- Pg7, L236: Explain what subscripts “sat” and “obs” mean.
Done.
- Pg7, L237: Sarmiento, Sarmiento’s.
corrected
- Pg7, L238: Delete “Eq. (4)”.
The line 270 was changed to: the following relationship, Eq. (4):
- Pg7, L240: Delete “Eq. (5)”.
Line 274 was changed to: be defined as follows in Eq. (5):
- Pg8, L253: How are “S_upper” and “S_lower” defined?
Both were defined in the text, Section 2.5.
- Pg8, L254-258: A scheme would be useful.
See Figure S2a in Supplementary material
- Pg8, L266-270: What about uncertainty?
The case study was removed and another approach was chosen, see Section 2.6.2
- Pg9, L286: Can a polygon be circular?
It was decided to use the edge of the Puddy identified by the Faghmous et al. (2015)’s algorithm, this was clarified in the text: ”For these Puddies, we estimated characteristics within the entire eddy volume as follows: i) for each δmax (Puddy center), a mask of the entire volume was created; ii) the area mask was calculated to identify the edge using the Faghmous algorithm as the most accurate approach (Figure S3; see sensitivity analysis in the Supplementary Material); iii) this mask was applied across all depths (at 5-meter intervals), creating an irregular cylinder between Supper and Slower; iv) from the total volume enclosed by the cylinder, an average vertical profile was obtained at each time step for each variable (see an example of vertical Puddy characterization in Figures S2b, S2c, S2d, S2e).” (Section 2.6.2).
- Pg9, L304-306: What about a second criterion (for example, Okubo-Weiss parameter or so) to better define the eddies?
We proof used the Okubo-Weiss parameter but the Faghmous method defined the eddies better.
- Pg9, L305: Eddies? Eddy signals? Eddy-like features? Define what you mean exactly.
The text may be confusing; thank you for pointing it out. In the text, we refer to Puddies—eddies, that have closed contours with a single hmax with a subsurface core.
- Pg11, L334: Puddies profiles, Puddie profiles.
corrected
- Pg11, L335: The number, The numbers.
corrected
- Table 1: Depths are usually defined as positive, in contrast with the vertical coordinate. The total area (and not just the number of pixels) can be interesting.
This was considered in the revised version of Table 1. Thank you.
- Pg12, L352: between, among.
corrected
- Table 3: Define “R”.
Done
- Figure 3: You should move the labels “(a), (b),…” out of the small boxes, and also make them bigger.
Done
- Pg14, L382: Corresponding, correspond.
corrected
- Pg14, L384-385: “Vertical error bars… of O2”, unnecessary. It could be something like: Error bars correspond to the standard deviations.
corrected
- Pg15, L409: “()”, underbars?
The mean state notation changed to <>9-year
- Pg15, L410: “()’”, primes?
The convention for the averaging process was changed to <'>
- Pg16, L429-431: “…the variability of… with oxygenation”, dispersion of the eddy trajectories?
In the discussion in Section 4.2, we mention the factors involved in this variability
- Pg17, L436-437: “Vertical error bars… of O2”, unnecessary. It could be something like: Error bars correspond to the standard deviations.
Done
- Pg18, L451: “denoted by PHYS”, where? Do you mean “referred to as”?
corrected
- Pg19, L508: positive vorticity, anticyclonic?
This is the Southern Hemisphere.
The study case was removed and changed to other analyses. Results showed in Section 3.4
- Pg 21, L544: puddy, Puddy.
corrected
- Pg21, L550: positive vorticity, anticyclonic?
In the Southern Hemisphere, the anticyclonic eddies have positive vorticity.
- Figure 7: Labels of the color bars are too small.
The previous Figure 7 was removed and replaced with another one related to the analyses presented in Section 3.4. This change was made due to a modification in the methodology, considering the suggestion of another reviewer.
- Figure 8: Add numbers in the horizontal axes at the two upper rows. Background grids in the plots would be useful.
Similar to figure 7, the previous Figure 8 was removed and replaced with another one related to the analyses presented in Section 3.4. This change was made due to a modification in the methodology, considering the suggestion of another reviewer.
- Pg23, L574: puddies, Puddies.
Corrected
- Pg24, L589: Delete “on”.
Done
- Pg25, L596: Insert comma after “waters”.
Done
- Pg26, L665: “within eddies”, surface eddies?
This was clarified in the text: “ within modewater eddies “
- Pg27, L681: due additional, due to additional.
Done -
Pg27, L682: by-products, byproducts.
Done
- Pg27, L697: Mention the resolution.
We modified the text and mentioned the resolution in this part: “Using a high-resolution coupled simulation (1/12° horizontal grid and 37 sigma levels) of the Southeast Pacific”
- Figures A7 and A8: The points of the results are too small, use different colors between each other for more clarity. Avoid overlapping of the points’ labels.
We changed the reference letters for clarity, “O” for the observations and “M” for the model.
-
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Lenna Ortiz, 11 Nov 2024
Peer review completion
