Expanding seawater carbon dioxide and methane measuring capabilities with a Seaglider

Hauri, Claudine; Irving, Brita; Hayes, Dan; Abdi, Ehsan; Kemme, Jöran; Kinski, Nadja; McDonnell, Andrew M. P.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/os-20-1403-2024

Articles | Volume 20, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-20-1403-2024

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-20-1403-2024

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

Articles | Volume 20, issue 5

Research article

|

29 Oct 2024

Research article |

| 29 Oct 2024

Expanding seawater carbon dioxide and methane measuring capabilities with a Seaglider

Claudine Hauri, Brita Irving, Dan Hayes, Ehsan Abdi, Jöran Kemme, Nadja Kinski, and Andrew M. P. McDonnell

Download

Final revised paper (published on 29 Oct 2024)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 11 Apr 2024)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-1055', Dariia Atamanchuk, 08 May 2024

The manuscript by Hauri et al. details the integration of CO2 and CH4 sensors into the Seaglider and its performance during trials and rigorous data quality assessment. This work is an important contribution to the community effort to increase the number and type of observations in the global ocean, with a particular focus on the water column biogeochemistry and GHG fluxes.
The biggest obstacles to high-resolution carbonate system data from mobile platforms to date are the size, power consumption, and slow response time of the gas sensors. While pCO2 sensors have a relatively slow response, it is still possible to correct the glider-borne data to get decent quality, as nicely shown in this work. Please see my comment on Figure 8, though. As for the methane sensor, I've been wondering whether glider deployments are the best avenue for getting water-column data. The very slow response time of the CH4 sensor doesn't allow for full advantage of the glider-specific capabilities and allows for getting qualitative results, at best. In this respect, ROV-based surveillance or moored platforms would perhaps be a better and more economical option for methane monitoring. It all, of course, depends on the research objectives: qualitative vs quantitative assessment of CH4 distributions. The combined CH4/CO2 sensor is a great idea, too, but given the difference in response times, it will be hard to take full advantage of such a package on gliders. Perhaps an additional discussion on the complexity of the problem of ocean observing - there is no 'one size (sensor) fits all' approach when talking about autonomous sampling, sensors and platforms - would help to orient the readers in the field and help them appreciate the presented work even more.
Competing interests. Clearly declare the potential of a direct financial benefit to the co-authors affiliated with the private companies. That's what this section is for.
Some minor comments are attached.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1055-RC1
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Claudine Hauri, 14 Jun 2024
  
  Dear Dariia,
  Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your thoughtful comments. We thoroughly considered your comments and are planning on making the changes as listed in bold in the attached document. We are still working on the final version of the manuscript to make sure that all new edits will fit in the corresponding sections.
  Thank you again,
  Claudine and co-authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1055-AC3
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-1055', Damian Leonardo Arévalo-Martínez, 15 May 2024

Please see my comments in the attached document.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1055-RC2
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Claudine Hauri, 14 Jun 2024
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1055/egusphere-2024-1055-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1055-AC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Claudine Hauri, 14 Jun 2024
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1055/egusphere-2024-1055-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1055-AC2

Peer review completion

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

AR by Claudine Hauri on behalf of the Authors (09 Jul 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (15 Jul 2024) by Mario Hoppema

RR by Damian Leonardo Arévalo-Martínez (25 Jul 2024)

RR by Dariia Atamanchuk (11 Aug 2024)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (19 Aug 2024) by Mario Hoppema

Dear Dr. Hauri and co-authors,

Thank you for the submission of your revised manuscript. Both referees are satisfied with the changes you made following their comments on a previous version of your manuscript. It is now almost ready for publication. One issue is still indicated by referee #1. Please response to that.
I have some final, mostly technical comments which are listed below:

- Please change the numbering of the figures so that the figures are presented in the text in order of appearance.

- In some figures chlorophyll and dissolved oxygen data are shown. Please add info about how they were measured and possibly some info on the precision.

L55 „Over 100 years,“ sounds strange to me. I am not sure whether the average reader will understand what is meant. What about: Considering a 100 years period, … (or something similar)

L77 Maybe: … are commonly collected … (add: commonly)?
L132 Please do not use the abbreviation POM for polyoxymethylene because in marine research POM is the current abbreviation of: particulate organic matter.

L191-192 Please use date format like: 4-7 May 2022 (many places in the paper)
L191 Here Fig 5 is presented but Figure 4 was not shown before
L218 Here Fig 7 is presented but Figures 5 and 6 were not shown before

L262 please write: 25.00 +/- 0.01 °C
L280 please add one or two words on what errors.m actually is

L335-338 I would suggest revising this sentence as it is quite hard to read in one go
L351 Double parenthesis should be deleted

L513-530 I think this text would fit better in the section Concluding Thoughts.

L670 Three times Christian, J.R.
L670 Dickson, A.G. (one G too many)

L610-945: I noticed that several of the references’ links lead to the site “zotero.org” instead of the corresponding publication sites (despite the doi text being fully correct in the list). I kindly suggest the authors to check for this thoroughly before final publication.

Thanks and best wishes
Mario Hoppema

Hide

AR by Claudine Hauri on behalf of the Authors (20 Aug 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (22 Aug 2024) by Mario Hoppema

AR by Claudine Hauri on behalf of the Authors (30 Aug 2024)

Expanding seawater carbon dioxide and methane measuring capabilities with a Seaglider

Download

Interactive discussion

Peer review completion

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection