Quantifying mesoscale‐driven nitrate supply: A case study

Rosalind E. M. Pidcock,David A. Smeed,Meric A. Srokosz,Alex Forryan,Stuart. C. Painter,Adrian P. Martin,John T. Allen,Mark Stinchcombe

doi:10.1002/2016gb005383

Rosalind E. M. Pidcock, David A. Smeed + Show 6 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gb005383

Copy DOI

Abstract

AbstractThe supply of nitrate to surface waters plays a crucial role in maintaining marine life. Physical processes at the mesoscale (~10–100 km) and smaller scale have been advocated to provide a major fraction of the global supply. While observational studies have focused on well‐defined features, such as isolated eddies, the vertical circulation and nutrient supply in a typical 100–200 km square of ocean will involve a turbulent spectrum of interacting, evolving, and decaying features. A crucial step in closing the ocean nitrogen budget is to be able to rank the importance of mesoscale fluxes against other sources of nitrate for surface waters for a representative area of open ocean. While this has been done using models, the vital observational equivalent is still lacking. To illustrate the difficulties that prevent us from putting a global estimate on the significance of the mesoscale observationally, we use data from a cruise in the Iceland Basin where vertical velocity and nitrate observations were made simultaneously at the same high spatial resolution. Local mesoscale nitrate flux is found to be an order of magnitude greater than that due to small‐scale vertical mixing and exceeds coincident nitrate uptake rates and estimates of nitrate supply due to winter convection. However, a nonzero net vertical velocity for the region introduces a significant bias in regional estimates of the mesoscale vertical nitrate transport. The need for synopticity means that a more accurate estimate cannot be simply found by using a larger survey area. It is argued that time series, rather than spatial surveys, may be the best means to quantify the contribution of mesoscale processes to the nitrate budget of the surface ocean.

Highlights

Quantifying the exchange of nutrients between the surface and deeper ocean is crucial to our understanding of ocean biogeochemical cycling
In the oligotrophic western North Atlantic, indicated that the rate of nitrate uptake in surface waters that could be estimated from independent geochemical techniques (~0.5 mol N mÀ2 yrÀ1) far outweighed the transport of nitrate to the euphotic zone that could be attributed to sources recognized at the time [Jenkins, 1988; Jenkins and Goldman, 1985; Jenkins and Wallace, 1992; Sarmiento et al, 1990; Spitzer and Jenkins, 1989]
A substantial and increasing number of numerical modeling and observational studies have indicated that episodic upwelling associated with mesoscale eddies and fronts may provide a significant contribution to balancing this budget of annual nutrient supply [e.g., Falkowski et al, 1991; Jenkins, 1988; Klein and Lapeyre, 2009; Levy et al, 2001; Mahadevan and Archer, 2000; McGillicuddy et al, 1999, 2003; Woods, 1988]

Summary

Introduction

Quantifying the exchange of nutrients between the surface and deeper ocean is crucial to our understanding of ocean biogeochemical cycling. A substantial and increasing number of numerical modeling and observational studies have indicated that episodic upwelling associated with mesoscale eddies and fronts may provide a significant contribution to balancing this budget of annual nutrient supply [e.g., Falkowski et al, 1991; Jenkins, 1988; Klein and Lapeyre, 2009; Levy et al, 2001; Mahadevan and Archer, 2000; McGillicuddy et al, 1999, 2003; Woods, 1988]. While the potential for significant contribution by mesoscale (~10–100 km) [McGillicuddy, 2016], and submesoscale (~1–10 km) [Mahadevan, 2015], processes may be well established, quantitative estimates of the regional contribution of these processes to the nitrate budget vary by an order of magnitude (~0.1 to more than 1.0 mol N mÀ2 yrÀ1) [e.g., Falkowski et al, 1991; Lapeyre and Klein, 2006; Levy et al, 2001; Mahadevan and Archer, 2000; McGillicuddy et al, 2003; McGillicuddy and Robinson, 1997; Oschlies, 2002; Siegel et al, 1999]. McGillicuddy et al [2003] directly addressed the question of how significant the PIDCOCK ET AL

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion