Effects of sea ice and wind speed on phytoplankton spring bloom in central and southern Baltic Sea

Ove Pärn; Gennadi Lessin; Adolf Stips

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242637

. 2021 Mar 3;16(3):e0242637. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242637

Effects of sea ice and wind speed on phytoplankton spring bloom in central and southern Baltic Sea

Ove Pärn ^1,^*, Gennadi Lessin ², Adolf Stips ¹

Editor: Arga Chandrashekar Anil³

PMCID: PMC7928518 PMID: 33657117

Abstract

In this study, the effects of sea ice and wind speed on the timing and composition of phytoplankton spring bloom in the central and southern Baltic Sea are investigated by a hydrodynamic–biogeochemical model and observational data. The modelling experiment compared the results of a reference run in the presence of sea ice with those of a run in the absence of sea ice, which confirmed that ecological conditions differed significantly for both the scenarios. It has been found that diatoms dominate the phytoplankton biomass in the absence of sea ice, whereas dinoflagellates dominate the biomass in the presence of thin sea ice. The study concludes that under moderate ice conditions (representing the last few decades), dinoflagellates dominate the spring bloom phytoplankton biomass in the Baltic Sea, whereas diatoms will be dominant in the future as a result of climate change i.e. in the absence of sea ice.

Introduction

The Baltic Sea has suffered historically from anthropogenic river borne nutrient loads due to intensified agriculture and waste-water discharges since the 1950s [1] and the phytoplankton biomass in Kieli Bay tripled in the 1960s [2]. Long nutrient residence times and high buffer capacity of the system have resulted in slow responses to nutrient load reductions. For example, the pan-European marine modelling ensemble study evaluated the impact of freshwater nutrient control measures on marine eutrophication indicators. When anthropogenic riverine nutrients were reduced by 10%, the chlorophyll-a concentration decreased by 1% on an average [3]. Concentrations of nutrients have accumulated to such a high level that human effects on nutrient reduction have been barely noticeable in recent decades.

A unique combination of physical, chemical, and biological factors shape the marine ecosystem. Due to the complexity of the system, it is difficult to distinguish between the impact of climate change and human eutrophication on the ecosystem. Studies that clarify the role of humans or climate change in marine life are essential to achieving a healthy marine ecosystem [4]. The Baltic Sea, a seasonally ice-covered semi-enclosed sea, is sensitive to climate change and is affected by various human-induced environmental pressures caused by shipping, eutrophication, as well as chemical and plastic pollution [5]. This paper analyses the causes for the dramatic decrease of the diatom standing stock and a change towards the dominance of autotrophic dinoflagellates in the Baltic since the late 1980s [6–9].

Physical factors like light and stratification are key influences controlling phytoplankton spring bloom [10]. The seasonal ice cover plays a crucial role in setting time frames for the primary production, thus affecting the seasonality of ecological processes. Ice cover is one of the major indicators in determining the severity of winter in the Baltic Sea. It also affects underwater light conditions by limiting the amount of light transmitted through the surface and modifying water mixing and nutrient circulation under the ice [11].

The Baltic Sea ice season lasts 5–7 months between November to May. During a mild winter, ice occurs only in the Bothnian Bay and the easternmost Gulf of Finland, while the whole Baltic Sea is covered with ice during a cold winter [12]. The maximum extent of the ice cover in the Baltic Sea is normally reached towards late February or early March. In the southern part of the Baltic sea, ice conditions vary extensively from one year to another. The maximum ice extent in the Baltic Sea has been steadily decreasing for the last two centuries [12]. Global warming, induced by the climate change, has reduced the thickness of ice and shortened the ice season [13].

Studies on phytoplankton spring bloom have been increasingly gaining importance in the context of global climate change. It has been reported that the changing environmental conditions have reduced the coverage and thickness of sea ice and increased the water temperatures in the Baltic Sea [14–17]. Increased precipitation in the northern Baltic catchment affects freshwater inflow and nutrient run-off [18]. The continually rising air temperature and freshwater inflow are potential factors affecting the stratification of water layers, which in turn affect the vertical transportation of oxygen and planktonic life forms particularly in spring [19]. Physical conditions provide a foundation for biological activity. During winters there is low nutrient consumption under the ice and the water body will be enriched with nutrients. The phytoplankton biomass in the Baltic Sea is low during winters; it increases from March and grows continuously for up to 2 months [20–22]. Studies have reported that the warming of the Baltic Sea has caused temporal shifts in the distribution of phytoplankton during the highly productive spring season. An early onset and increased duration of spring bloom have been observed due to warming of the sea environment [23–26]. In addition, long-term monitoring data suggests that there may be a shift in the composition of the phytoplankton biomass from a diatom to dinoflagellate-dominated assemblages during spring in some areas of the Baltic Sea [2, 27] because of ongoing climate change [20]. Stratification of the water column is generally a prerequisite for most dinoflagellate blooms to develop in temperate areas [27, 28]. Wind is one of the factors governing vertical mixing within the euphotic layer (average 9.6 m in Baltic [29]) and in stagnant water, the diatoms being non-motile and heavier particles start sinking quickly whereas the dinoflagellates are motile and can therefore position themselves vertically. Dinoflagellate blooms are observed in coastal waters under calm wind conditions enhancing the water column stratification [30]. Spilling et al. [9] analysed the shift from diatom dominance to dinoflagellate dominance in parts of the Baltic Sea during spring bloom and its potential effect on biogeochemical cycling. According to their research, the shift towards dinoflagellate dominance increased the sinking of organic matter which alleviated the issue of eutrophication and improved the environmental status of the Baltic Sea.

Diatoms constitute the major component of phytoplankton spring bloom in most coastal ecosystems, whereas vernal phytoplankton communities in the Baltic Sea are characterised by the co-occurrence and often dominance of cold-water dinoflagellates [27, 31]. Factors promoting the success of dinoflagellates in dominating the spring phytoplankton community are insufficiently understood because dinoflagellates are considered to be inferior to diatoms as competitors because of their relatively low growth rates and nutrient uptake capacities [32]. Although dinoflagellate-dominated spring bloom is uncommon elsewhere, it regularly occurs in the Baltic Sea and its frequency has increased over the years [9]. This paper examines the effects of sea ice and wind speed on phytoplankton spring bloom and describes the potential mechanisms influencing the blooming of dinoflagellates or diatoms. We hypothesize that thinner sea ice or low wind speed (low turbulence in the euphotic zone) ensures early seeding and accumulation of dinoflagellates, which allows them to outcompete the faster growing diatoms. To test the validity of this mechanism we simulate ice-free conditions, where the determining factor was wind-induced turbulence in the euphotic layer. The effect of the mechanism on diatoms and dinoflagellates was tested with observational data.

Materials and methods

A coupled hydrodynamic–biogeochemical model was used to estimate the effects of sea ice and wind speed on phytoplankton composition during spring between 1 March and 10 May in the relatively severest winters of 2010, 2011 and 2013. Recent years have mainly observed mild winters in the Baltic sea. The results of the model in the presence and the absence of sea ice were compared. All the runs used the same initial and boundary conditions; however, sea ice conditions were varied.

Model description and set-up

The model simulations were performed by coupled three-dimensional hydrodynamic model GETM (General Estuarine Transport Model; https://getm.eu/) [33, 34] and biogeochemical model ERGOM (Ecological Regional Ocean Model; www.ergom.net) implemented within the Framework for Aquatic Biogeochemical Models [35]. The ERGOM model version applied in this study included three functional groups of phytoplankton—diatoms, dinoflagellates, and cyanobacteria; bulk zooplankton group; nitrate, ammonium, and phosphate nutrients; dissolved oxygen; pelagic and benthic detritus; and iron-bound phosphorus in sediments and water. The corresponding set-up was previously developed and used by Lessin et al. [36, 37].

The model domain covered the entire Baltic Sea area, with an open boundary in northern Kattegat. Bathymetry was interpolated to a model grid with a horizontal resolution of 2 × 2 nm. Twenty-five σ layers were applied in the vertical [36]. The period modelled was between 1 September and 10 July in 2010, 2011 and 2013. During the first 6 months of simulation, only hydrodynamics was modelled to ensure that the initial biochemical conditions before spring bloom were identical for all the model runs, highlighting how ice affects plankton development in the spring season. The default dinoflagellate maximum growth rate in the model was 0.4 d^-1, which led to very low small-cell phytoplankton concentrations. After extensive calibration for the study region, the growth rate was adjusted to 0.7 d^-1, the same value was used by the Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research, Warnemünde in its ecosystem model [38]. The default diatom maximum growth rate was set at 1.3 d^-1, and the sinking velocity of diatoms was 0.5 m/d. Minimum irradiances for dinoflagellates and diatoms were 50 W/m² and 35 W/m², respectively.

The initial distributions of water temperature and salinity for September were interpolated to the model grid from monthly climatological data [39]. The prescribed salinity and temperature distributions at the open boundary were interpolated using monthly climatological data. Typical concentrations of biogeochemical variables were prescribed uniformly within the model domain.

Six-hourly meteorological forcing data (ERA-Interim) obtained from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (http://www.ecmwf.int) was applied. The model considered land-based run-off and nutrient loads incorporated into 20 major rivers [36].

The following scenarios were modelled to estimate the effect of sea ice on phytoplankton spring bloom:

Simulation with sea ice (ice run, as reference scenario).
Simulation without sea ice (no ice run).

And to test the validity of the proposed mechanism
Simulation with sea ice and 10% of wind speed compared to the reference speed recorded during five days from 06–10 April, 2013 (wind reduction scenario). From the results obtained, we calculated the increase rate (%) of dinoflagellates and diatoms due to the wind reduction: [(reduction scenario—reference scenario)/reference scenario*100].

Diatom and dinoflagellate concentrations and water density at four stations (Fig 1) were analysed according to the scenarios in the central and southern Baltic Sea between 1 March 2013 and 10 May 2013. Stations were selected according to gradient in physical-biogeochemical conditions and specific differences in ice cover (Fig 1a), the boxes had an area of 6 × 6 nm.

Model validation

The main validation of the ocean and biochemisry component of the coupled model is provided in the report on the biogeochemical model setup for the Baltic Sea and its applications [40]. Hydrodynamic features such as salinity, temperature, and surface elevation were reproduced well. From a comparison of the modelled SST with satellite SST data the averaged bias over space and time was calculated to be 0.7°C. Stations of observations (BED, http://nest.su.se), root-mean-square error of sea surface and bottom salinity were between 0.3–1.7 PSU. The root-mean-square error of sea level elevation at Landsort measured data from Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level was 198 mm in 2005–2012. The model was able to reproduce the ice-covered areas as well as the interannual variability. All modelled eutrophication indicators—chlorophyll-a, oxygen, nitrate, and phosphate—followed the dominant seasonal cycles. The model simulated chl-a data more accurately in the southern Baltic Sea (RMSE = 0.9), and root-mean-square error was larger in the Gulf of Finland, 4 mg m^-3. However, the model underestimated the phytoplankton biomass (chlorophyll-a concentration) in most parts of the Baltic Sea and overestimated the oxygen content compared to the observations which might be a consequence of the too low phytoplankton biomass.

The nitrate concentration was overestimated by the model when compared to BED data (http://nest.su.se), except North Baltic, but underestimated when compared to HELCOM data. Phosphate was overestimated in the Gulf of Bothnia and the Gulf of Finland; however, it was underestimated in the rest of the Baltic Sea. The excess phosphate in the Gulf of Finland is most probably causing the high Chlorophyll-a concentration here. The maximum values of chlorophyll-a in April 2013 are shown in S1 Table, stations shown in Fig 1.

Ice and phytoplankton data

Data on the daily ice concentrations over the Baltic Sea was provided by the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service (http://marine.copernicus.eu/). The ice concentration data originated from the Swedish Ice Service (http://www.smhi.se/oceanografi/istjanst/havsis_en.php), and the radiometric satellite observations obtained using the sensors AVHRR, ATSR-1, ATSR-2, and AATSR were used in this study. These data were used to calculate the ice cover characteristics of the Baltic Sea for the ice season by interpolating the ice concentration data to the model grid. Areas with an ice concentration of <40% were considered ice-free (open water). Ice was considered to be present in the model grid cells if the ice concentration was ≥40%.

In the presence of ice:

the surface temperature of the water is equal to the freezing point
the wind stress that causes circulation is 0
light conditions change. In the case of sea ice, PAR_i = 0.7*PAR, where PAR is photosynthetically active radiation and PAR_i is PAR under ice [41].

Swedish National Monitoring data includes various biological and physio-chemical parameters collected at designated stations. For this study, data on diatoms and dinoflagellates biomass was downloaded from the national marine environmental monitoring database (SHARKweb).

The IOW data are available on request from the Oceanographic Database of IOW (IOWDB) (https://www.io-warnemuende.de/en_iowdb.html).

Lithuanian marine monitoring data as well as diatoms and flagellates biomass values were selected and systematized by Irina Olenina.

The Dia/Dino index

The European Parliament has adopted the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) to protect the marine environment across Europe, which is based on a set of environmental descriptors. One of the supporting descriptors is the Dia/Dino index, which is a pre-core indicator, as decided by the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (Helsinki Commission [HELCOM]; http://www.helcom.fi). HELCOM uses indicators with quantitative threshold values to evaluate the progress towards the goal of achieving an acceptable environmental status of the Baltic Sea. The index is based on seasonal diatom and dinoflagellate biomass values and reflects dominance patterns in the biomass of phytoplankton spring bloom. It describes the relative percentage of diatoms within the total biomass and provides a proxy to estimate the entry of nutrients into the pelagic or benthic food web: if diatoms are dominant, their rapid sinking reduces the availability of food stock for zooplankton, but delivers abundant food to zoobenthos [5]. Changes in diatom or dinoflagellate dominance affect the pelagic and benthic food web dynamics due to differences in their quality as food sources and the timings of their occurrence [2]. A low Dia/Dino index indicate silicate limitation caused by eutrophication [5].

The Dia/Dino index [2] presents the relative percentage of diatoms and was calculated as follows:

\frac{D i a}{D i n o} i n d e x = \frac{C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f D i a t o m s [\frac{m g C h l}{m^{3}}]}{C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f D i a t o m s + C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f f l a g e l l a t e s [\frac{m g C h l}{m^{3}}]}

(1)

It was used to calculate the spring averages (10 March–05 May) of the phytoplankton concentration in Chl units for the surface layer (0-10m).

Results

Effect of sea ice on the composition of spring bloom in the central Baltic Sea

The average modelled concentrations (upper 10 m) of dinoflagellates and diatoms over the central Baltic Sea ice covered area (Fig 1, the area inside the black rectangle, if ice days > 2) during spring 2013 are presented in Fig 2. Diatom bloom reached its maximum concentrations in simulations without sea ice. Variations in the dinoflagellate concentration were opposite to those observed in the diatom concentration; the presence of sea ice favoured higher dinoflagellate concentration during ice-free conditions. The peak bloom concentration of dinoflagellates decreased by more than two times, during simulations in the absence of sea ice. The ice-free area results revealed that, on average, the diatom concentration was higher (up to 5mg Chl/m³), whereas the dinoflagellate concentration did not exceed 0.45mg Chl/m³ in the ice-free area.

The maximum diatom concentration was 3.5 mg Chl/m³ in simulation with ice and 5.2 mg Chl/m³ in simulation without ice (Fig 2). Corresponding concentrations of dinoflagellates were 3.2 and 1.4 mg Chl/m³, respectively. The phytoplankton started growing on 24–25 March (Fig 2) when the daily average PAR_i exceeded 24 W/m³ under sea ice (Fig 3).

In the model, the growth of dinoflagellates, but not diatoms, directly depends on the temperature of water [42]. We examined the effects of differences in surface temperatures in the two simulations on the dinoflagellate concentration. Although the difference between average water temperatures was—0.8°C, the resulting temperature-dependent difference in the growth rate of flagellates was only up to 3%. Thus, the temperature difference was not sufficiently large to cause the difference in the phytoplankton growth rates.

Dinoflagellates and diatoms at stations

Stations 14 in the Gulf of Finland and G1 in the Gulf of Riga were covered with sea ice in the 2013 spring season (Fig 1b). Dinoflagellate-dominated spring bloom appeared only in the model simulation in the presence of sea ice at station 14 (Figs 4 and 5). By contrast, at station G1 diatom-dominated bloom appeared only in the model simulation in the absence of ice (Fig 5).

At station G1, no growth of dinoflagellates was observed in the absence of sea ice. The diatom concentration increased rapidly from 24 March when the daily average PAR reached 32 W/m² and midday air temperatures exceeded 0°C. However, a dinoflagellate-dominated bloom preceded the diatom-dominated bloom in the presence of sea ice (Fig 5). The presence of ice prevented the dominance of diatoms. Fig 5 shows that diatoms began to grow when ice disappeared (in mid-April), while the dinoflagellate concentration decreased.

To understand the cause of the difference in the prevalence of dinoflagellates or diatoms, we analysed the temporal dynamics of phytoplankton concentration and water density within the water column. At the shallower, ice-covered stations, the diatom concentration increased in late March–beginning of April in both simulations (Figs 6a, 6b, 7a and 7b). Compared to the water surface, diatom concentration values were higher at a depth of 10–15 m in the no ice run (Figs 6b and 7b) and (S1b–S4b Figs). However, the highest concentrations was observed at 5–10 m depth. The concentrations of diatomsin the surface layers were low in the ice run (Figs 6a and 7a) from the beginning to mid-April while the concentrations in the surface layers were high in the ice-free run (Figs 6b and 7b).

Fig 6 — (a) Diatoms (no ice run); (b) diatoms (ice run); (c) dinoflagellates (no ice run); (d) dinoflagellates (ice run).

Fig 7 — (a) Diatoms (no ice run); (b) diatoms (ice run); (c) dinoflagellates (no ice run); (d) dinoflagellates (ice run).

Dinoflagellate spring bloom did not occur at stations 14 and G1 in simulations without ice (Figs 6d and 7d), while in simulations with ice, dinoflagellates developed in the upper layer (approximately 0–5 m) and diatoms lived below 6–12 m (Figs 6a, 6c, 7a and 7c). In the area partially covered with ice, the water density of surface layers is lower than that of deeper layers. Thus, lighter particles like dinoflagellates remained on the surface (and followed patterns of water mixing while) heavier diatoms sank into the deeper layers. To confirm the validity of this hypothesis, we performed a model experiment where the sinking rate of the diatoms was equivalent to the sinking rate of the dinoflagellates (both equal to 0). Therefore, the diatoms and the dinoflagellates did not sink, thus resulting in them both appearing under the ice. The maximum diatom and dinoflagellate concentration were 7 mg Chl/m³ and 1.5 mg Chl/m³ in the studied area.

Diatoms were well mixed within the upper layers during no ice run due to the turbulent mixing of the water (Figs 6b and 7b), and they thrived during spring periods as their higher growth rate enabled them to outcompete dinoflagellates. As the concentration of diatoms increases in the upper layer due to their faster growth rate, they absorb light and prevent the penetration of light to lower layers, thus, restricting the development of dinoflagellates.

In another model experiment, the light constant of limit for both dinoflagellates and diatoms were kept same. It was seen that along with dinoflagellates, diatoms also developed in the simulation without sea ice, thus confirming that light to be the limiting factor. The maximum diatom and dinoflagellate concentration were 7.5 mg Chl/m³ and 1.5 mg Chl/m³, respectively, in the studied area.

At stations 32 and OMBPK3 (Figs 8 and 9), where the presence of sea ice is a rare phenomenon (Fig 1b), the model did not show spring bloom of dinoflagellates. Diatom concentration patterns with ice and without ice were similar but values differed at some moments. Because ice affected the circulation of the sea as a whole, the total heat flux between the atmosphere and ocean differed and affected the distribution of nutrients as well. The changes in ice conditions in the northern part affects the state of the wider Baltic Sea.

Fig 8 — (a) Diatoms (no ice run); (b) diatoms (ice run); (c) dinoflagellates (no ice run); (d) dinoflagellates (ice run).

Fig 9 — (a) Diatoms (no ice run); (b) diatoms (ice run); (c) dinoflagellates (no ice run).

Modelled Dia/Dino index at stations

The index values calculated by using Eq (1) are listed in Table 1 below. The values of the index were high in the southern Baltic Sea, as diatoms were dominant. The Gulf of Riga and the Gulf of Finland had lower values with ice run, whereas the values of the index were high without ice; a transition to dominance of dinoflagellates over diatoms was observed in spring bloom.

Table 1. Dia/Dino index average between 10 March-05 May.

Station	Without ice	With ice
14	0.97	0.5
H1	0.98	0.9
G1	0.97	0.61
32	0.99	0.97
OMBPK3	0.97	0.97

Open in a new tab

Measurement data for phytoplankton biomass for spring is scarce, especially for the period after the melting of ice. Therefore, more detailed data analysis is difficult, but case studies can be performed. We have first described these kinds of cases where there are high biomasses of dinoflagellates in the observation data. The second part presents statistics between wind speed and dinoflagellate biomass where data from April and May has been used.

Measured Dia/Dino index

Dia/Dino index and sea ice conditions

Sea ice information is taken from SMHI ice charts and satellite data. The data on phytoplankton biomass has been used to calculate dia/dino index of each observation and indicate presence/absence of ice cover. If the sea ice was present at or near the sampling point in the previous days, it is indicated under the column “ice cover” in S2 Table given below. Relatively high biomass values of dinoflagellates (dia/dino index < 0.5) were measured in 1991, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2015 (S1 Table).

In S2 Table, the mean value of dia/dino index when ice occurs is 0.27, std = 0.17, while without ice it is 0.49 (std = 0.08). High relative biomass values of dinoflagellates were measured and the existence of ice was found to prevail on ten different occasions at stations A and B (S2 Table; Fig 10). All these cases had developed under ice cover, thus limiting the effect of wind on water mixing (Fig 10).

Fig 10 — The measuring point is marked with a red-black star.

The correlation between measured phytoplankton and wind speed in spring

We studied the relation between wind speed and the prevalence of dinoflagellates in phytoplankton spring blooms. Phytoplankton measurements conducted between 55.3–57.3°N and 19.8–21°E (Fig 10, blue line) during the months of April and May from 1993–2008 by the Lithuanian EPA were used.

Out of these 16 years, dinoflagellates have had a higher biomass than diatoms during ten different years (1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2008).

In the years when higher dinoflagellate biomass was measured, wind speed values were mostly lower than 5 m/s during the day preceding the measurements. Five-day average wind speed before measurement was under 5 m/s (Fig 11). The correlation between dia/dino index and the 5-day wind average before the measurement dates came out to be 0.5 (N = 16, the critical value R_crit (P < 0.05) = 0.468). The correlation is not strong but is statistically significant. Thus, low wind speeds create physical conditions that favor faster growth of dinoflagellates. Higher wind speeds lead to greater turbulent mixing in the euphotic zone and create the conditions which are advantageous to diatoms.

Fig 11 — Data taken from EPA Lithuanian and ERA 5. Regression line in red.

The correlation between modelled phytoplankton and wind speed in spring

Fig 12 shows the correlation between phytoplankton and a 5-day moving average of wind speed, which was calculated five days before the phytoplankton data was recorded. In the case of dinoflagellates, the correlation coefficient is negative (blue) in most areas which shows that lower wind speed ensures the bloom of dinoflagellates. Furthermore, the correlation coefficient between diatom and wind speed is positive in the Gulf of Finland and Gulf of Riga.

There are other physical factors in the sea that also have an effect. The results of the model show that due to spring circulation in the Gulf of Finland, more salty water of the surface layer (up to 10m) flows from the Baltic Proper into this Gulf. Salt tongue representation in the surface layer from 3 to 10m was especially clear in April 2013. The effect of the inflow is such that the correlation with wind speed in the Gulf of Finland becomes reversed in areas where fresher Baltic Proper water exists. In the Gulf of Riga, the inflow of fresh water and its circulation changed the direction of correlation. The southern part of the Baltic Proper has no correlation with the wind speed as it has had a strong upwelling during April in all the years studied and in the central part of Baltic Proper, phytoplankton values remain low for a long time.

Modelling of wind reduction scenario

We studied that low wind speed favours the accumulation of dinoflagellates which allows them to outcompete the faster growing diatoms. Using the wind reduction and reference scenarios we tested the influence of wind on modelled phytoplankton spring bloom. From the results obtained, it can be seen that the concentration of dinoflagellates in the euphotic layer increased due to wind reduction (Fig 13). G1 values were low in the beginning of April because the area was partly covered in ice while the stations H1, G1, OMBPK3 were ice-free. The environmental status of station 32 changed (dia/dino index threshold value is 0.5) in the euphotic layer during the wind reduction. However, the change occurs only in the surface layer of the sea, where the index value is greater than 0.5, and therefore the diatoms predominate. Station OMBPK3 is located in an area where circulation caused by dominant winds brings the bottom layers to the surface of the water (upwelling), thereby leaving the value of the index unchanged.

Fig 13 — Dia/dino index in the reference run is represented by circles, and by triangles in the wind reduction scenario.

The Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) and Dissolved Inorganic Phosphorus (DIP) intakes at stations were analysed (Fig 14). In the case of a reference run, diatoms started developing and the dia/dino index was higher than the reduction run. Additionally, there were more diatoms (Fig 13) which consumed more nutrients. In the reduction scenario, when the physical conditions favour dinoflagellates, the nutrient intake is lower (Fig 14) and the DIN and DIP concentrations stay higher than during the reference run at all the stations.

Discussion

Sea ice eliminates the effect of wind on water circulation, thus, affecting water mixing and currents; air does not come in contact with the water surface and sunlight is also reflected back into the atmosphere. We compared the results of numerical experiments performed to study the effect of the absence of ice on the water body in freezing temperatures and the presence of sea ice to assess the impact of sea ice. The results showed that the spring bloom of dinoflagellates appeared only in the sea area with thin ice (or low wind conditions) while diatoms dominated in ice-free water.

Phytoplankton distribution is determined by the availability of nutrients, light, and temperature for growth, predation, sedimentation rate, and migration [43], as well as prevailing hydrodynamic conditions. The studied hydrodynamic conditions caused by wind speed, such as stratification, water mixing and currents, played a crucial role in the formation and location of phytoplankton biomass. In the modelling experiments, seasonal sea ice cover reduced wind-driven mixing and allowed the development of under-ice stratification (Figs 6 and 9). When water mixing is weak, large diatom cells sink while dinoflagellate cells remain in the surface layers because they exhibit neutral buoyancy. It may be noted that light can also be a limiting factor for dinoflagellates in the presence of diatoms, favouring the dominance of the latter.

In the present model nutrients most likely did not play a role because all simulations had the same nutrient input and initial conditions. However, the dynamics of DIN and DIP (Descriptor 5 of MSFD) were different for diatoms and dinoflagellates. When the predominant diatoms with a higher growth rate quickly consumed nutrients, it indicated the end of the spring bloom. When physical conditions for dinoflagellates were suitable, their nutrient intake was lower than diatoms and therefore the nutrients were available for longer in the euphotic zone. Diatoms lost their competitive advantage under sea ice and calm wind, as these conditions favoured sinking into the deeper layers of water where light was not available. Accordingly, the model results demonstrate how the changes in the sea ice or wind conditions drive changes in the Dia/Dino index.

The changes in dominance of these two phytoplankton classes affects the marine food web (Descriptor 4 of MSFD), and a low Dia/Dino index has been assumed by HELCOM to be an indicator of eutrophication (Descriptor 5 of MSFD) [2]. However, the results of the conducted modelling experiment show that during spring bloom low dia/dino index can be strongly influenced by physical factors and therefore should not be considered an indicator of eutrophication.

Potential reasons for dinoflagellate-dominated spring bloom becoming more frequent in the last decades are as follows:

Relatively thin ice: Studies have reported that ice conditions have gradually become milder over the years. However, the monitored observations for ice thickness around the Baltic Sea coast reveal both decreasing and increasing trends [13]. In the Gulf of Finland, a thinning trend of -25 cm has been observed [44]. Sea ice in the middle of the Baltic Sea plays a crucial role in dinoflagellate-dominated spring bloom. A similar result was found by Klais et al. [20] which indicated that the local physical conditions (mild and variable winters) resulting from large-scale changes in weather patterns may be more crucial factors than nutrients in explaining the shift towards dinoflagellate dominance.
Changeable weather in winter and spring: Since the 1990s, stratification collapse (strong mixing events) has frequently occurred in winters from October to April when saline and thermal stratification decreases [45]. Winters have become increasingly inconstant, with extremely high air temperatures for short periods [46]. High air temperatures cause sea ice to melt and reduce its thickness. When the temperature decreases again, the ice cover expands. The formation and closure of ice-free openings is a common phenomena in the Gulf of Finland [47–49].

Taking into account the results of this modelling experiment, the past, present, and the future of spring bloom in response to the reduction of ice cover due to climate change can be classified as follows:

In the past, at the beginning of spring, the sea ice was so thick that the lack of light limited the growth of the phytoplankton [50]. Therefore, phytoplankton spring blooms occurred later, in the middle or end of May. Diatoms dominated in the southern part of the Baltic Sea where sea ice was absent.
By the end of the 1980s, the light conditions in the central Baltic Sea improved due to reduced ice thickness, and both diatoms and dinoflagellates began to grow. Dinoflagellates gained a competitive advantage here because diatoms, being heavier, sank rapidly.
According to future climate scenarios [14], the ice extent will be further reduced with shorter ice seasons and thinner ice cover. Completely ice-free winters are, however, unlikely to occur during the 21st century [51]. Most recent studies predict that dinoflagellates will dominate the spring bloom in the future. The modelling experiments conducted within this study, which only considered the changes in ice cover, demonstrated that loss of ice can be a factor promoting diatom dominance during spring bloom via changing the mixing regime.

Our modelling experiments were conducted over one growing season only. Longer-term model runs are necessary to elucidate whether the observed shifts towards diatom dominance during spring bloom are the initial reaction of the model to experimental perturbations, which will be negated by shifts in large-scale circulation and stratification caused by loss of sea ice, as well as alterations in nutrient availability and balance. Moreover, rather simplistic parameterisation of phytoplankton groups in the model applied is a limiting factor preventing more comprehensive answers regarding the future of phytoplankton spring blooms. To address this, in the future studies model formulation should be updated with the up-to-date understanding of the Baltic Sea phytoplankton ecology, especially formation of resting cysts, as well as consider wider diversity of phytoplankton functional groups.

Conclusions

According to the study, ice conditions preceding the spring bloom influence the species composition of phytoplankton during spring bloom. In the presence of ice cover, which eliminates the effect of wind in the upper layer of water, the heavier particles (diatoms) sink below the euphotic zone (~ 10m) favouring proliferation of dinoflagellates. However, if diatoms remain in the upper layer of water due to turbulent mixing induced by wind, they dominate the phytoplankton spring bloom.

The changing ice conditions are only one of the key factors directly affecting timing and composition of phytoplankton spring bloom within the Baltic Sea with cascading consequences for nutrient transfer and the entailing ecological dynamics.

The modelling experiments have demonstrated that the dia/dino index in spring is strongly influenced by physical factors, therefore further research is required to confirm the robustness of this index as an indicator of eutrophication [4, 8]. Since conclusions of this work are based on short-term model simulations, it should be regarded as an impetus for the future phytoplankton modelling studies that should test the long-term consequences of ice loss for phytoplankton bloom dynamics in the Baltic Sea using forecast scenario simulations.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station 14 in spring 2010.

(a) Diatoms (no ice run); (b) diatoms (ice run); (c) dinoflagellates (no ice run); (d) dinoflagellates (ice run); (e) and (f) are water densities (kg/m³) with ice run and no ice run. The water density is defined as the sigma density [(density(t,s,z)– 1000)] kg/m³.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(161.6KB, tiff)}

S2 Fig. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station 14 in spring 2011.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(154.4KB, tiff)}

S3 Fig. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station G1 in spring 2010.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(143.9KB, tiff)}

S4 Fig. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station G1 in spring 2011.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(139.1KB, tiff)}

S5 Fig. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station 32 in spring 2010.

(a) Diatoms (no ice run); (b) diatoms (ice run); (c) dinoflagellates (no ice run); (d) dinoflagellates (ice run); (e) and (f) are water densities with ice run and no ice run. The water density is defined as the sigma density [(density(t,s,z)– 1000)] kg/m³.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(119KB, tiff)}

S6 Fig. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station 32 in spring 2011.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(114.1KB, tiff)}

S7 Fig. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station OMBPK3 in spring 2010.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(146.9KB, tiff)}

S8 Fig. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station OMBPK3 in spring 2011.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(135.7KB, tiff)}

S1 Table. Peak of chlorophyll-a in April 2013.

Data from Baltic Nest, ICES and satellite data from Copernicus database.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.7KB, docx)}

S2 Table. The table shows dia/dino index and records stating the existence of ice.

Phytoplankton events based on observations. Cases, which developed under ice cover, as illustrated in figures, have been marked with an asterisk. Stations location A (58.35°N;18.14°E) and B (57.3°N;20.1°E). Ice concentration for up to 10 days before measurements.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.1KB, docx)}

Acknowledgments

I (OP) owe gratitude to the JRC Modeling Team for inspiring, teaching, and encouraging me. You have led me wisely and helped me transition from the world of physics to ecosystems.

The authors thank to the developers of GETM, GOTM and FABM as well. Thank you very much for your tips and for directing OP to the necessary measurement data, Norbert Wasmund, Susanne Feistel, Monika Quinones Winder, Inga Lips, Andres Jaanus, Natalja Kolesova. Thank you Irina Olenina for your cheerful and warm attitude and for your help in preparing the data.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.Gustafsson BG, Schenk F, Blenckner T, Eilola K, Meier HM, Müller-Karulis B, et al. Reconstructing the development of Baltic Sea eutrophication 1850–2006. Ambio. 2012;41(6):534–48. 10.1007/s13280-012-0318-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Wasmund N. The Diatom/Dinoflagellate index as an indicator of ecosystem changes in the Baltic Sea. 2. Historical data for use in determination of good environmental status. Front Mar Sci. 2017;4:153. 10.3389/fmars.2017.00153 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
3.Friedland R, Macias D, Cossarini G, Daewel U, Estournel C, Garcia-Gorriz E, et al. Effects of nutrient management scenarios on marine eutrophication indicators: a Pan-European Assessment in support of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (manuscript). 2020.
4.Blue Manifesto. The road map to a healthy ocean in 2030. 2020.
5.HELCOM. Diatom/Dinoflagellate index. HELCOM Pre-core Indicator Report. 2018.
6.Helsinki Commission. Ecosystem health of the Baltic Sea 2003–2007: HELCOM initial holistic assessment. 2017.
7.Hjerne O, Hajdu S, Larsson U, Downing A, Winder M. Climate driven changes in timing, composition and size of the Baltic Sea phytoplankton spring bloom. Front Mar Sci. 2019;6:482. 10.3389/fmars.2019.00482 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
8.Wasmund N, Kownacka J, Göbel J, Jaanus A, Johansen M, Jurgensone I, et al. The Diatom/Dinoflagellate index as an indicator of ecosystem changes in the Baltic Sea 1. Principle and handling instruction. Front Mar Sci. 2017;4:22. 10.3389/fmars.2017.00022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
9.Spilling K, Olli K, Lehtoranta J, Kremp A, Tedesco L, Tamelander T, et al. Shifting Diatom—Dinoflagellate dominance during spring bloom in the Baltic Sea and its potential effects on biogeochemical cycling. Front Mar Sci. 2018;5:327. 10.3389/fmars.2018.00327 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
10.Kari E, Merkouriadi I, Walve J, Leppäranta M, Kratzer S. Development of under-ice stratification in Himmerfjärden bay, North-Western Baltic proper, and their effect on the phytoplankton spring bloom. J Mar Syst. 2018;186:85–95. 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2018.06.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
11.Katlein C, Arndt S, Nicolaus M, Perovich DK, Jakuba MV, Suman S, et al. Influence of ice thickness and surface properties on light transmission through Arctic sea ice. J Geophys Res Ocean. 2015;120(9):5932–5944. 10.1002/2015JC010914 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Vihma T, Haapala J. Geophysics of sea ice in the Baltic Sea: a review. Prog Oceanogr. 2009;80(3/4):129–148. [Google Scholar]
13.Haapala JJ, Ronkainen I, Schmelzer N, Sztobryn M. Recent change—sea ice. In: The BACC II Author Team, editors. Second Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin. Regional Climate Studies. Cham: Springer; 2015. [Google Scholar]
14.Höglund A, Pemberton P, Hordoir R, Schimanke S. Ice conditions for maritime traffic in the Baltic Sea in future climate. Boreal Environ Res. 2017;22:245–65. [Google Scholar]
15.Thomas DN, Kaartokallio H, Tedesco L, Majaneva M, Piiparinen J, Eronen-Rasimus E, et al. Life associated with Baltic Sea ice. Biol 3 Oceanogr Balt Sea. 2017. 10.1007/978-94-007-0668-2_9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
16.Legrand C, Fridolfsson E, Bertos-Fortis M, Lindehoff E, Larsson P, Pinhassi J, et al. Interannual variability of phyto-bacterioplankton biomass and production in coastal and offshore waters of the Baltic Sea. Ambio. 2015;44(Suppl 3):427–438. 10.1007/s13280-015-0662-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Beall BFN, Twiss MR, Smith DE, Oyserman BO, Rozmarynowycz MJ, Binding CE, et al. Ice cover extent drives phytoplankton and bacterial community structure in a large north-temperate lake: implications for a warming climate. Environ Microbiol. 2015;18(6):1704–1719. 10.1111/1462-2920.12819 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Andersson A, Meier HEM, Ripszam M, Rowe O, Wikner J, Haglund P, et al. Projected future climate change and Baltic Sea ecosystem management. Ambio. 2015;44(3):345–356. 10.1007/s13280-015-0654-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Stipa T. The vernal bloom in heterogeneous convection: a numerical study of Baltic restratification. J Mar Syst. 2004;44(1–2):19–30. 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2003.08.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
20.Klais R, Tamminen T, Kremp A, Spilling K, An BW, Hajdu S, et al. Spring phytoplankton communities shaped by interannual weather variability and dispersal limitation: mechanisms of climate change effects on key coastal primary producers. Limnol Oceanogr. 2013;58(2):753–762. 10.4319/lo.2013.58.2.0753 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
21.Kremp A, Heiskanen AS. Sexuality and cyst formation of the spring-bloom dinoflagellate Scrippsiella hangoei in the coastal northern Baltic Sea. Mar Biol. 1999;134(4):771–777. 10.1007/s002270050594 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
22.Sildever S, Kremp A, Enke A, Buschmann F, Maljutenko I, Lips I. Spring bloom dinoflagellate cyst dynamics in three eastern sub-basins of the Baltic Sea. Cont Shelf Res. 2017;137:46–55. 10.1016/j.csr.2016.11.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
23.Groetsch PMM, Simis SGH, Eleveld MA, Peters SWM. Spring blooms in the Baltic Sea have weakened but lengthened from 2000 to 2014. Biogeosciences. 2016;13(17):4959–4973. 10.5194/bg-13-4959-2016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
24.Kahru M, Elmgren R, Savchuk OP. Changing seasonality of the Baltic Sea. Biogeosciences. 2016;13(4):1009–1018. 10.5194/bg-13-1009-2016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
25.Majaneva M, Rintala JM, Piisilä M, Fewer DP, Blomster J. Comparison of wintertime eukaryotic community from sea ice and open water in the Baltic Sea, based on sequencing of the 18S rRNA gene. Polar Biol. 2011;35(6):875–889. 10.1007/s00300-011-1132-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
26.Camarena-Gómez MT, Lipsewers T, Piiparinen J, Eronen-Rasimus E, Perez-Quemaliños D, Hoikkala L, et al. Shifts in phytoplankton community structure modify bacterial production, abundance and community composition. Aquat Microb Ecol. 2018;81(2):149–170. 10.3354/ame01868 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
27.Klais R, Tamminen T, Kremp A, Spilling K, Olli K. Decadal-scale changes of dinoflagellates and diatoms in the anomalous baltic sea spring bloom. PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e21567. 10.1371/journal.pone.0021567 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Margalef R, Estrada M, Blasco D. Functional morphology of organisms involved in red tides, as adapted to decaying turbulence [Dinoflagellates, Algae]. Developments in marine biology. 1979.
29.Luhtala H, Tolvanen H. Optimizing the use of Secchi depth as a proxy for euphotic depth in coastal waters: an empirical study from the Baltic Sea. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inform. 2013;2(4):1153–1168. 10.3390/ijgi2041153 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
30.Wong KT, Lee JH, Hodgkiss IJ. A simple model for forecast of coastal algal blooms. Est Coast Shelf Sci. 2007;74(1–2):175–196. 10.1016/j.ecss.2007.04.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
31.Kremp A, Tamminen T, Spilling K. Dinoflagellate bloom formation in natural assemblages with diatoms: nutrient competition and growth strategies in Baltic spring phytoplankton. Aquat Microb Ecol. 2008;50(2):181–196. 10.3354/ame01163 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
32.Suikkanen S, Hakanen P, Spilling K, Kremp A. Allelopathic effects of Baltic Sea spring bloom dinoflagellates on co-occurring phytoplankton. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2011;439:45–55. 10.3354/meps09356 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
33.Burchard H, Bolding K. GETM. a general estuarine transport model. Scientific documentation. JRC EUR Report 20253EN. 2002.
34.Stips A, Bolding K, Pohlmann T, Burchard H. Simulating the temporal and spatial dynamics of the North Sea using the new model GETM (general estuarine transport model). Ocean Dyn. 2004;54(2):266–283. 10.1007/s10236-003-0077-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
35.Bruggeman J, Bolding K. A general framework for aquatic biogeochemical models. Environ Model Softw. 2014;61:249–265. 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.04.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
36.Lessin G, Raudsepp U, Stips A. Modelling the influence of major Baltic inflows on near-bottom conditions at the entrance of the Gulf of Finland. PLoS One. 2014a;9(11):e112881. 10.1371/journal.pone.0112881 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Lessin G, Raudsepp U, Maljutenko I, Laanemets J, Passenko J, Jaanus A. Model study on present and future eutrophication and nitrogen fixation in the Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea. J Mar Syst. 2014b;129:76–85. 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.08.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
38.Neumann T, Fennel W, Kremp C. Experimental simulations with an ecosystem model of the Baltic Sea: a nutrient load reduction experiment. Global biogeochemical cycles. 2002. September;16(3):7–1. [Google Scholar]
39.Janssen F, Schrum C, Backhaus JO. A climatological data set of temperature and salinity for the Baltic Sea and the North Sea. Dtsch Hydrogr Zeitschrift. 1999;51:5–245. 10.1007/bf02933676 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
40.Pärn O, Friedland R, Garcia Gorriz E, Stips A. Report on the Biogeochemical Model Setup for the Baltic Sea and Its Applications. Luxembourg: EUR 30252 EN, Publications Office of the European Union; 2020. [Google Scholar]
41.Lei R, Leppäranta M, Erm A, Jaatinen E, Pärn O. Field investigations of apparent optical properties of ice cover in Finnish and Estonian lakes in winter 2009. Est J Earth Sci. 2011;60(1):50. 10.3176/earth.2011.1.05 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
42.Neumann T, Schernewski G. Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea and shifts in nitrogen fixation analyzed with a 3D ecosystem model. J Mar Syst. 2008;74(1–2):592–602. 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2008.05.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
43.Lips U, Lips I, Liblik T, Kuvaldina N. Processes responsible for the formation and maintenance of sub-surface chlorophyll maxima in the Gulf of Finland. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2010;88(3):339–349. 10.1016/j.ecss.2010.04.015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
44.Ronkainen I. Long-term changes in Baltic Sea ice conditions. MSc Thesis, Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Finland. 2013.
45.Elken J, Raudsepp U, Laanemets J, Passenko J, Maljutenko I, Pärn O, et al. Increased frequency of wintertime stratification collapse events in the Gulf of Finland since the 1990s. J Mar Syst. 2014;129:47–55. 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.04.015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
46.Rjazin J, Alari V, Pärn O. Classifying the ice seasons 1982–2016 using the weighted ice days number as a new winter severity characteristic. EUREKA Phys Eng. 2017;5:49–56. 10.21303/2461-4262.2017.00364 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
47.Pärn O, Haapala J. Occurrence of synoptic flaw leads of sea ice in the Gulf of Finland. Boreal Environ Rese. 2011;16(1):71–8. [Google Scholar]
48.Luomaranta A, Ruosteenoja K, Jylhä K, Gregow H, Haapala J, Laaksonen A. Multimodel estimates of the changes in the Baltic Sea ice cover during the present century. Tellus A Dyn Meteorol Oceanogr. 2014;66(1):22617. 10.3402/tellusa.v66.22617 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
49.Rjazin J, Pärn O. Determining the regime shift of the Baltic Sea ice seasons during 1982–2016. NAŠE MORE. 2020.
50.Renaut S, Devred E, Babin M. Northward expansion and intensification of phytoplankton growth during the early ice‐free season in Arctic. Geophys Res Lett. 2018;45(19):10–590. [Google Scholar]
51.Miklasz KA, Denny MW. Diatom sinkings speeds: Improved predictions and insight from a modified Stokes’ law. Limnol Oceanogr. 2010;55(6):2513–2525. 10.4319/lo.2010.55.6.2513 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242637.r001

Decision Letter 0

Arga Chandrashekar Anil

26 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-34799

Effects of sea ice and wind speed on Phytoplankton spring bloom in Central and Southern Baltic Sea

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pärn,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Both the reviewers have offered critical comments and have suggested major revision. The methodology followed and the inferences are also questioned. In view of such a review, though a major revision is suggested, authors need to convincingly answer the comments and take up much needed appropriate revision, for a fresh round of review.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 10 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Arga Chandrashekar Anil, Ph. D., D. Agr.,

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that there are some minor issues with English grammar and language usage. Such examples include, but are not limited to: "In recent years have been mainly mild winter." (line 101). While we do not feel that these are prevalent enough to necessitate the use of a professional editing service, we suggest that you have a native English speaker review and edit the text for you.

3.Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

[The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.].

At this time, please address the following queries:

Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.
State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”
If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.
If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that [Figure(s) 10 and 12] in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [10 and 12] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript titled “Effects of sea ice and wind speed on Phytoplankton spring bloom in Central and Southern Baltic Sea” by Parn et al. describes a model study of the phytoplankton spring bloom composition in the Central and Southern Baltic Sea in relation to ice cover. Experiments with an established hydrodynamic–biogeochemical model (GETM + ERGOM) lead the authors to an interesting conclusion that in years with sea ice - dinoflagellates dominate in the phytoplankton biomass and, vice versa, in years with no sea ice - diatoms dominate. The authors then extrapolate that into the future when diatoms are expected to dominate as ice will almost certainly either disappear or become rare in the Southern and Central Baltic Sea due to climate change. These conclusions are certainly interesting and even intriguing. The explanations given by the authors make sense but it remains puzzling for the world ocean where many areas never experience ice but have with huge dinoflagellate blooms and, on the contrary, areas of the Arctic and Antarctic oceans with ice are often dominated by diatoms. It is difficult to understand why the Baltic Sea would be such a peculiar case. In my opinion the modeling study has been performed at high professional level and I cannot find any technical problems that would be producing those intriguing results. However, it is quite possible that the inherently crude parametrization of the dynamics of diatom and dinoflagellate populations leads to these model results. Natural diatom and dinoflagellate populations have huge variations in their characteristics, e.g. cell size, growth and sinking speed, vertical mobility, etc. and parameters fixed to some estimates may not lead to realistic outcomes of the model.

The manuscript is definitely too long and looks more like a report. The text should be shortened and the flow of text improved. It has a fair share of typos and omissions. The following is just a sample.

Line 26, Kili Bay is in Taiwan. Do you mean the Kiel Bay?

Fig 1 does not seem to have a caption.

Reviewer #2: Review of Pärn et al Effects of sea ice and wind speed on Phytoplankton spring bloom in Central and Southern Baltic Sea.

The paper is a model study that investigates the spring bloom in the Baltic Sea, and in particular focuses on the shifting dominance between diatoms and dinoflagellates. There has been a shift over the past decades from diatom dominance towards more dinoflagellates during this period. The conclusion drawn from the paper suggests diatoms dominate the spring bloom when there is thick ice cover, whereas dinoflagellates dominate when the ice cover is thin. They also argue that diatoms will dominate when the ice cover is completely removed something that might take place in a warmer future.

I am not a modeler and cannot go into the details behind the model, but I found the paper interesting and worthy of publication although I am not sure about the general conclusion and would like to see some revision in that respect.

Getting the model to work with the slower growing dinoflagellates can be difficult, and it seems they had to increase the growth rate above what is published under optimal conditions for dinoflagellates. Also, large parts of the central Baltic Sea is very often without ice and still dinoflagellates seem to dominate, see e.g. Fig 4 in Klais et al 2011. So the distribution of dinoflagellate dominance extends from typically ice covered to not ice covered.

What I think is something missing in the model is the fact that the spring bloom is driven by the inflow of freshwater creating the initial stratification rather than thermal stratification which requires longer time for the surface layer to warm up. I would suggest to play around with this in the model, or at the very least bring up the limitations in the model in the discussion as it clearly is not well able to capture the dinoflagellate dominance in the southern and central parts of the Baltic Sea that is typically ice free every winter.

Minor comments

L 75: Could add a line explaining that diatoms are non-motile and sink quicker whereas dinoflagellates are motile and can position themselves vertically.

L 79 Most of dinoflagellates sink in the form of cysts, otherwise vegitative cells tend to lyse before reaching the seafloor and still diatoms is probably the more quickly sinking group.

L 81: This is only in the case of the resting cysts that are not decomposed in the sediment

L84-97: The difference in growth rate is the same between dia and dinos in the Baltic Sea (Spilling and Markager 2008 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2006.10.012). What is likely a factor is timing of requirement (Kremp et al 2008) and stratification. What is different in the Baltic Sea from many other coastal regions is the massive freshwater outflow at spring and salinity stratification rather than thermal stratification playing an effect (Stipa 2002 & 2004) which is important for the start of the spring bloom.

L123. 0.7 d-1 is likely too high, 0.4 d-1 is more realistic

L124 ranging 0.6 to 1.4 d-1 depending on species

L313: In reality dinoflagellates are actually the dominating group at least in station 32.

L440-41: no they actually swim

L477-479: sounds like there was no spring bloom in the past

L483-486: There is ample evidence dinoflagellates dominate even under ice free winters so I do not buy this conclusion, a more interesting question is why the model gets it wrong.

Some new and relevant citations:

Hjerne, Olle, Susanna Hajdu, Ulf Larsson, Andrea Downing, and Monika Winder. "Climate driven changes in timing, composition and size of the Baltic Sea phytoplankton spring bloom." Frontiers in Marine Science 6 (2019): 482.

Lipsewers, Tobias, Riina Klais, Maria Teresa Camarena-Gómez, and Kristian Spilling. "Effects of different plankton communities and spring bloom phases on seston C: N: P: Si: chl a ratios in the Baltic Sea." Marine Ecology Progress Series 644 (2020): 15-31.

Camarena‐Gómez, María Teresa, Clara Ruiz‐González, Jonna Piiparinen, Tobias Lipsewers, Cristina Sobrino, Ramiro Logares, and Kristian Spilling. "Bacterioplankton dynamics driven by interannual and spatial variation in diatom and dinoflagellate spring bloom communities in the Baltic Sea." Limnology and Oceanography (2020).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 3;16(3):e0242637. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242637.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

14 Jan 2021

Our sincere thanks for the relevant suggestions and comments that improve the quality of the manuscript and open up new perspectives.

1.1 Reviewer #1: These conclusions are certainly interesting and even intriguing. The explanations given by the authors make sense but it remains puzzling for the world ocean where many areas never experience ice but have with huge dinoflagellate blooms and, on the contrary, areas of the Arctic and Antarctic oceans with ice are often dominated by diatoms. It is difficult to understand why the Baltic Sea would be such a peculiar case.

The focus of our manuscript is indeed on the influence of ice and wind. However, the mechanism of dominance of diatoms or dinoflagellates depends on many other factors such as water density (salinity, temperature), circulation characteristics (like upwelling), wind (water turbulent mixing), nutrient concentrations and balance, as well as phytoplankton physiology.

Example, 3-4 days of wind silence (wind speed <5 m / s) can be very favorable for dinoflagellates.

We strongly agree that there are open points for discussion and further research (specifically multi-year and climate scenario simulations) and ecosystem model development are needed for parametrization of phytoplankton.

1.2 Reviewer #1: “ However, it is quite possible that the inherently crude parametrization of the dynamics of diatom and dinoflagellate populations leads to these model results. Natural diatom and dinoflagellate populations have huge variations in their characteristics, e.g. cell size, growth and sinking speed, vertical mobility, etc. and parameters fixed to some estimates may not lead to realistic outcomes of the model.”

We fully agree with the reviewer that there are huge variations in the phytoplankton community. However, the model is inevitably a highly simplified representation of reality, where dominant types of phytoplankton are grouped according to similar characteristics (ref ERGOM papers). Updating the model according to up-to-date knowledge on phytoplankton ecology and physiology (including production of cysts), and possibly diversifying functional types of phytoplankton to include higher variability, are necessary to improve its performance in the future.

1.3 Reviewer #1: The manuscript is definitely too long and looks more like a report.

We would like to thank the reviewer for his comment and pointing this out.

The paragraph “Ice Conditions during Spring Bloom” has now been removed from the paper to shorten its overall length.

We have reformulated the discussions and have specified the scope of the paper.

2.1 Reviewer #2: Getting the model to work with the slower growing dinoflagellates can be difficult, and it seems they had to increase the growth rate above what is published under optimal conditions for dinoflagellates.

L123. 0.7 d-1 is likely too high, 0.4 d-1 is more realistic

We agree with the reviewer that the values of the phytoplankton parameters need further improvement and the development of the model is in progress.

When we used 0.4 d-1 in the model, the dia/dino index in the results obtained was not a close match with the results of Wasmund [1]. However, after changing the value to 0.7 d-1, we were able to obtain results which were a closer match to the results of Wasmund.

Therefore, we have used the value of the Ecological Regional Ocean Model (IOW ergom) 0.7 [2] which is used by the The Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research, Warnemünde.

2.2 Reviewer #2: “Also, large parts of the central Baltic Sea is very often without ice and still dinoflagellates seem to dominate, see e.g. Fig 4 in Klais et al 2011. So the distribution of dinoflagellate dominance extends from typically ice covered to not ice covered.”

Diatoms need less light and have a higher growth rate in the model, so they are more dominant. According to the model, dinoflagellates can only grow if the concentration of diatoms is low enough. This allows more light on the sea surface leading to the dominance of dinoflagellates. This is a situation that can exist in the central parts of the Baltic Sea.

Another situation that can occur is when diatoms sink deep from the surface. Such conditions occur when there is ice in the area or when the daily average wind speed is less than 5 m/s. The circulation is also important.

In view of the foregoing, despite the central Baltic Sea often being without ice, dinoflagellates still seem to dominate because of the low wind speed that is not fully mixing the sea surface layers and ensuring that diatoms sink to the bottom. Also, the concentration of the diatoms is principally smaller (compared to the coastal areas) allowing the dinoflagellates to absorb light creating optimal conditions for their growth and dominance.

2.3 Reviewer #2: “L483-486: There is ample evidence dinoflagellates dominate even under ice free winters so I do not buy this conclusion, a more interesting question is why the model gets it wrong.”

The reviewer is correct that the algal spring bloom in the Baltic Sea was often characterised by the dominance of dinoflagellates over diatoms. However, in our experiments, in ice free open sea areas, often diatoms were found to dominate. On the other hand, the stratification caused in the water due to several variables would lead to a situation favouring the dominance of dinoflagellates, but this is potentially more important for coastal regions.

We understand that the model is not perfect but it has been reliable in the experiments we have conducted so far. However, this paper would give impetus to further the development of the model.

2.4 Reviewer #2: “What I think is something missing in the model is the fact that the spring bloom is driven by the inflow of freshwater creating the initial stratification rather than thermal stratification which requires longer time for the surface layer to warm up.”

Yes, freshwater runoff has importance for the spring bloom. Inflow of freshwater is considered in the model and it plays a role with regard to nutrient input and stratification. However, in our modelling experiment we did not analyse the effects of freshwater inputs separately, focusing on integrated change in the upper water column dynamics due to lack of ice. As we were only simulating a single spring bloom event, the effect of freshwater inputs might have been not pronounced, and would be more apparent in long-term simulations, which we are currently considering as a follow-up to this work.

2.5 Reviewer #2: “L84-97: The difference in growth rate is the same between dia and dinos in the Baltic Sea (Spilling and Markager 2008 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2006.10.012).

Many thanks for the relevant article references.

In the model we have used different growth rates for diatom and dinoflagellate, 0.7 d-1 and 1.3 d-1 respectively. We have increased the growth rate of dinoflagellate from 0.4 to 0.7 [2, Neumann 2002]. According to the reference, it seems that a reduction in the growth rate of the diatom would have been more justified.

2.6 Reviewer #2: What is likely a factor is timing of requirement (Kremp et al 2008) and stratification. What is different in the Baltic Sea from many other coastal regions is the massive freshwater outflow at spring and salinity stratification rather than thermal stratification playing an effect (Stipa 2002 & 2004) which is important for the start of the spring bloom.

