Achim Randelhoff¹²*, Johnna Holding³⁴, Markus Janout⁵, Mikael Kristian Sejr³⁴, Marcel Babin¹², Jean-Éric Tremblay¹², Matthew B. Alkire⁶⁷

¹ Takuvik Joint International Laboratory, Université Laval (QC, Canada) and CNRS (France)

² Département de biologie and Québec-Océan, Université Laval (QC, Canada)

³ Arctic Research Centre, Aarhus University, Ny Munkegade 114, bldg. 1540, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark

⁴ Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Vejlsøvej 25, 8600, Silkeborg, Denmark

⁵ Alfred-Wegener-Institute Helmholtz Center for Polar and Marine Research, Am Handelshafen 12, D-27570 Bremerhaven, Germany

⁶ Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA

⁷ Now at: School of Oceanography, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA

* Correspondance:

Achim Randelhoff, achim.randelhoff@takuvik.ulaval.ca

Keywords: Arctic, turbulence, nitrate, flux, primary production, climate change, sea ice

Abstract

Arctic Ocean primary productivity is limited by light and inorganic nutrients. With recent decades’ decreasing sea ice cover,cover declining in recent decades, nitrate limitation is thoughthas been speculated to become more prominent. Although much has been learned about nitrate supply from general patterns of ocean circulation and water column stability, a quantitative analysis requires dedicated turbulence measurements that have only started to accumulate in the last dozen years. Here we present new observations of the turbulent vertical nitrate flux in the Laptev Sea, Baffin Bay, and Young Sound (North-East Greenland), supplemented bysupplementing a compilation of 13 published estimates throughout the Arctic Ocean. Combining thoseall flux estimates with a Pan-Arctic database of in situ measurements of nitrate concentration and density, we found the annual nitrate inventory to be largely determined by the strength of stratification, but alsostratification and by bathymetry. Nitrate fluxes explained the observed regional patterns and magnitudes of both new primary production and particle export.export on annual scales. We argue that with few regional exceptions, vertical turbulent nitrate fluxes arecan be a reliable proxy of Arctic primary production accessible bythrough autonomous and large-scale measurements. They may also provide a framework to projectassess nutrient limitation scenarios into the future based on clear energetic and mass budget constraints resulting from turbulent mixing and freshwater flows.

Introduction

Without upward mixing of nutrients, much of the ocean would harbour no life (Ambühl 1959; Margalef 1978); the Arctic Ocean is no exception. The reason is essentially that algae, in particularAs dead algae,algae and other particulate matter have the tendency to sink due to their higher density, and hence nutrients are constantly being removed from the surface waters. Phytoplankton, in turn, has to relyPhytoplankton therefore relies on a resupply of nutrients in order to be able to grow and re-build theirits standing stock every year. Consequently, primary production, which occursoccurring in the euphotic zone where light levels are sufficient to support net growth, depends on how muchis controlled by the vertical flux of new nitrate is brought upnutrients from below the photic zone each year and is hencethus available to new productionproduction, i.e. uptake of allochthonous nitrate (see Appendix and Dugdale and Goering 1967).

While turbulence is a concernan important factor for aquatic life everywhere, the Arctic Ocean is special in certain regards, most notably itsregards such as a ubiquitous sea ice cover and the strong stratification linked to its estuarine nature (Aagaard and Carmack 1989). Large summertime accumulation of meltwater from sea ice and terrestrial runoff has profound impacts on the vertical mixing in the upper ocean (McPhee and Kantha 1989; Randelhoff, Fer, and Sundfjord 2017; Cole et al. 2018). The Arctic seasonal freeze-melt alternation dominates over diurnal cyclesIn winter, brine rejection from freezing ice weakens stratification and creates turbulence (McPhee 1992)and Stanton 1996) due to low sun angles, such. We will show throughout this paper that there is often only seasonal nitrate limitation, and winter mixing is disproportionately important for setting mixed-layer properties, as will be shown throughout this paper.properties.

