Implications of different nitrogen input sources for potential production and carbon flux estimates in the coastal Gulf of  Mexico (GOM) and Korean Peninsula coastal waters

Kim, Jongsun; Chapman, Piers; Rowe, Gilbert; DiMarco, Steven F.; Thornton, Daniel C. O.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/os-16-45-2020

Articles | Volume 16, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-16-45-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-16-45-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 16, issue 1

Research article

|

08 Jan 2020

Research article |

| 08 Jan 2020

Implications of different nitrogen input sources for potential production and carbon flux estimates in the coastal Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and Korean Peninsula coastal waters

Jongsun Kim, Piers Chapman, Gilbert Rowe, Steven F. DiMarco, and Daniel C. O. Thornton

Download

Final revised paper (published on 08 Jan 2020)
Preprint (discussion started on 20 May 2019)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'review of: Implications of different nitrogen input sources for potential production and carbon flux estimates in the coastal Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and Korean coastal waters', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Jul 2019
- AC1: 'Response to reviewer 1', Jongsun Kim, 11 Oct 2019
RC2: 'Review of „Implications of different nitrogen input sources for potential production and carbon flux estimates in the coastal gulf of mexico“', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Aug 2019
- AC2: 'Response to reviewer 2', Jongsun Kim, 11 Oct 2019
RC3: 'General Comments', Anonymous Referee #3, 11 Aug 2019
- AC3: 'Response to reviewer 3', Jongsun Kim, 11 Oct 2019

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Jongsun Kim on behalf of the Authors (11 Oct 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (15 Oct 2019) by Mario Hoppema

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (26 Oct 2019)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (30 Oct 2019)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (07 Nov 2019)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (07 Nov 2019) by Mario Hoppema

Dear Drs. Kim, Chapman and co-authors,

Your revisions are satisfactory and the manuscript is almost ready for acceptance. I went through it and below my final comments are listed.

Abstract L1 coastal sea (no capitals)
Abstr L2 nitrogen mass balance (not N here)

Abstr L5 no need for (AN-D); it is not used in the Abstract anymore
Abstr L6 I think “however” is not needed here.

Abstr L11 “more than 2” is not very precise and looks strange here. Can you please modify this?

L24 Please define SGD
L67 I guess you mean high winds and high nitrate concentrations

L117 Please explain how data interpolation was done

L124 Please change format: kg ha-1 year-1. Is this according to SI? ha is hectare, right? Even when this is the usual notation in this field of science, please also use SI units.
L129 dito

L145 ml/L is not a SI unit. Please (also) give the value as SI.

L148-149 “which means that the two layers have different biological processes.” I do not agree. The rates could just be different.

L151-152 “While chlorophyll can be found below the pycnocline (DiMarco and Zimmerle, 2017).” This is not a complete sentence. Please correct.

L208 “nitrate (NO2-) and nitrite (NO3-)” This is an error. It should be exactly the other way around.

L277 Please use format 4 March 2005
L295-296 The sentence was not clear. I suggest: We defined the brown zone as having the PPP rate of over 2 gC m-2 day-1 because …

L328-329 … determined the integrated PP rates with 14C measurements during 2004 … (because twice in the sentence a word with “measure”)

L335 MR has not been defined before. Please consider not using that many abbreviations, because they reduce the readability.

L508 suggest (instead of explained)
L513-514 “in the near future both AN-D flux and riverine N flux need to be considered for managing nitrogen in coastal waters.” This is double info and it appears in the previous paragraph and at other place in the manuscript.

L533-534 “We identified the brown zone close to the Keum River mouth and the green and blue zones further away from the coast of Korea.” This is trivial and does not contain much information. If you would like to state something here, please give more details.

As to the references:
L555 No journal name
L580 No journal name

L685,688 Any more info on these reports? Report number, Place of publication?
L723 Journal must be: Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
L731 upper case for 222

L804 Any more info for this report?
L855 Please change format of reference

L893 Estuarine (typo)
L929 Any more info for this report? Where available?

Figure 1 caption. Please use Gulf of Mexico full, not GOM. a) Please add some geographical names in the figure for orientation. What does the drawn line represent? What about abbreviations and percentages? Where exactly is the sampling area? Is it the whole region? Please be more specific.
b) Please explain the colors
L1020, 1022 delete “Figure”
L1025 describes , not described

Figure 2 Please define RMEPs
Figure 9 Please do not use abbreviations here

Table 1 Please use data format like 5 April 2004
Table 4 Please use data format like 5 April 2004
L1084, 1088 There should be a minus sign in the ratio

Thank you and best wishes
Mario Hoppema

Hide

AR by Jongsun Kim on behalf of the Authors (13 Nov 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (20 Nov 2019) by Mario Hoppema

AR by Jongsun Kim on behalf of the Authors (22 Nov 2019)

Short summary

We used a simple nitrogen-based box model to estimate production in the coastal northern Gulf of Mexico and off the west of the Korean Peninsula, which receive nitrogen in different forms. The Gulf of Mexico gets almost all its nitrogen from rivers, while atmosphere and groundwater discharges are also contributed in Korea. Production in both areas decreased away from river mouths, and we identified three zones with different productivity that vary in size as river flow and other factors change.