Observed and projected impacts of coastal warming, acidification, and deoxygenation on Pacific oyster (<em>Crassostrea gigas</em>) farming: A case study in the Hinase Area, Okayama Prefecture and Shizugawa Bay, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan

Fujii, Masahiko; Hamanoue, Ryuji; Bernardo, Lawrence Patrick Cases; Ono, Tsuneo; Dazai, Akihiro; Oomoto, Shigeyuki; Wakita, Masahide; Tanaka, Takehiro

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-223

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-223

Preprints

30 Nov 2022

| 30 Nov 2022

Status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal BG.

Observed and projected impacts of coastal warming, acidification, and deoxygenation on Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) farming: A case study in the Hinase Area, Okayama Prefecture and Shizugawa Bay, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan

Masahiko Fujii, Ryuji Hamanoue, Lawrence Patrick Cases Bernardo, Tsuneo Ono, Akihiro Dazai, Shigeyuki Oomoto, Masahide Wakita, and Takehiro Tanaka

Abstract. Coastal warming, acidification, and deoxygenation are progressing, primarily due to the increase in anthropogenic CO₂. Coastal acidification has been reported to have effects that are expected to become more severe as acidification progresses, including inhibiting formation of the shells of calcifying organisms such as shellfish. However, compared to water temperature, an indicator of coastal warming, spatiotemporal variations in acidification and deoxygenation indicators such as pH, aragonite saturation state (Ω_arag), and dissolved oxygen in coastal areas of Japan have not been observed and projected. Moreover, many species of shellfish are important fisheries resources, including Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas). Therefore, there is concern regarding the future combined impacts of coastal warming, acidification, and deoxygenation on Pacific oyster farming, necessitating evaluation of current and future impacts to facilitate mitigation measures. We deployed continuous monitoring systems for coastal warming, acidification, and deoxygenation in the Hinase area of Okayama Prefecture and Shizugawa Bay in Miyagi Prefecture, Japan. In Hinase, the Ω_arag value was often lower than the critical level of acidification for Pacific oyster larvae, although no impact of acidification on larvae was identified by microscopy examination. Oyster larvae are anticipated to be affected more seriously by the combined impacts of coastal warming and acidification, with lower pH and Ω_arag values and a prolonged spawning period, which may shorten the oyster shipping period and lower the quality of oysters. No significant future impact of surface-water deoxygenation on Pacific oysters was identified. To minimize the impacts of coastal warming and acidification on Pacific oyster and related local industries, cutting CO₂ emissions is mandatory, but adaptation measures such as regulation of freshwater and organic matter inflow from rivers and changes in the form of oyster farming practiced locally might also be required.

Received: 17 Nov 2022 – Discussion started: 30 Nov 2022

Masahiko Fujii et al.

Status: final response (author comments only)

CC1:
'Comment on bg-2022-223', miho ishizu, 02 Dec 2022

Major comments
This study mentioned about the development of continuous monitoring systems for coastal warming, acidification and deoxygenation in the local areas in Japan by observation and modeling. In addition, they try to project the future situation under the IPCC scenario.
Reading through this manuscript, I thought that the volumes of each section are unbalanced. Especially, the volume for the result section is too short, compared to the volumes of introductions and methods.
I believe that one of the highlights in this study is to develop the model for the specific coastal area. Therefore it would be better to add more analysis by using the model outputs to show how their model is reproduced well in this target coastal area. At that time, seasonal horizontal distributions of each variable could be useful with comparison of the other observational data. Probably DIC and ALK are probably difficult to be got horizontally, but temperature and salinity, oxygen data could be available if you try to find in Japan. These improvements could make you deepen for your understanding of the model, which will make useful for your future study.

Minor comments
Abstract:
The sentence of the abstract should be blushed up. The current abstract was not a self-contained summary of your work. Method, how to examine and what you found should be included. The sentence “Coastal warming, acidification, … to facilitate mitigation measures” can be shorten. The sentence “To minimize… oyster farming practiced locally might also be required” is not necessary.

Title:
After revising the manuscript, I suggest you reconsider the title. The current title does not reflect the content of the current manuscript.

1. Introduction:
The sentences are too long. The sentence can be shorter. The current manuscript is divided into 5 sections (1.1, ~ 1.5), but I think it would be better to write it all in one. When you improve the manuscript, you also think about the balance of the volumes in the section. The volume of the introduction is heavy compared to the results, discussion and conclusion sections.

2.1 Study sites:
This section is also too heavy, compared to the results, discussion and conclusion sections.

3.1 Observed results:
The current version has been divided the section into 3.1.1~3.l.7, but you don’t need to divide individually. Please reconsider this part.