Our model does take into account the outflow of freshwater. However, our modelling experiment with and without ice cover demonstrates that presence/absence of ice as an important factor shaping the composition of phytoplankton spring bloom. We certainly agree that there are other factors at play which will influence these dynamics in the future, including changes in atmospheric forcing, runoff and nutrient balance. We have changed relevant parts of the text to clarify this.

2.7 Reviewer #2: “L 75: Could add a line explaining that diatoms are non-motile and sink quicker whereas dinoflagellates are motile and can position themselves vertically.”

Thank you, we changed the sentence in Introduction:

Wind is one of the factors governing vertical mixing within the euphotic layer ( ~9.6 m in Baltic, [29]) and in stagnant water, the diatoms, being non-motile and heavier, sink quickly, whereas the dinoflagellates are motile and can therefore position themselves vertically.

2.8 Reviewer #2: L313: In reality dinoflagellates are actually the dominating group at least in station 32.

Phytoplankton composition has a great deal of variability, both in space and time.

For example, on 14 and 15 March 2002, 14 measurements were made in a small sea area (data from Irina Olenina), 20⁰5’-21⁰01’; 55⁰39’-56⁰01’ (not too far from station 32).

The mean biomass of the diatoms was 1024µG/L and the standard deviation was 880µG/L. The maximum value was 3425µG/L and the minimum was 71µG/L. The mean value of the dinoflagellates was 38µG/L.

However, only a month later, the mean value of the dinoflagellates was 972µG/L, (std= 915µG/L, min=176, max = 2710), while the mean value of the diatoms was 420µG/L (std=519, min 24, max=1308).

Therefore, it can be seen that one station cannot be fairly representative of which phytoplankton group is dominant during bloom when the measurements are taken only 1 or 2 times during spring.

2.9 Reviewer #2: L440-41: no they actually swim

Agreed; however, for simplicity, the model formulation does not take the ability of dinoflagellates to swim into account. We believe this assumption is justified given their slow speed of movement and the spatial resolution of the model applied in this study.

2.10 Reviewer #2: L477-479: sounds like there was no spring bloom in the past

We agree that the sentence was not clearly formulated. We have changed this sentence:

1. In the past, at the beginning of spring, the sea ice was so thick that the lack of light limited the growth of the phytoplankton [50]. Therefore, phytoplankton spring blooms occurred later, in the middle or end of May. Diatoms dominated in the southern part of the Baltic Sea where sea ice was absent.

References

1. Wasmund N. The diatom/dinoflagellate index as an indicator of ecosystem changes in the baltic sea. 2. historical data for use in determination of good environmental status. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2017 Jun 8;4:153.

2. Neumann T, Fennel W, Kremp C. Experimental simulations with an ecosystem model of the Baltic Sea: a nutrient load reduction experiment. Global biogeochemical cycles. 2002 Sep;16(3):7-1.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(23.1KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242637.r003

Decision Letter 1

Arga Chandrashekar Anil

1 Feb 2021

Effects of sea ice and wind speed on Phytoplankton spring bloom in Central and Southern Baltic Sea

PONE-D-20-34799R1

Dear Dr. Pärn,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Arga Chandrashekar Anil, Ph. D., D. Agr.,

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: I am happy with the response to the review and the changes done. There are still a few typos so please read carefully through it before the final version goes to print.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242637.r004

Acceptance letter

Arga Chandrashekar Anil

4 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-34799R1

Effects of sea ice and wind speed on Phytoplankton spring bloom in Central and Southern Baltic Sea

Dear Dr. Pärn:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Arga Chandrashekar Anil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Fig. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station 14 in spring 2010.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(161.6KB, tiff)}

S2 Fig. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station 14 in spring 2011.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(154.4KB, tiff)}

S3 Fig. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station G1 in spring 2010.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(143.9KB, tiff)}

S4 Fig. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station G1 in spring 2011.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(139.1KB, tiff)}

S5 Fig. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station 32 in spring 2010.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(119KB, tiff)}

S6 Fig. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station 32 in spring 2011.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(114.1KB, tiff)}

S7 Fig. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station OMBPK3 in spring 2010.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(146.9KB, tiff)}

S8 Fig. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station OMBPK3 in spring 2011.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(135.7KB, tiff)}

S1 Table. Peak of chlorophyll-a in April 2013.

Data from Baltic Nest, ICES and satellite data from Copernicus database.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.7KB, docx)}

S2 Table. The table shows dia/dino index and records stating the existence of ice.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.1KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(23.1KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

[pone.0242637.ref001] 1.Gustafsson BG, Schenk F, Blenckner T, Eilola K, Meier HM, Müller-Karulis B, et al. Reconstructing the development of Baltic Sea eutrophication 1850–2006. Ambio. 2012;41(6):534–48. 10.1007/s13280-012-0318-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref002] 2.Wasmund N. The Diatom/Dinoflagellate index as an indicator of ecosystem changes in the Baltic Sea. 2. Historical data for use in determination of good environmental status. Front Mar Sci. 2017;4:153. 10.3389/fmars.2017.00153 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref003] 3.Friedland R, Macias D, Cossarini G, Daewel U, Estournel C, Garcia-Gorriz E, et al. Effects of nutrient management scenarios on marine eutrophication indicators: a Pan-European Assessment in support of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (manuscript). 2020.

[pone.0242637.ref004] 4.Blue Manifesto. The road map to a healthy ocean in 2030. 2020.

[pone.0242637.ref005] 5.HELCOM. Diatom/Dinoflagellate index. HELCOM Pre-core Indicator Report. 2018.

[pone.0242637.ref006] 6.Helsinki Commission. Ecosystem health of the Baltic Sea 2003–2007: HELCOM initial holistic assessment. 2017.

[pone.0242637.ref007] 7.Hjerne O, Hajdu S, Larsson U, Downing A, Winder M. Climate driven changes in timing, composition and size of the Baltic Sea phytoplankton spring bloom. Front Mar Sci. 2019;6:482. 10.3389/fmars.2019.00482 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref008] 8.Wasmund N, Kownacka J, Göbel J, Jaanus A, Johansen M, Jurgensone I, et al. The Diatom/Dinoflagellate index as an indicator of ecosystem changes in the Baltic Sea 1. Principle and handling instruction. Front Mar Sci. 2017;4:22. 10.3389/fmars.2017.00022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref009] 9.Spilling K, Olli K, Lehtoranta J, Kremp A, Tedesco L, Tamelander T, et al. Shifting Diatom—Dinoflagellate dominance during spring bloom in the Baltic Sea and its potential effects on biogeochemical cycling. Front Mar Sci. 2018;5:327. 10.3389/fmars.2018.00327 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref010] 10.Kari E, Merkouriadi I, Walve J, Leppäranta M, Kratzer S. Development of under-ice stratification in Himmerfjärden bay, North-Western Baltic proper, and their effect on the phytoplankton spring bloom. J Mar Syst. 2018;186:85–95. 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2018.06.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref011] 11.Katlein C, Arndt S, Nicolaus M, Perovich DK, Jakuba MV, Suman S, et al. Influence of ice thickness and surface properties on light transmission through Arctic sea ice. J Geophys Res Ocean. 2015;120(9):5932–5944. 10.1002/2015JC010914 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref012] 12.Vihma T, Haapala J. Geophysics of sea ice in the Baltic Sea: a review. Prog Oceanogr. 2009;80(3/4):129–148. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref013] 13.Haapala JJ, Ronkainen I, Schmelzer N, Sztobryn M. Recent change—sea ice. In: The BACC II Author Team, editors. Second Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin. Regional Climate Studies. Cham: Springer; 2015. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref014] 14.Höglund A, Pemberton P, Hordoir R, Schimanke S. Ice conditions for maritime traffic in the Baltic Sea in future climate. Boreal Environ Res. 2017;22:245–65. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref015] 15.Thomas DN, Kaartokallio H, Tedesco L, Majaneva M, Piiparinen J, Eronen-Rasimus E, et al. Life associated with Baltic Sea ice. Biol 3 Oceanogr Balt Sea. 2017. 10.1007/978-94-007-0668-2_9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref016] 16.Legrand C, Fridolfsson E, Bertos-Fortis M, Lindehoff E, Larsson P, Pinhassi J, et al. Interannual variability of phyto-bacterioplankton biomass and production in coastal and offshore waters of the Baltic Sea. Ambio. 2015;44(Suppl 3):427–438. 10.1007/s13280-015-0662-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref017] 17.Beall BFN, Twiss MR, Smith DE, Oyserman BO, Rozmarynowycz MJ, Binding CE, et al. Ice cover extent drives phytoplankton and bacterial community structure in a large north-temperate lake: implications for a warming climate. Environ Microbiol. 2015;18(6):1704–1719. 10.1111/1462-2920.12819 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref018] 18.Andersson A, Meier HEM, Ripszam M, Rowe O, Wikner J, Haglund P, et al. Projected future climate change and Baltic Sea ecosystem management. Ambio. 2015;44(3):345–356. 10.1007/s13280-015-0654-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref019] 19.Stipa T. The vernal bloom in heterogeneous convection: a numerical study of Baltic restratification. J Mar Syst. 2004;44(1–2):19–30. 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2003.08.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref020] 20.Klais R, Tamminen T, Kremp A, Spilling K, An BW, Hajdu S, et al. Spring phytoplankton communities shaped by interannual weather variability and dispersal limitation: mechanisms of climate change effects on key coastal primary producers. Limnol Oceanogr. 2013;58(2):753–762. 10.4319/lo.2013.58.2.0753 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref021] 21.Kremp A, Heiskanen AS. Sexuality and cyst formation of the spring-bloom dinoflagellate Scrippsiella hangoei in the coastal northern Baltic Sea. Mar Biol. 1999;134(4):771–777. 10.1007/s002270050594 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref022] 22.Sildever S, Kremp A, Enke A, Buschmann F, Maljutenko I, Lips I. Spring bloom dinoflagellate cyst dynamics in three eastern sub-basins of the Baltic Sea. Cont Shelf Res. 2017;137:46–55. 10.1016/j.csr.2016.11.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref023] 23.Groetsch PMM, Simis SGH, Eleveld MA, Peters SWM. Spring blooms in the Baltic Sea have weakened but lengthened from 2000 to 2014. Biogeosciences. 2016;13(17):4959–4973. 10.5194/bg-13-4959-2016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref024] 24.Kahru M, Elmgren R, Savchuk OP. Changing seasonality of the Baltic Sea. Biogeosciences. 2016;13(4):1009–1018. 10.5194/bg-13-1009-2016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref025] 25.Majaneva M, Rintala JM, Piisilä M, Fewer DP, Blomster J. Comparison of wintertime eukaryotic community from sea ice and open water in the Baltic Sea, based on sequencing of the 18S rRNA gene. Polar Biol. 2011;35(6):875–889. 10.1007/s00300-011-1132-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref026] 26.Camarena-Gómez MT, Lipsewers T, Piiparinen J, Eronen-Rasimus E, Perez-Quemaliños D, Hoikkala L, et al. Shifts in phytoplankton community structure modify bacterial production, abundance and community composition. Aquat Microb Ecol. 2018;81(2):149–170. 10.3354/ame01868 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref027] 27.Klais R, Tamminen T, Kremp A, Spilling K, Olli K. Decadal-scale changes of dinoflagellates and diatoms in the anomalous baltic sea spring bloom. PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e21567. 10.1371/journal.pone.0021567 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref028] 28.Margalef R, Estrada M, Blasco D. Functional morphology of organisms involved in red tides, as adapted to decaying turbulence [Dinoflagellates, Algae]. Developments in marine biology. 1979.