Sea ice is often assumed to be a rather rigid lid(Padman 1995) that shuts out a large portion of the sunlight as well as wind energy that could otherwise mix the ocean. As muchWith continued decline of thissea ice is meltingextent and thickness in the course of the 21st century (Stroeve et al. 2012; Comiso 2012)2012; Meier et al. 2014), the factors limiting Arctic marine growth will likely change. Such a transition in limiting factors usually leads to difficulties in predicting systems (Allen and Hoekstra 2015). Indeed, Vancoppenolle et al. (2013) found that three different coupled biogeochemical general circulation models and their predictions for integrated Arctic Ocean primary production until the end of this century show vastly diverging trajectories with opposite trends beyond a few decades from now. In their analysis, a prominent uncertainty concerned the resupplyevolution of nitrate tothe nitrogen pool in the photic zone, whichzone. Yet since phytoplankton growth is currentlya rate and not well constrained. Hencea stock, one practical implication of ourshould ideally measure the nitrogen flux, not its concentration at a given time, to determine primary production in the long term. Our lack of understanding of the vertical nitrate flux ishas resulted in the failure to consistently predict future Arctic Ocean primary production.

Stratification inhibits vertical mixing (Osborn 1980) and henceconsequently vertical turbulent nitrate fluxes. The Arctic Ocean can furthermore be divided into a weakly stratified Atlantic sector and a strongly stratified Pacific one (e.g. Carmack 2007; Bluhm, Kosobokova, and Carmack 2015; Tremblay et al. 2015). Vertical turbulent nitrate fluxes are hencetherefore routinely invoked to explain patterns of primary production across the Arctic, such as basin scale differences (E. Carmack et al. 2006; Tremblay et al. 2015; Achim Randelhoff and Guthrie 2016), but also an apparently increasing prevalence of fall blooms (Ardyna et al. 2014; Nishino et al. 2015), and even fjord scale differences depending on glacier morphology (Hopwood et al. 2018). These observations are mostly qualitative and rarely quantified with direct measurements. Whereas the vertical nitrate flux in the world ocean has received attention at least since the late 1980s (Lewis et al. 1986), dedicated measurements in the Arctic Ocean have only started to accumulate in the last dozen years. We use this opportunity to summarize the current state of knowledge, test critical hypotheses aboutknowledge and investigate the role of vertical turbulent nitrate fluxes in regulating Arctic marine productivity, andproductivity. Interestingly, we find that vertical mixing largely explains marine primary productivity at the pan-Arctic scale. Finally, we outline further research directions to unify physical constraints of Arctic Ocean primary production.

Physical processes other than vertical mixing, such as advection (Torres-Valdés et al. 2013), upwelling (Carmack and Chapman 2003; A. Randelhoff and Sundfjord 2018), or mesoscale horizontal mixing through eddies (Watanabe et al. 2014), may also play a role at least regionally, but will turn out to be unnecessary to invoke in order to explain Arctic Ocean productivity within the scope of this paper. We will hence neglect those processes for the time being and discuss them in more detail after the Conclusions.

Material & methods

This study is centered around a compilation ofcompiles measurements and estimates of the upward vertical turbulent flux of nitrate in different locations across the Arctic Ocean. In this study, weWe present 4four new measurements and estimates,estimates of the turbulent vertical nitrate flux, along with a dozen more values already published.derived from the literature. We further supplementedsupplement the nitrate fluxes with a collection of vertical profiles of seawater nitrate concentration.

Compilation of NO₃⁻ concentrations

The Pan-Arctic data base carefully compiled by Codispoti et al. (2013) was downloaded from the NOAA website under NODC accession number 0072133. An additional database covered the Canadian Archipelago using various ArcticNet and Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada cruises, compiled by Coupel et al. (2019,(2020, in prep.). We included more winter data, notoriously scarce in the Arctic, by downloading data from the Chukchi shelf as presented by Arrigo et al. (2017). For each profile, we derived (1) the Brunt-Väisälä buoyancy frequency in the depth interval from 30 to 60 m as an indicator of the strength of stratification and (2) the surface nitrate concentration. For the latter, only profiles were used where the depth of the shallowest nitrate measurement was at most 15 m. The shallowest nitrate measurement was then extrapolated to the surface (0 m depth), after which values were averaged over the interval 0-15 m.

Nitrate flux compilationCompilation of turbulent vertical

nitrate fluxes

In order to compile previously published estimates of vertical turbulent nitrate fluxes in the Arctic Ocean, we relied mostly on our knowledge of the literature, given the small amount of relevant publications. Additionally, we performed a search on Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) using the search term TS=((nitr* AND suppl*) OR (nitr* AND flux*) OR (nitr* AND mix*)) AND TS=((Arctic OR Polar) AND Ocean) AND TS=(vertical OR turbulen*) AND WC=Ocean*, which resulted in 95 publications that were individually screened for relevance. We only included measurements and estimates based on in-situ observations.

The resulting list comprised just above a dozen flux estimates going back to less than ten publications. To improve data coverage, we had conducted a number of additional field expeditions and evaluated existing data opportunistically. In this study, we present new measurementsvertical nitrate flux estimates from the Laptev Sea, Baffin Bay, and Young Sound, as well as a re-calculation of published observations from the Chukchi Sea (Nishino et al. 2015). In order to not disrupt the flow of the main text, details of the respective methods and field campaigns are deferred to the Appendix.

Briefly, our three-week-long summer sampling campaign in Young Sound (a North East Greenland fjord) sought to quantify turbulent mixing, vertical nitrate supply, and new (nitrate-based) production in a fjord strongly affectedstratified by meltwater from the Greenland Ice Sheet. From the Laptev Sea, we present a small selection of representative vertical profiles of nitrate concentrations and oceanic microstructure, collected in the years 2008-2018. From Baffin Bay, we made use of a novel year-long 2017-18 time series of autonomous profilers, so-called biogeochemical (BGC) Argo floats (Biogeochemical-Argo Planning Group 2016). These were specially adapted in order to function under the ice cover lasting from November to July. Based on the evolution of the upper-ocean nitrate inventory, we inferred the part due to vertical mixing. We further used a data set of nitrate concentrations and turbulent microstructure in the Chukchi Sea (Nishino et al. 2015) to calculate another estimate of vertical nitrate fluxes during early fall.

For the majority of those experiments, turbulence (microstructure) data were measured; just as was the case for the literature values. In some cases, turbulent mixing was inferred from current finestructure; see also the Appendix. Nitrate fluxes were generally calculated across the nitracline, meaning by combining a nitracline-average turbulent diffusivity with the strength of the nitrate gradient. Individual methodologies may however vary regarding e.g. choice of vertical layer or averaging procedures. According to our personal experience, such choices may make a difference for individual calculations, but less so for large-scale averages, and hencetherefore we take the fluxes recorded in the literature at face value. A systematic assessment of potential methodological errors has to our knowledge however not been conducted.

For a more detailed discussion of how vertical nitrate fluxes are measured, and in particular the uncertainties and caveats that come with each method, see the Appendix.

For each of the estimates of the vertical turbulent nitrate flux,flux across the nitracline and into the surface layer, we also extracted the end-of-winter surface nitrate concentration either from the same publication or from related studies. We also classified each nitrate flux value as either “perennial stratification” or “winter overturning”. The former means that surface layer stratification persisted year-round; the latter means that the winter mixed layer was significantly deeper than the meltwater-stratified summer surface layer. The classification was done based on perusal of the available literature. The full rationale with a detailed description of the vertical layering in relation to the nitrogen budget is given in the Appendix.