3.2 Modeling results:
The results of the numerical models are necessary. Please put additional analysis such as horizontal distributions and so on to show how the model reproduces in this target area horizontally and timely.

Section 3.2.2 Future projection:
This section is a discussion matter. This part can be moved to the discussion section if you add analyses of the model reproducibility.

Section 4.2:
The section 4.2, 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 can be moved to the conclusion section. Please reconsider your construction.
Please add references after the sentence (Extreme events such as severe…intensely in the future) in page 16.

5. Conclusion:
The conclusion should be improved. Basic conclusion includes the purpose, the summary of this study and self-evaluation/prospects.

Fig 1:
The information of latitude and longitudes are necessary. Right figures are not appropriate in scientific papers. I think that making an original map by yourself is necessary. In that case, Japanese character should not be included in your map. Right figure is relatively too small.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-223-CC1
- AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Masahiko Fujii, 20 Mar 2023
  
  First of all, thank you for all your comments that greatly helped us in improving our manuscript. Below are our responses to your comments. We will revise and re-submit our manuscript based upon all the comments. Most of the previous figures will also be revised following your and the editor’s comments.
  
  Responses to major comments
  Reading through this manuscript, I thought that the volumes of each section are unbalanced. Especially, the volume for the result section is too short, compared to the volumes of introductions and methods.
  
  --> The authors will revise the manuscript based on the comment, especially by adding further description to results section, including horizontal distribution of modeling results (as mentioned below) and also discussing oligotrophication (following the other reviewer’s comment). Also, the introduction and methods sections will be shortened appropriately.
  
  I believe that one of the highlights in this study is to develop the model for the specific coastal area. Therefore it would be better to add more analysis by using the model outputs to show how their model is reproduced well in this target coastal area. At that time, seasonal horizontal distributions of each variable could be useful with comparison of the other observational data. Probably DIC and ALK are probably difficult to be got horizontally, but temperature and salinity, oxygen data could be available if you try to find in Japan. These improvements could make you deepen for your understanding of the model, which will make useful for your future study.
  
  --> Following the comments, the authors will add figures and descriptions of horizontal distribution of model results for temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen (Figs. 8 and 9 in the revised manuscript). Unfortunately, we could not obtain sufficient observational data in our study sites. Therefore, the authors performed comparison of model results with observational data, both of which were obtained in this study (in Figs. 10-13 in the revised manuscript).
  
  Responses to minor comments
  Abstract: The sentence of the abstract should be blushed up. The current abstract was not a self- contained summary of your work. Method, how to examine and what you found should be included. The sentence “Coastal warming, acidification, … to facilitate mitigation measures” can be shorten. The sentence “To minimize… oyster farming practiced locally might also be required” is not necessary.
  
  --> The authors will revise the entire abstract. The last sentence will be removed following your comment. The sentence “Coastal warming, acidification, … to facilitate mitigation measures” will be shortened as: “Therefore, there is concern regarding the future combined impacts of coastal warming, acidification, and deoxygenation on Pacific oyster farming, and evaluation of current and future impacts is necessary.”
  
  Title: After revising the manuscript, I suggest you reconsider the title. The current title does not reflect the content of the current manuscript.
  
  --> The authors will revise the title to: “Assessing impacts of coastal warming, acidification, and deoxygenation on Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) farming: A case study in the Hinase Area, Okayama Prefecture and Shizugawa Bay, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan”.
  1. Introduction: The sentences are too long. The sentence can be shorter. The current manuscript is divided into 5 sections (1.1, ~ 1.5), but I think it would be better to write it all in one. When you improve the manuscript, you also think about the balance of the volumes in the section. The volume of the introduction is heavy compared to the results, discussion and conclusion sections.
  
  --> Based on the comment, the authors will combine all the sections together. Also, the section will be shortened accordingly.
  
  Study sites: This section is also too heavy, compared to the results, discussion and conclusion sections.
  
  --> This section will be shortened based on the comment.
  
  Observed results: The current version has been divided the section into 3.1.1~3.l.7, but you don’t need to divide individually. Please reconsider this part.
  
  --> The authors will combine all the sections together.
  
  Modeling results: The results of the numerical models are necessary. Please put additional analysis such as horizontal distributions and so on to show how the model reproduces in this target area horizontally and timely.
  
  --> The authors will add horizontal distributions of modeled temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen (in Figs. 8 and 9 in the revised manuscript), and will compare time series of modeling results of individual parameters to observed (in Figs. 10-13 in the revised manuscript). Relevant description about the modeling results will be added in the main text in the revised manuscript.
  