[pone.0242637.ref029] 29.Luhtala H, Tolvanen H. Optimizing the use of Secchi depth as a proxy for euphotic depth in coastal waters: an empirical study from the Baltic Sea. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inform. 2013;2(4):1153–1168. 10.3390/ijgi2041153 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref030] 30.Wong KT, Lee JH, Hodgkiss IJ. A simple model for forecast of coastal algal blooms. Est Coast Shelf Sci. 2007;74(1–2):175–196. 10.1016/j.ecss.2007.04.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref031] 31.Kremp A, Tamminen T, Spilling K. Dinoflagellate bloom formation in natural assemblages with diatoms: nutrient competition and growth strategies in Baltic spring phytoplankton. Aquat Microb Ecol. 2008;50(2):181–196. 10.3354/ame01163 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref032] 32.Suikkanen S, Hakanen P, Spilling K, Kremp A. Allelopathic effects of Baltic Sea spring bloom dinoflagellates on co-occurring phytoplankton. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2011;439:45–55. 10.3354/meps09356 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref033] 33.Burchard H, Bolding K. GETM. a general estuarine transport model. Scientific documentation. JRC EUR Report 20253EN. 2002.

[pone.0242637.ref034] 34.Stips A, Bolding K, Pohlmann T, Burchard H. Simulating the temporal and spatial dynamics of the North Sea using the new model GETM (general estuarine transport model). Ocean Dyn. 2004;54(2):266–283. 10.1007/s10236-003-0077-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref035] 35.Bruggeman J, Bolding K. A general framework for aquatic biogeochemical models. Environ Model Softw. 2014;61:249–265. 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.04.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref036] 36.Lessin G, Raudsepp U, Stips A. Modelling the influence of major Baltic inflows on near-bottom conditions at the entrance of the Gulf of Finland. PLoS One. 2014a;9(11):e112881. 10.1371/journal.pone.0112881 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref037] 37.Lessin G, Raudsepp U, Maljutenko I, Laanemets J, Passenko J, Jaanus A. Model study on present and future eutrophication and nitrogen fixation in the Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea. J Mar Syst. 2014b;129:76–85. 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.08.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref038] 38.Neumann T, Fennel W, Kremp C. Experimental simulations with an ecosystem model of the Baltic Sea: a nutrient load reduction experiment. Global biogeochemical cycles. 2002. September;16(3):7–1. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref039] 39.Janssen F, Schrum C, Backhaus JO. A climatological data set of temperature and salinity for the Baltic Sea and the North Sea. Dtsch Hydrogr Zeitschrift. 1999;51:5–245. 10.1007/bf02933676 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref040] 40.Pärn O, Friedland R, Garcia Gorriz E, Stips A. Report on the Biogeochemical Model Setup for the Baltic Sea and Its Applications. Luxembourg: EUR 30252 EN, Publications Office of the European Union; 2020. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref041] 41.Lei R, Leppäranta M, Erm A, Jaatinen E, Pärn O. Field investigations of apparent optical properties of ice cover in Finnish and Estonian lakes in winter 2009. Est J Earth Sci. 2011;60(1):50. 10.3176/earth.2011.1.05 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref042] 42.Neumann T, Schernewski G. Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea and shifts in nitrogen fixation analyzed with a 3D ecosystem model. J Mar Syst. 2008;74(1–2):592–602. 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2008.05.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref043] 43.Lips U, Lips I, Liblik T, Kuvaldina N. Processes responsible for the formation and maintenance of sub-surface chlorophyll maxima in the Gulf of Finland. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2010;88(3):339–349. 10.1016/j.ecss.2010.04.015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref044] 44.Ronkainen I. Long-term changes in Baltic Sea ice conditions. MSc Thesis, Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Finland. 2013.

[pone.0242637.ref045] 45.Elken J, Raudsepp U, Laanemets J, Passenko J, Maljutenko I, Pärn O, et al. Increased frequency of wintertime stratification collapse events in the Gulf of Finland since the 1990s. J Mar Syst. 2014;129:47–55. 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.04.015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref046] 46.Rjazin J, Alari V, Pärn O. Classifying the ice seasons 1982–2016 using the weighted ice days number as a new winter severity characteristic. EUREKA Phys Eng. 2017;5:49–56. 10.21303/2461-4262.2017.00364 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref047] 47.Pärn O, Haapala J. Occurrence of synoptic flaw leads of sea ice in the Gulf of Finland. Boreal Environ Rese. 2011;16(1):71–8. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref048] 48.Luomaranta A, Ruosteenoja K, Jylhä K, Gregow H, Haapala J, Laaksonen A. Multimodel estimates of the changes in the Baltic Sea ice cover during the present century. Tellus A Dyn Meteorol Oceanogr. 2014;66(1):22617. 10.3402/tellusa.v66.22617 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref049] 49.Rjazin J, Pärn O. Determining the regime shift of the Baltic Sea ice seasons during 1982–2016. NAŠE MORE. 2020.

[pone.0242637.ref050] 50.Renaut S, Devred E, Babin M. Northward expansion and intensification of phytoplankton growth during the early ice‐free season in Arctic. Geophys Res Lett. 2018;45(19):10–590. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0242637.ref051] 51.Miklasz KA, Denny MW. Diatom sinkings speeds: Improved predictions and insight from a modified Stokes’ law. Limnol Oceanogr. 2010;55(6):2513–2525. 10.4319/lo.2010.55.6.2513 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Effects of sea ice and wind speed on phytoplankton spring bloom in central and southern Baltic Sea

Ove Pärn

Gennadi Lessin

Adolf Stips

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Model description and set-up

Fig 1.

Model validation

Ice and phytoplankton data

The Dia/Dino index

Results

Effect of sea ice on the composition of spring bloom in the central Baltic Sea

Fig 2. Average diatom and dinoflagellate concentrations over the central Baltic Sea in spring 2013 in the biggest area (Fig 1) over which sea ice was present during the season.

Fig 3. Daily average of photosynthetically active radiation (PARi) on the water surface under ice.

Dinoflagellates and diatoms at stations

Fig 4. Simulated diatom and dinoflagellate concentrations at station 14.

Fig 5. Modelled diatom and dinoflagellate concentrations at station G1.

Fig 6. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m3) at station 14 in spring 2013.

Fig 7. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m3) at station G1 in spring 2013.

Fig 8. Diatom and dinoflagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m3) at station 32 in spring 2013.

Fig 9. Diatom and dinoflagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m3) at station OMBPK3 in spring 2013.

Modelled Dia/Dino index at stations

Table 1. Dia/Dino index average between 10 March-05 May.

Measured Dia/Dino index

Dia/Dino index and sea ice conditions

Fig 10. Sea ice concentration on the day of phytoplankton measurement.

The correlation between measured phytoplankton and wind speed in spring

Fig 11. Dia/dino index calculated from the measurements and five-day wind speed average from 1993–2008.

The correlation between modelled phytoplankton and wind speed in spring

Fig 12. The correlation coefficient (R) between a 5-day moving average wind speed and phytoplankton biomass.

Modelling of wind reduction scenario

Fig 13. Increase of dinoflagellates due to the wind reduction.

Fig 14. Distribution of nutrients (DIN and DIP) in the reference and the wind reduction run.

Discussion

Conclusions

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Arga Chandrashekar Anil

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Arga Chandrashekar Anil

Roles

Acceptance letter

Arga Chandrashekar Anil

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases

Fig 6. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station 14 in spring 2013.

Fig 7. Diatom and flagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station G1 in spring 2013.

Fig 8. Diatom and dinoflagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station 32 in spring 2013.

Fig 9. Diatom and dinoflagellate concentrations (Chl mg/m³) at station OMBPK3 in spring 2013.