The specific references for each data point are given in the supplementary material. Our entire data set is presented in Table 1; note that it mixes vertical nitrate fluxes across different seasons, vertical levels, regions, and sample sizes.

Comparison between nitrate fluxes and primary production

We compared nitrate fluxes with new production (primary production based on assimilation of nitrate, see Dugdale and Goering (1967)) and export production. New production estimates were taken from Sakshaug (2004). Export production estimates were taken from Wiedmann (2015), who has compiled the vertical carbon export flux at 200 m depth. To enhance data coverage, we added to this compilation measurements from two studies from the Central Arctic Ocean (Honjo et al. 2010; Cai et al. 2010). Details can be found in the Supplementary MaterialMaterial.

Both biomass and primary production are frequently given in units of carbon. To convert between units of carbon and nitrate fluxes, we employed a C:N ratio of 6.6 mol C: mol N, the so-called Redfield ratio (Redfield, Ketchum, and Richards 1963). This particular choice of C:N ratio may be criticized on the grounds that they varyit varies depending on the type of organic matter and other environmental factors (Brzezinski 1985; Tamelander et al. 2013), and that C:N ratios observed in the Arctic in particular are usually higher (Frigstad et al. 2014). However, turbulence measurements usually come with a much larger margin of error, with one detailed study giving the systematic bias between two different sets of microstructure probes, signal processing, and calibration procedures as within a factor of 2 (Moum et al. 1995). This is impressive for microstructure measurements but significantly larger than the accuracyprecision with which the C:N ratio is frequently discussed in biogeochemical contexts. Therefore, by assuming a standard, constant C:N ratio, we make our results easy to adapt to other ratios should the reader want to change this number.

Results

Seasonal cycle of surface nitrate concentration

Winter surface nitrate concentrations in the Atlantic sector reached high values around 11 µM (Fig. 1). In the Central Arctic Ocean, concentrations stayed constant at roughly 1-3 µM throughout the year, whereas in the coastal Beaufort Sea they occasionally reached intermediate values in winter. Most regions of the Arctic however becomebecame nitrate limited (<1µM) during the summer, with the exception of the Eurasian Basin, the Makarov Basin, and some regions in Southern Fram Strait.

Nitrate fluxes

Nitrate flux estimates are still scarce given that they require co-located measurements of both turbulence and nitrate concentrations; however, they slowly approach Pan-Arctic coverage (Fig. 2). Highest values (> 1 mmol N m⁻² d⁻¹) were found in the Atlantic sector. The lowest values (<< 0.1 mmol N m⁻² d⁻¹) occurred in the central basins (Canada Basin) and in Young Sound and the Laptev Sea, two locations strongly impacted by terrestrial freshwater.

Nitrate flux seasonality

The seasonal cycle of surface nitrate concentration was also reflected in its upward fluxes (Fig. 3). In areas where the water column overturned in summer,winter, summer fluxes were an order of magnitude below winter values. A notable exception seemed to bewas observed at one station in the Barents Sea south of the polar front (Wiedmann et al. 2017), where the water was weakly stratified even in summer and hence nitrate fluxes were probably at least as high as in winter with 5 mmol N m⁻² d⁻¹ (Table 1), although sample size (N=1) was not sufficient to draw further conclusions.

Observations over a full seasonal cycle were only available in areas where the water column overturns, notable due to measurements fromnotably in the Barents sea and shelf slope area (Table 1). In contrast, in the non-overturning regions, fluxes were lower overall, but there is not enough data to test whether the seasonality itself is, in relative terms, really much weaker there.