  Future projection: This section is a discussion matter. This part can be moved to the discussion section if you add analyses of the model reproducibility.
  
  --> This section will be moved to discussion section in the revised manuscript.
  
  Section 4.2: The section 4.2, 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 can be moved to the conclusion section. Please reconsider your construction.
  
  --> Those sections will be moved to the conclusion section.
  
  Please add references after the sentence (Extreme events such as severe…intensely in the future) in page 16.
  
  --> The authors will add a reference (IPCC, 2022) in the revised manuscript.
  
  5. Conclusion: The conclusion should be improved. Basic conclusion includes the purpose, the summary of this study and self-evaluation/prospects.
  
  --> The authors will revise the conclusion section following the comment.
  
  Fig 1: The information of latitude and longitudes are necessary. Right figures are not appropriate in scientific papers. I think that making an original map by yourself is necessary. In that case, Japanese character should not be included in your map. Right figure is relatively too small.
  
  --> Fig. 1 will be modified based on the comment. Maps will be redrawn to more clearly show the relevant information.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-223-AC1
RC1:
'Comment on bg-2022-223', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Dec 2022

General comments

This manuscript by Fujii et al. submitted to Biogeoscience deals with current and future habitat for Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) in two coastal sites in Japan. Recent reports that acidification has already negatively impacted on oyster growth along the West Coast of the United States are widely known among researchers. Also in Japan, the economic impact should be very large since oysters are a representative marine product. As such, the suggestion that the reduction of anthropogenic CO₂ can largely alter future habitat for oyster will be impressive for not only scientific community, but also for the general public.

Another commendable point of this paper is a successful long-term monitoring in coastal sites with several sensors. The figures presented in the manuscript suggest that the quality of data obtained by the sensors was good. As far as I know, there are not so much cases of such successful long-term monitoring in coastal sites. These observations should be maintained in the future.

My largest concern about this manuscript is the absence of long-term warming under RCP8.5 at Hinase. It is too unrealistic that future warming at Hinase is almost negligible (Figure 13a). There was no mention about future physical environment in the Seto Inland Sea in Nishikawa et al. [2021], which cited in the text. So, I could not verify whether negligible warming in this region is true or not. However, air temperature will likely increase over the long term under RCP8.5. It is difficult to believe that rising in air temperature will not affect water temperatures in the shallow Seto Inland Sea. I strongly urge the authors to check water temperature projections in the Seto Inland Sea.

Negligible warming in Hinase has resulted in much of the discussion being focused on whether or not there is an increase in water temperature. The differences in expected spawning period between Hinase and Shizuagawa appear to be due to the presence or absence of long-term warming. As this manuscript covered two cites, I want the authors to discuss the relationship between regional characteristics and expected changes in habitat for oysters. For example, Hinase is more enclosed area than Shizukawa. Do these differences in characteristics have any effect on acidification in the future? Unfortunately, there is little discussion about the impact of factors other than water temperature on environmental change at current manuscript.

Also, I think long-term oligotorophication in the Seto Inland Sea is a hot topic. I recommend that the authors mention regarding oligotorophication. If it is impossible, the author should mention as limitation of the projection in the text.

I agree with the posted comment (by Dr. Ishizu) that discussion is too little in the current manuscript. The authors have competent observational data and computational methods. Further discussions utilizing these resources are needed for the acceptance.

Specific comments

(Line 164) The reference about oligotrophication (i.e., an overcome of eutrophication) is needed. I think that Abo and Yamamoto [2019], which was already cited in the text is suitable.

(Line 207) Information about the calibration of DO sensor is needed. I suppose that it was done by two-point calibration at 0% and 100%.

(Line 237) “The maximum error ~ is about 10 μmol kg^-1” Is this true? In Figure 2, some TA data appear to be deviated by more than 10 μmol kg^-1 from possible regression line.

(Line 305) “Although no significant differences were observed among the sites in Hinase, salinity was generally higher at H-4 than at the other three sites throughout the year.” What do these sentences mean? Was the difference in salinity statistically insignificant? The author should clarify whether this difference is important in this study or not.

(Line 313) Does the upper limit of optimal DO range (269 μmol kg^-1) have any biological meaning? Most of observed DO exceeded this value (Fig. 4).

(Line 341) “In Shizugawa, the Ω_arag value was below the threshold ~. However, no morphological abnormalities were observed ~.” Then, what does the threshold mean?

