Anomalous 2022 deep-water formation and intense phytoplankton bloom in the Cretan area

Teruzzi, Anna; Aydogdu, Ali; Amadio, Carolina; Clementi, Emanuela; Colella, Simone; Di Biagio, Valeria; Drudi, Massimiliano; Fanelli, Claudia; Feudale, Laura; Grandi, Alessandro; Miraglio, Pietro; Pisano, Andrea; Pistoia, Jenny; Reale, Marco; Salon, Stefano; Volpe, Gianluca; Cossarini, Gianpiero

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-4-osr8-15-2024

Articles | Volume 4-osr8

https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-4-osr8-15-2024

© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Report:

8th edition of the Copernicus Ocean State Report (OSR8)

https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-4-osr8-15-2024

© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 4-osr8

30 Sep 2024

| OSR8 | Chapter 4.3

| 30 Sep 2024 | OSR8 | Chapter 4.3

Anomalous 2022 deep-water formation and intense phytoplankton bloom in the Cretan area

Anna Teruzzi, Ali Aydogdu, Carolina Amadio, Emanuela Clementi, Simone Colella, Valeria Di Biagio, Massimiliano Drudi, Claudia Fanelli, Laura Feudale, Alessandro Grandi, Pietro Miraglio, Andrea Pisano, Jenny Pistoia, Marco Reale, Stefano Salon, Gianluca Volpe, and Gianpiero Cossarini

Download

Final revised paper (published on 30 Sep 2024)
Preprint (discussion started on 10 Oct 2023)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on sp-2023-30', Maurizio Ribera d’Alcalà, 05 Dec 2023

see attach

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-30-RC1
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC1', Anna Teruzzi, 14 Feb 2024
  We thank the Reviewer for providing feedback on the weak points of our manuscript. We propose to modify the manuscript according to the comments of the two reviewers as outlined in point-by-point replies, in particular we aim to clarify the following aspects:
  The available observations support the claim of the anomaly of the bloom event, even if the cloud coverage limits the precise identification of its temporal and spatial extent.
  
  The products from numerical models, by providing a holistic and comprehensive picture, support the discussion on the processes involved in the event (from drivers, e.g. atmospheric forcing, to impacts, e.g. primary production).
  
  The point-by-point reply to Reviewer #1 is attached and contains the Reviewer’s comments in bold while our replies are formatted as normal text.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-30-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on sp-2023-30', Griet Neukermans, 20 Dec 2023

Dear authors,
As the editor, I hereby provide a review of your submitted paper.
I do not find evidence in this paper that there actually was a phytoplankton bloom anomaly in the area in 2022; the existence of such an anomaly can only be demonstrated convincingly when based on observations. In fact, it is stated in the text that ocean colour satellite observations of the area appear to indicate that the bloom location and timing did not occur where the model predicted it to be. I would recommend that, instead of using NRT ocean colour products, that you look into time series of Chla from all ocean colour satellites merged together (such as the GlobColour satellite dataset). This will improve spatial and temporal coverage. If still plagued by too high cloud cover, use spatial and temporal averaging to analyse if the 2022 condition did (or did not) present a phytoplankton bloom anomaly.
I consider this issue a major problem and therefore recommend major revisions to your manuscript.
I look forward to seeing a revised version of your work.
Best,
Griet Neukermans

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-30-RC2
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Anna Teruzzi, 14 Feb 2024
  
  Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of AC3 and its content was therefore removed.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-30-AC1
- AC3:
  'Reply on RC2', Anna Teruzzi, 14 Feb 2024
  Please, consider this reply and the attachement as the one for Reviewer #2. The previous comment contains the reply to Reviewer #1
  
  We thank the Reviewer for providing feedback on the weak points of our manuscript. We propose to modify the manuscript according to the comments of the two reviewers as outlined in the point-by-point replies, in particular we aim to clarify the following aspects:
  The available observations support the claim of the anomaly of the bloom event, even if the cloud coverage limits the precise identification of its temporal and spatial extent.
  
  The products from numerical models, by providing a holistic and comprehensive picture, support the discussion on the processes involved in the event (from drivers, e.g. atmospheric forcing, to impacts, e.g. primary production).
  
  The point-by-point reply to Reviewer #2 is attached and contains the Reviewer’s comments in bold while our replies are formatted as normal text. Figures are included at the end of the attachment.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-30-AC3

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (15 Feb 2024) by Griet Neukermans

AR by Anna Teruzzi on behalf of the Authors (28 Mar 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (04 Jun 2024) by Griet Neukermans

ED: Publish as is (05 Jun 2024) by Marilaure Grégoire (Chief editor)

AR by Anna Teruzzi on behalf of the Authors (10 Jun 2024)

Short summary

A noticeable cold spell occurred in Eastern Europe at the beginning of 2022 and was the main driver of intense deep-water formation and the associated transport of nutrients to the surface. Southeast of Crete, the availability of both light and nutrients in the surface layer stimulated an anomalous phytoplankton bloom. In the area, chlorophyll concentration (a proxy for bloom intensity) and primary production were considerably higher than usual, suggesting possible impacts on fishery catches.