Discussion

Nitrate fluxes as a function of stratification and seasonality

We found that the The vertical nitrate flux (F\(\)N) in winter predictedwas remarkably well correlated with the pre-bloom nitrate pool remarkably wellsurface concentration [NO\(\)3]\(\)0 (Fig. 4A). A linear model [NO\(\)3]\(\)0 = 7.6µM + 3.4µM\(\)log\(\)10(F\(\)N/mmol N m⁻² d⁻¹) yielded an adjusted \(\)R2=0.85 and p=0.002 for the linear coefficient. Consequently, deep winter mixing, where it occurs, dominateslikely is a controlling factor of the annual nitrogen budget (Fig. 3),nitrate inventory, expanding on direct measurements of a full annual cycle over the Barents Sea shelf break (Randelhoff, Sundfjord, and Reigstad 2015). Hence, potential advective processes do not play as large a role at Pan-Arctic scales, at least at the locations and times investigated here. Our results explicitly and quantitatively confirmsupport the qualitative perception that vertical nitrate fluxes determineexplain the seasonality of the upper ocean nitrate inventory, as has been surmised multiple times in the literature (see e.g. E. Carmack and Wassmann 2006; Tremblay et al. 2015) based on general considerations of stratification and bathymetry.

Stratification and bathymetry also governed pre-bloom surface nitrate concentrations (Fig. 4B) and hence,and, by extension from the aforementioned, vertical nitrate fluxes. Specifically,Stratification represents the resistance of the water column against overturning and vertical mixing, making its link to vertical nitrate fluxes explicit. As for bathymetry, locations with the same strength of upper-ocean stratification had on average consistently highest pre-bloom nitrate over the shelf slope (200 m < depth < 1500 m), lower on the shelves (< 200 m), and lowest over the basins (>1500 m). These findings correspond to general expectations as rough or shallow topography provides more opportunities forlets currents to interact with the bathymetry. Indeed, mixingMixing in the Arctic has indeed been found to be especially elevated over the shelf slope (Rippeth et al. 2015), and for instance tidal. Tidal velocities are generally higher over the shelves than over the deep basins (Kowalik and Proshutinsky 2013). The Arctic boundary current close to the shelf break may also provide opportunities for localized upwelling through interaction with topography or wind (Carmack and Chapman 2003; Kämpf and Chapman 2016).

Primary production constrained by nitrate fluxes

Annual basin-scale productivity

The close match between nitrate fluxes and nitrate inventory demonstrates the eminent role of stratification and turbulence in Arctic Ocean nutrient dynamics. The real value of measuring nitrate fluxes, however, lies in constraining Nitrate supply should constrain primary production.

The most commonly employed notion of “primary production” is “net primary production” (NPP), comprised of both new and regenerated production (see Appendix, Fig. 9). Where nitrogen is scarce in summer, regenerated Regenerated production is a significantlarge if not dominant fraction of NPP. Hence NPP is significantly larger than the amount of inorganic nitrogen that is converted into organic matter, which is the quantity than can be reasonably expected to be constrained by nitrate fluxes. Indeed, for one ocean colour remote sensing algorithm (Arrigo and van Dijken 2015), net primary production was at least an order of magnitude larger than the corresponding wintertime nitrate fluxes (see Supplementary Material).

Annual basin-scale productivity

Two other measures of primary production are more where nitrogen is scarce and is therefore not directly related to the assimilation of inorganic into organic nitrogen: First,nitrate fluxes, unlike new production (Dugdale and Goering 1967),production, which relies only on nitrate brought up from below the photic zone. Itzone (Dugdale and Goering 1967). In the absence of significant advection, new production is customarily measured by incubating phytoplankton in seawater spiked with some nitrate, using a radioisotope to track its incorporation into organic matter (Collos 1987). Second, export production (Eppley and Peterson 1979), which in its most basic form is measured as the downward particle export over a given time interval using sediment traps (Zeitzschel, Diekmann, and Uhlmann 1978). This number iseven stipulated to be similar to the upward nitrate flux based on conservation of mass alone.alone (see Appendix, Fig. 9).