(Line 438) “Extreme events such as severe storms are anticipated to occur more frequently and intensely in the future.” References are essential.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-223-RC1
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Masahiko Fujii, 20 Mar 2023
  
  First of all, thank you for all your comments that greatly helped us in improving our manuscript. Below are our responses to your comments. We will revise and re-submit our manuscript based upon all the comments. Most of the previous figures will also be revised following your and the editor’s comments.
  
  Responses to general comments
  This manuscript by Fujii et al. submitted to Biogeoscience deals with current and future habitat for Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) in two coastal sites in Japan. Recent reports that acidification has already negatively impacted on oyster growth along the West Coast of the United States are widely known among researchers. Also in Japan, the economic impact should be very large since oysters are a representative marine product. As such, the suggestion that the reduction of anthropogenic CO2 can largely alter future habitat for oyster will be impressive for not only scientific community, but also for the general public.
  Another commendable point of this paper is a successful long-term monitoring in coastal sites with several sensors. The figures presented in the manuscript suggest that the quality of data obtained by the sensors was good. As far as I know, there are not so much cases of such successful long-term monitoring in coastal sites. These observations should be maintained in the future.
  My largest concern about this manuscript is the absence of long-term warming under RCP8.5 at Hinase. It is too unrealistic that future warming at Hinase is almost negligible (Figure 13a). There was no mention about future physical environment in the Seto Inland Sea in Nishikawa et al. [2021], which cited in the text. So, I could not verify whether negligible warming in this region is true or not. However, air temperature will likely increase over the long term under RCP8.5. It is difficult to believe that rising in air temperature will not affect water temperatures in the shallow Seto Inland Sea. I strongly urge the authors to check water temperature projections in the Seto Inland Sea.
  Negligible warming in Hinase has resulted in much of the discussion being focused on whether or not there is an increase in water temperature. The differences in expected spawning period between Hinase and Shizuagawa appear to be due to the presence or absence of long-term warming. As this manuscript covered two cites, I want the authors to discuss the relationship between regional characteristics and expected changes in habitat for oysters. For example, Hinase is more enclosed area than Shizukawa. Do these differences in characteristics have any effect on acidification in the future? Unfortunately, there is little discussion about the impact of factors other than water temperature on environmental change at current manuscript.
  --> After receiving the reviewer’s very helpful comments, we checked the boundary conditions for the future simulations for both Hinase and Shizugawa. And we found that we had not been able to account for future increases in air temperature for the Hinase simulations. Using air temperature data from FORP historical and future scenario runs, we were able to correct the previous atmospheric forcings we used. By simulating with the improved atmospheric conditions, future projected results become more reasonable, with higher water temperature compared to the present (Figure 14 in the revised manuscript).
  
  As for the comparison of oysters between Hinase and Shizugawa, it is quite difficult to compare them directly, mainly because of the following two reasons: firstly, the oysters hatch and spawn eggs locally and have long been accustomed to the local environments in each site; secondly relations between characteristics of environments and oysters’ responses to environmental change have not yet been clarified well, except for those due to temperature, acidity and dissolved oxygen. Therefore, we focused only on discussing the difference between Hinase and Shizugawa in terms of the impacts of these parameters on oyster farming in our paper. However, following the reviewer’s comment, we will add more discussion in the revised manuscript.
  Also, I think long-term oligotorophication in the Sato Inland Sea is a hot topic. I recommend that the authors mention regarding oligotorophication. If it is impossible, the author should mention as limitation of the projection in the text.
  
  --> The authors will mention regarding oligotrophication in Sections 2 (2.1. Study sites) and 3 (3.1. Observed results; with observed nutrient concentrations) in the revised manuscript.
  I agree with the posted comment (by Dr. Ishizu) that discussion is too little in the current manuscript. The authors have competent observational data and computational methods. Further discussions utilizing these resources are needed for the acceptance.
  
  --> We will extend the discussion following your and Dr. Ishizu’s comments in the revised manuscript.
  
  Responses to specific comments
  (Line 164) The reference about oligotrophication (i.e., an overcome of eutrophication) is needed. I think that Abo and Yamamoto [2019], which was already cited in the text is suitable.
  
  --> Based on the comment, we will add Abo and Yamamoto (2019) as a reference here, as well as a relevant statement as mentioned above.
  (Line 207) Information about the calibration of DO sensor is needed. I suppose that it was done by two-point calibration at 0% and 100%.
  
  --> As the reviewer points out, the calibration of DO sensor was done by two-point calibration at 0% and 100%. We will add the following sentence to the Method section of the revised manuscript: ”Calibration of the DO sensor was carried out by two-point (zero and span) calibration using 0 and 100% (saturated) oxygen waters (Fujii et al., 2021).”
  (Line 237) “The maximum error ~ is about 10 μmol kg-1” Is this true? In Figure 2, some TA data appear to be deviated by more than 10 μmol kg-1 from possible regression line.
  
