Revealing the seasonal cycles of Arctic phytoplankton: insights from year-round chlorophyll monitoring

• Published in: Environmental research letters Vol. 19; no. 2; pp. 24028 - 24038
• Main Authors: Ko, Eunho, Park, Jisoo, Cho, Kyoung-Ho, Yoo, Jaeill, Moon, Jong Kuk, Shim, Chorom, Yang, Eun Jin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Bristol IOP Publishing 01.02.2024
• Subjects: Arctic Ocean; Biogeochemistry; Chlorophyll; Ice cover; Ice thickness; Korean Arctic Mooring System; Light distribution; Model accuracy; Mooring; Ocean temperature; Ocean warming; Phytoplankton; phytoplankton seasonality; Plankton; Primary production; Sea ice; under-ice blooms; Arctic Ocean; Arctic region
• ISSN: 1748-9326; 1748-9326
• DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ad1e7e

Abstract Rapid Arctic Ocean warming has caused severe sea ice decline, impacting light distribution, phytoplankton blooms, and primary production. We investigated Arctic phytoplankton bloom timing using continuous chlorophyll-a fluorescence data obtained from three Korea Arctic Mooring Systems (KAMSs) deployed north of the East Siberian Sea (KAMS1), north of the Chukchi Sea (KAMS2), and the middle of the Northwind Ridge (KAMS4). Our findings revealed that the bloom initiation times were June 4 (±28 d) in KAMS1, June 24 in KAMS2, and May 21 (±6 d) in KAMS4, when the sea ice concentration (SIC) was >90% and the ice thickness was 1–2 m, indicating that the under-ice phytoplankton blooms (UIBs) developed 1–2 months before the sea ice retreated (mid-July, when SIC was <80%). Peak bloom and termination times were consistently observed in early August and mid-October, respectively. The average phytoplankton bloom lasted for approximately four months, longer than the open water periods at the mooring sites. However, the timing of the phytoplankton blooms from the biogeochemical model-based reconstructions was, on average, 6–10 weeks later than that deduced from the observed data. Furthermore, the maximum chlorophyll-a concentration observed during the bloom peak was approximately ten-times higher than that indicated by the biogeochemical model-based reconstructions (1.81 vs. 0.17 mg −3 ). The differences in chlorophyll-a concentrations and bloom timings indicate that biogeochemical models remain insufficient for simulating the phytoplankton dynamics of the Arctic Ocean, such as UIBs and the subsurface chlorophyll maximum layer. Based on the continuously observed chlorophyll-a concentrations, we gained a precise understanding of the seasonal cycles of Arctic phytoplankton, including UIBs. These valuable data will contribute to improving the accuracy of biogeochemical models of the Arctic Ocean.