Over seasonal On annual time scales, both the upward nitrate flux in winter,winter into the surface mixed layer, the particle export at 200 m depth, and new production (nitrate uptake) matched up reasonably well for Baffin Bay, the Barents Sea, the Southern Beaufort Sea, and the Central basin (Fig. 5), both in regional patterns and order of magnitude. Other(Other regions lack estimates of the winter nitrate flux.) Indeed, annual budgets have to be closed if nitrate inventories are not to change in the long term. The relatively minor differences between export production, new production, and the vertical nitrate flux hence likelymay reflect the extreme disparity of spatial and temporal scales of the different measurements. However, no study has systematically investigated all three quantities on annual to interannual time scales and at the same location.

Short-term new production

A somewhat different matter is the hypothesis thatwhether or not during the summer, upward mixing of nitrate limits the amount of new production in the short term. Here, the published literature gives a less clear picture (Fig. 6A). Achim Randelhoff, Fer, et al. (2016) measured vertical nitrate flux and new production for both spring and summer in the marginal ice zone around northern Fram Strait. In spring, uptake of nitratenew production was considerably larger than its vertical nitrate supply as nitrate was not yet depleted and hence did not limit photosynthesis. In summer, on the other hand, when the surface water was nitrate-depleted, new production was an order of magnitude smaller than nitrate supply, contrary to the hypothesis.

A likely contribution to this discrepancy was the seasonal buildup of dissolved organic nitrogen (Fig. 6B) observed during the same field campaigns by Paulsen et al. (2018), although the explanation is probably composite. Taken together, our findings hence stressed the importance of the recycling of nitrogen in the microbial loop when considering nutrient fluxes over short subseasonal time scales.. The nitrate uptake rate measurements by Achim Randelhoff, Fer, et al. (2016) only considered assimilation into the particulate pool due to methodological constraints. The simultaneous production of dissolved organic nitrogen could have diverted nitrate from the particulate to the dissolved production. However, even if there were an imbalance between supply and uptake of nitrate, the associated change in the nitrate concentration would be slow and necessitate Lagrangian measurements over weeks to detect them. Recycling of nitrogen in the microbial loop may turn out to be important when balancing nutrient fluxes with new production over short subseasonal time scales. Nishino et al. (2018) found good agreement between upward nitrate flux, nitrate uptake, and export of particulate organic matter, based on a case study in the Chukchi sea. This may represent geographic differences in the dynamics of the system, or even in the methodology. Nishino et al. (2018) used different methods from those of Achim Randelhoff, Fer, et al. (2016), even though they neglected assimilation into the dissolved nitrogen pool as well (Shiozaki et al. 2009).

Our measurements in Young Sound, North-East Greenland (see Appendix), gave a diametrically opposed view:perspective: Here, vertically integrated new production was significantly above the vertical turbulent supply of new nitrate in this extremely quiescent fjord. Indeed, itOverall productivity in Young Sound is therefore likely limited by strong stratification and hence weak vertical mixing in Young Sound that limits overall productivity (Holding et al. 2019). Tidal mixing over the two shallow sills in concert with isopycnal mixing may aid with thecontribute to overall upward nitrate supply (see e.g. Fer and Drinkwater 2014), but terrestrial runoff may also contribute significantly to the nutrient cycling (Rysgaard et al. 2003) as nitrate concentrations in run-off water are higher than those measured in the sea surface (Paulsen et al. 2017). This scenario is likely specific to this fjord and cannot be generalized around Greenland as nitrate concentrations in Greenland Ice Sheet run-off often act to dilute surface nitrate concentrations (Meire et al. 2016; Hopwood et al. 2019).