  --> Following the reviewer’s comment, we have checked the values again, and as the reviewer pointed out they were found to be underestimated. Therefore, we will revise the maximum error of TA and Ωarag to 30 umol/kg and 0.06, respectively.
  (Line 305) “Although no significant differences were observed among the sites in Hinase, salinity was generally higher at H-4 than at the other three sites throughout the year.” What do these sentences mean? Was the difference in salinity statistically insignificant? The author should clarify whether this difference is important in this study or not.
  
  --> The statement was not important nor informative, so to avoid confusion, so we will remove this sentence from the revised manuscript.
  (Line 313) Does the upper limit of optimal DO range (269 μmol kg-1) have any biological meaning? Most of observed DO exceeded this value (Fig. 4).
  
  --> As the upper limit is much less important than the lower limit with regard to biological implications and might also cause confusion, we will remove the upper limit from Figure 4.
  (Line 341) “In Shizugawa, the Ωarag value was below the threshold ~. However, no morphological abnormalities were observed ~.” Then, what does the threshold mean?
  
  --> As the reviewer realizes, the two facts contradict each other. However, we have not yet addressed the issue so far and may be left for future work. Therefore, we will add a statement indicating this in the revised manuscript after this sentence.
  (Line 438) “Extreme events such as severe storms are anticipated to occur more frequently and intensely in the future.” References are essential.
  
  --> The authors will add a reference (IPCC, 2022) in the revised manuscript.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-223-AC3
RC2:
'Comment on bg-2022-223', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Mar 2023
Major comments
This study mentioned about the development of continuous monitoring systems for coastal warming, acidification and deoxygenation in the local areas in Japan by observation and modeling. In addition, they try to project the future situation under the IPCC scenario.

Reading through this manuscript, I thought that the volumes of each section are unbalanced. Especially, the volume for the result section is too short, compared to the volumes of introductions and methods.

I believe that one of the highlights in this study is to develop the model for the specific coastal area. Therefore it would be better to add more analysis by using the model outputs to show how their model is reproduced well in this target coastal area. At that time, seasonal horizontal distributions of each variable could be useful with comparison of the other observational data. Probably DIC and ALK are probably difficult to be got horizontally, but temperature and salinity, oxygen data could be available if you try to find in Japan. These improvements could make you deepen for your understanding of the model, which will make useful for your future study.

Minor comments
Abstract:
The sentence of the abstract should be blushed up. The current abstract was not a self-contained summary of your work. Method, how to examine and what you found should be included. The sentence “Coastal warming, acidification, … to facilitate mitigation measures” can be shorten. The sentence “To minimize… oyster farming practiced locally might also be required” is not necessary.

Title:
After revising the manuscript, I suggest you reconsider the title. The current title does not reflect the content of the current manuscript.

Introduction

The sentences are too long. The sentence can be shorter. The current manuscript is divided into 5 sections (1.1, ~ 1.5), but I think it would be better to write it all in one. When you improve the manuscript, you also think about the balance of the volumes in the section. The volume of the introduction is heavy compared to the results, discussion and conclusion sections.

2.1 Study sites
This section is also too heavy, compared to the results, discussion and conclusion sections.

3.1 Observed results:
The current version has been divided the section into 3.1.1~3.l.7, but you don’t need to divide individually. Please reconsider this part.

3.2 Modeling results:
The results of the numerical models are necessary. Please put additional analysis such as horizontal distributions and so on to show how the model reproduces in this target area horizontally and timely.

Section 3.2.2 Future projection:
This section is a discussion matter. This part can be moved to the discussion section if you add analyses of the model reproducibility.

Section 4.2:
The section 4.2, 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 can be moved to the conclusion section. Please reconsider your construction.

Please add references after the sentence (Extreme events such as severe…intensely in the future) in page 16.

Conclusion:

The conclusion should be improved. Basic conclusion includes the purpose, the summary of this study and self-evaluation/prospects.

Fig 1:
The information of latitude and longitudes are necessary. Right figures are not appropriate in scientific papers. I think that making an original map by yourself is necessary. In that case, Japanese character should not be included in your map. Right figure is relatively too small.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-223-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Masahiko Fujii, 20 Mar 2023
  
  First of all, thank you for all your comments that greatly helped us in improving our manuscript. Below are our responses to your comments. We will revise and re-submit our manuscript based upon all the comments. Most of the previous figures will also be revised following your and the editor’s comments.
  
  Responses to major comments
  Reading through this manuscript, I thought that the volumes of each section are unbalanced. Especially, the volume for the result section is too short, compared to the volumes of introductions and methods.
  
  --> The authors will revise the manuscript based on the comment, especially by adding further description to results section, including horizontal distribution of modeling results (as mentioned below) and also discussing oligotrophication (following the other reviewer’s comment). Also, the introduction and methods sections will be shortened appropriately.
  
  I believe that one of the highlights in this study is to develop the model for the specific coastal area. Therefore it would be better to add more analysis by using the model outputs to show how their model is reproduced well in this target coastal area. At that time, seasonal horizontal distributions of each variable could be useful with comparison of the other observational data. Probably DIC and ALK are probably difficult to be got horizontally, but temperature and salinity, oxygen data could be available if you try to find in Japan. These improvements could make you deepen for your understanding of the model, which will make useful for your future study.
  
  --> Following the comments, the authors will add figures and descriptions of horizontal distribution of model results for temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen (Figs. 8 and 9 in the revised manuscript). Unfortunately, we could not obtain sufficient observational data in our study sites. Therefore, the authors performed comparison of model results with observational data, both of which were obtained in this study (in Figs. 10-13 in the revised manuscript).
  
  Responses to minor comments
  Abstract: The sentence of the abstract should be blushed up. The current abstract was not a self- contained summary of your work. Method, how to examine and what you found should be included. The sentence “Coastal warming, acidification, … to facilitate mitigation measures” can be shorten. The sentence “To minimize… oyster farming practiced locally might also be required” is not necessary.
  
  --> The authors will revise the entire abstract. The last sentence will be removed following your comment. The sentence “Coastal warming, acidification, … to facilitate mitigation measures” will be shortened as: “Therefore, there is concern regarding the future combined impacts of coastal warming, acidification, and deoxygenation on Pacific oyster farming, and evaluation of current and future impacts is necessary.”
  
  Title: After revising the manuscript, I suggest you reconsider the title. The current title does not reflect the content of the current manuscript.
  
  --> The authors will revise the title to: “Assessing impacts of coastal warming, acidification, and deoxygenation on Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) farming: A case study in the Hinase Area, Okayama Prefecture and Shizugawa Bay, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan”.
  1. Introduction: The sentences are too long. The sentence can be shorter. The current manuscript is divided into 5 sections (1.1, ~ 1.5), but I think it would be better to write it all in one. When you improve the manuscript, you also think about the balance of the volumes in the section. The volume of the introduction is heavy compared to the results, discussion and conclusion sections.
  
  --> Based on the comment, the authors will combine all the sections together. Also, the section will be shortened accordingly.
  
  Study sites: This section is also too heavy, compared to the results, discussion and conclusion sections.
  
  --> This section will be shortened based on the comment.
  
  Observed results: The current version has been divided the section into 3.1.1~3.l.7, but you don’t need to divide individually. Please reconsider this part.
  
  --> The authors will combine all the sections together.
  
  Modeling results: The results of the numerical models are necessary. Please put additional analysis such as horizontal distributions and so on to show how the model reproduces in this target area horizontally and timely.
  
  --> The authors will add horizontal distributions of modeled temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen (in Figs. 8 and 9 in the revised manuscript), and will compare time series of modeling results of individual parameters to observed (in Figs. 10-13 in the revised manuscript). Relevant description about the modeling results will be added in the main text in the revised manuscript.
  
  Future projection: This section is a discussion matter. This part can be moved to the discussion section if you add analyses of the model reproducibility.
  
  --> This section will be moved to discussion section in the revised manuscript.
  
  Section 4.2: The section 4.2, 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 can be moved to the conclusion section. Please reconsider your construction.
  
  --> Those sections will be moved to the conclusion section.
  
  Please add references after the sentence (Extreme events such as severe…intensely in the future) in page 16.
  
  --> The authors will add a reference (IPCC, 2022) in the revised manuscript.
  
  5. Conclusion: The conclusion should be improved. Basic conclusion includes the purpose, the summary of this study and self-evaluation/prospects.
  
  --> The authors will revise the conclusion section following the comment.
  
  Fig 1: The information of latitude and longitudes are necessary. Right figures are not appropriate in scientific papers. I think that making an original map by yourself is necessary. In that case, Japanese character should not be included in your map. Right figure is relatively too small.
  
  --> Fig. 1 will be modified based on the comment. Maps will be redrawn to more clearly show the relevant information.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-223-AC2
EC1: 'Comment on bg-2022-223', Tyler Cyronak, 21 Mar 2023

Review – BioGeoscience; Fujii et al.