In the same vein, but outside the Arctic Ocean, Law et al. (2001) and Rees et al. (2001) found that vertical mixing supplied only 33 % of the nitrate demand at a North Atlantic site, in agreement with a study by Horne et al. (1996) in the Gulf of Maine. Even in the Mauritanian upwelling region, nitrate fluxes in excess of 100 mmol N m⁻² d⁻¹ accounted for only 10-25% of observed net community production (Schafstall et al. 2010). Yet moreMore extremely, Shiozaki et al. (2011) found that one location on the continental shelf of the East China Sea “exhibited a considerable discrepancy between the nitrate assimilation rate (1500 mmol N m⁻² d⁻¹) and vertical nitrate flux (98 mmol N m⁻² d⁻¹)”, and they went so far as concluding that “the assumption of a direct relationship between new production, export production, and measured nitrate assimilation is misplaced, particularly regarding the continental shelf of the East China Sea”.

The scarcity of dedicated measurements that evaluate both nitrate fluxes, new production, and organic nitrogen pools at relevant space-time scales is thea major impediment to evaluating the direct impact of nitrate fluxes on primary productivity in the Arctic on time scales of days. However, given the correspondence we establishedobserved between annual new production and vertical nitrate supply over annual Pan-Arctic scales, any mismatch between the two is likely reflected inon sub-seasonal time scales may be caused by asynchronous seasonal patternsevolution of the different nitrogen pools (Figs. 6, 9B). Phytoplankton growth responses may also lag nutrient supply pulses, perhaps necessitating time series approaches when studying scales as short as weeks (Omand et al. 2012).

Future scenarios

Nitrogen limitation of primary production

Nitrogen scarcity plays a large role in constraining Arctic marine primary production (Moore et al. 2013; Tremblay et al. 2015). Nutrient limitation of phytoplankton growth is usually quantified in terms of a half-saturation constant (of a Michaelis-Menten kinetics), above which nutrient uptake rates benefit less and less from increasing ambient nutrient concentrations. Reported values of such half-saturation constants vary widely according to species and physiological state, but reasonable values usually clusterrange around an orderorders of magnitude offrom 0.1 to 10 µM, but clustering around 1 µM (e.g. Wassmann et al. 2006)Eppley, Rogers, and McCarthy 1969), with larger ones for larger cells (Chisholm 1992) and values in the lower end for picophytoplankton (Cochlan and Harrison 1991; Agawin, Duarte, and Agustí 2000). Hence weWe infer that nitrate limitation holdslarger (usually bloom-forming) species are nitrate-limited in summer across large swaths of the Arctic, but not including some of the central basin, where summer surface concentrations are in excess of e.g. 5 µM in the Makarov and Nansen basins (Fig. 7). These high nitrate concentrations in the Central Arctic are usually taken to indicate regionally important light limitation by perennial sea ice cover (Codispoti et al. 2013).

Regarding A cautionary remark is in order regarding nitrate concentrations as indicators of potential growth however, a cautionary remark is in order.growth. Since the nitrate supply, like phytoplankton growth, is a rate and not a stock, its present-day inventory alone does not yield sufficient information to infer possible limitations in future scenarios. HenceTherefore the summer surplus nitrate that is observed in the central AO may only be available transiently while the ice cover shrinks, but not in a steady-state situation without summer sea ice.

In other words: If fall blooms are due to upward mixing of new nitrate, they increase new production in the short term. Whether such increases are long-term or if they instead serve to deepen the nitracline depends on the vertical mixing in winter. Similarly, a lengthening ice-free season or a more transparent ice cover lead to a deeper euphotic zone (e.g. due to a more transparent ice cover)and could enhance growth in subsurface waters, richer in nutrients, but the resupply rate of nitrogen ultimately decides about potential lasting increases in new production.

Future scenarios

Achim Randelhoff and Guthrie (2016) provided estimates of end-of-century new production, given presently observed turbulence and potential future increases in stratificationthe freshwater inventory observed in a numerical circulation model (Nummelin et al. 2015). They concluded that there could be an approximately 50%a potential increase in new production in the Amundsen Basin if(if the system were to turn to nitrate limitation under unchanged stratification; they cautioned, however, that most of that increaselimitation) may fall victim to future increases in stratification which in turn decreases fluxes. In general, stratified areas with higher influence of riverine or pacific freshwater may get even more stratified and hence more nitrogen-limited, but that concerns mainly the interannual background stratification.vertical stability. Little is known about the future of seasonal and especially summertime stratification in the surface layer (Randelhoff, Fer, and Sundfjord 2017).