Fujii et al. have aimed to characterise the chemical parameters of two coastal regions important for

aquaculture in Japan. They have then used this data to model future scenarios, they then use

existing published research on oysters to speculate how oysters and aquaculture may be affected.

Overall this is a valuable piece of work because such descriptions of costal habitats are lacking, yes

these are the most productive marine aquaculture environments. This work would have been

strengthened by experiments on oyster larvae replicating their modelled conditions, however, I

understand that this would have included more work that might not have been feasible.

I raise this point because the manuscript currently relies on Waldbusser et al. to provide a critical Ω arg

limit for larval survival, however, that work was completed in the USA, where local oyster genotypes

are likely to differ significantly compared to those found in Japan. I think the levels of local

adaptation to environments (especially when using wild oysters rather than selectively bred stock)

should not be underestimated. There are many examples in the literature of physiological

differences among genotypes of oysters, especially when sourced from different continents.

I think the manuscript would benefit from more discussion regarding the biological relevance of the

very comprehensive chemical measurements.

Below are my specific comments on the text:

L306-307; Salinity results are stated to have “decreased” following rainfall. It would be good to

describe here the extent that salinity decreased and for how long after significant rain. Furthermore,

rainfall data is included in the figures. I suggest a statistical test to show the relationship between

rainfall and salinity change, perhaps the two are not even correlated?

L309; how do you know that sites H-1, H-2 and S-1 were more affected by riverine flow? Please

provide a statistical justification here.

L325; replace “downward”

L336; as mentioned above, beware of placing too much emphasis on the Waldbusser results when

your own study system and organisms are likely very different. I suggest addressing this in the

discussion.

L337; replace “able” with “likely”

L347; this explanation belongs in the discussion not results.

L385; Considering that Oizumi et al., is not a widely available resource, the authors should include a

description of how these estimates were made in the methods section, and then provide results on

these estimates in the results section.

L400-406; This contentand information belongs in the results section (not disusion) if it isn't already

there.

A figure here such as bar chart could be useful to display the mean increased/ altered timing of

reproduction among sites - this could replace one of the figures displaying measured parameters

(these are less important in my opinion).

L414; Reported by who? Please state if this is anecdotal evidence (i.e. oyster farmers) or your own

observations.
I also think that is not sufficient to use the absence of any morphological abnormalities (as found in

your study) to report no effects on oysters. Significantly reduced larval supply could still have been a

result, with abnormal larvae dying before your samples are taken. I think this limitation needs to be

considered. Larval supply in oysters is a very difficult (almost impossible) thing to measure, however

the use of settlement plates might have given a better indication of oyster recruitment.

L420; There is some potential for local mitigation using plants etc. see Falkenberg et al., 2021

Some of these options should be discussed here. I know that there is seagrass restoration occurring in the

oyster aquaculture regions of Japan. Perhaps these measures may have some capacity for mitigation.

local catchment management is also another option - see Scanes et al., 2020.

L424-440; Here there is no mention of the adaptive capacity of oysters themselves? Or the selective

breeding work that is being undertaken to improve their capacity to withstand warming and acidification.

I think that could also be raised here.

L433; replace “good”. This paragraph also has the opportunity to expand on the hatchery rearing of

oysters and it’s potential the alleviate issues with recruitment.

Figure legends – replace “pints” with “points” throughout.

Figure legends – please use the full figure captions for all figures not “as figure xx”.
Figure 1 – Eel grass is a type of seagrass but is labelled in addition to seagrass. Please clarify whether the

“seagrass” labelled are also eelgrass or another species?

References cited:

Scanes, E., Scanes, P., Ross, P.M., 2020. Climate change warms and acidifies Australian estuaries.

Nature Communications 11(1), 1803

Falkenberg, L.J., Scanes, E., Ducker, J. and Ross, P.M., 2021. Biotic habitats as refugia under ocean

acidification. Conservation Physiology, 9(1), p.coab077.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-223-EC1
EC2: 'Comment on bg-2022-223', Tyler Cyronak, 21 Mar 2023

Review – BioGeoscience; Fujii et al.

Fujii et al. have aimed to characterise the chemical parameters of two coastal regions important for

aquaculture in Japan. They have then used this data to model future scenarios, they then use

existing published research on oysters to speculate how oysters and aquaculture may be affected.

Overall this is a valuable piece of work because such descriptions of costal habitats are lacking, yes

these are the most productive marine aquaculture environments. This work would have been

strengthened by experiments on oyster larvae replicating their modelled conditions, however, I

understand that this would have included more work that might not have been feasible.

I raise this point because the manuscript currently relies on Waldbusser et al. to provide a critical Ω arg

limit for larval survival, however, that work was completed in the USA, where local oyster genotypes

are likely to differ significantly compared to those found in Japan. I think the levels of local

adaptation to environments (especially when using wild oysters rather than selectively bred stock)

should not be underestimated. There are many examples in the literature of physiological

differences among genotypes of oysters, especially when sourced from different continents.

I think the manuscript would benefit from more discussion regarding the biological relevance of the

very comprehensive chemical measurements.

Below are my specific comments on the text:

L306-307; Salinity results are stated to have “decreased” following rainfall. It would be good to

describe here the extent that salinity decreased and for how long after significant rain. Furthermore,

rainfall data is included in the figures. I suggest a statistical test to show the relationship between

rainfall and salinity change, perhaps the two are not even correlated?

L309; how do you know that sites H-1, H-2 and S-1 were more affected by riverine flow? Please

provide a statistical justification here.

L325; replace “downward”

L336; as mentioned above, beware of placing too much emphasis on the Waldbusser results when

your own study system and organisms are likely very different. I suggest addressing this in the

discussion.

L337; replace “able” with “likely”

L347; this explanation belongs in the discussion not results.

L385; Considering that Oizumi et al., is not a widely available resource, the authors should include a

description of how these estimates were made in the methods section, and then provide results on

these estimates in the results section.

L400-406; This contentand information belongs in the results section (not disusion) if it isn't already

there.

A figure here such as bar chart could be useful to display the mean increased/ altered timing of

reproduction among sites - this could replace one of the figures displaying measured parameters

(these are less important in my opinion).

L414; Reported by who? Please state if this is anecdotal evidence (i.e. oyster farmers) or your own

observations.
I also think that is not sufficient to use the absence of any morphological abnormalities (as found in

your study) to report no effects on oysters. Significantly reduced larval supply could still have been a

result, with abnormal larvae dying before your samples are taken. I think this limitation needs to be

considered. Larval supply in oysters is a very difficult (almost impossible) thing to measure, however

the use of settlement plates might have given a better indication of oyster recruitment.

L420; There is some potential for local mitigation using plants etc. see Falkenberg et al., 2021

Some of these options should be discussed here. I know that there is seagrass restoration occurring in the

oyster aquaculture regions of Japan. Perhaps these measures may have some capacity for mitigation.

local catchment management is also another option - see Scanes et al., 2020.

L424-440; Here there is no mention of the adaptive capacity of oysters themselves? Or the selective

breeding work that is being undertaken to improve their capacity to withstand warming and acidification.

I think that could also be raised here.

L433; replace “good”. This paragraph also has the opportunity to expand on the hatchery rearing of

oysters and it’s potential the alleviate issues with recruitment.

Figure legends – replace “pints” with “points” throughout.

Figure legends – please use the full figure captions for all figures not “as figure xx”.
Figure 1 – Eel grass is a type of seagrass but is labelled in addition to seagrass. Please clarify whether the

“seagrass” labelled are also eelgrass or another species?

References cited:

Scanes, E., Scanes, P., Ross, P.M., 2020. Climate change warms and acidifies Australian estuaries.

Nature Communications 11(1), 1803

Falkenberg, L.J., Scanes, E., Ducker, J. and Ross, P.M., 2021. Biotic habitats as refugia under ocean

acidification. Conservation Physiology, 9(1), p.coab077.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-223-EC2

Masahiko Fujii et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 458 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
317	120	21	458	3	4

HTML: 317
PDF: 120
XML: 21
Total: 458
BibTeX: 3
EndNote: 4

Views and downloads (calculated since 30 Nov 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Nov 2022	29	6	1	36
Dec 2022	138	46	7	191
Jan 2023	36	15	0	51
Feb 2023	36	25	1	62
Mar 2023	78	28	12	118

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 30 Nov 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Nov 2022	29	6	1	36
Dec 2022	138	46	7	191
Jan 2023	36	15	0	51
Feb 2023	36	25	1	62
Mar 2023	78	28	12	118

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 478 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 478 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 28 Mar 2023

Short summary

This is the first study of the current and future impacts of climate change on Pacific oyster farming in Japan. Future coastal warming and acidification may affect oyster larvae, as a result of longer exposure to lower pH waters. A prolonged spawning period may harm oyster processing by shortening the shipping period and reducing oyster quality. To minimize impacts on Pacific oyster farming, in addition to mitigation measures, local adaptation measures may be required.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0