Contrarily, Polyakov et al. (2017) posited that an ongoing Atlantification will lead to deeper winter convection in the Eurasian Basin. In fact, Atlantic water, being less stratified, is associated with high nitrate fluxes (Randelhoff, Sundfjord, and Reigstad 2015). A spreading of Atlantic waters into the central AO could hence add to the upper-ocean nitrate pool, but no estimates of the magnitude of that effect have been published to our knowledge. As Atlantic Water is also the principal source of heat in the Arctic Ocean, it has been implicated in recent sea ice loss (Ivanov et al. 2016; Polyakov et al. 2017), and hence could regionally relieve nutrient and light limitation at the same time (Achim Randelhoff, Reigstad, et al. 2018). The recent decreases of sea ice extent in Northern Fram Strait and north of Svalbard (Onarheim et al. 2018) indicate that such a process is already well underway. The analogue may be happening in the Chukchi sea, where the Alaskan Coastal Current brings in both large amounts of heat (Woodgate, Weingartner, and Lindsay 2012) and nutrients (Torres-Valdés et al. 2013), but the published literature seems to beis less clear on the presence and effects of such a tentative advective borealization of the Chukchi sea.

Ice cover and wind-driven turbulence

A The published literature is also equivocal on whether or not the decreasing ice cover will enhance turbulent mixing in the upper ocean. While less sea ice cover has been hypothesized tomay enhance the input of wind energy into the ocean (Rainville and Woodgate 2009; Dosser and Rainville 2016), but increasing stratification resulting from higher ice melt rates will likely counteract the resulting increased mixing (Randelhoff, Fer, and Sundfjord 2017).

More concretely, based on a two-year mooring timeseries of velocity observations on the this energy may be dissipated at shallow Chukchi shelf, Rainville and Woodgate (2009) showed that during the period of heavy winter ice cover, water velocities, and consequently turbulent mixing, were strongly reduced. While less ice cover did in fact enhance input of wind energy in the perennially stratified Beaufort Sea basin in observations by Lincoln et al. (2016), little of that mixing lead to increases in fluxes from the intermediary warm, nutrient-rich layersdepths due to the strong stratification. The strong stratification was also the hypothetical explanation by (Lincoln et al. 2016). Reanalysis of conductivity-temperature depth and acoustic Doppler current profiler finestructure data has not shown trends in turbulent mixing in recent decades either (Guthrie, Morison, and Fer (2013) for the lack of change in current profiler-inferred mixing estimates compared to historical records in the central Arctic Ocean basin. Similarly, 2013; Chanona, Waterman, and Gratton (2018)2018), analyzing CTD profiles collected.

Broken-up, free-drifting sea ice in the Canadian Arctic using an internal-wave based finescale parameterisation, found a weak seasonal cycle in dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy, but no interannual trend from 2002 through 2016.

In summer, when ice is broken up and in more or less free drift, summer may may enhance wind energy input into the upper ocean may even be higher incompared to ice-covered than open water areas by enhancing surface roughness (Martin et al. 2016). Hence retreating summer sea ice may not immediately lead to increased rates of but also decrease vertical turbulent energy dissipation. A retreat of winter sea ice would, however, decrease the extent of low-salinity water layersmixing in the upper tenssurface layer through the associated layer of meters during the following melt periodmeltwater (Achim Randelhoff, Fer, et al. 2016; Randelhoff, Fer, and Sundfjord 2017). This is demonstratedLarger freezing rates, caused by increasing proportions of first-year ice, may increase upward mixing, but the fact that Achim Randelhoff, Fer, et al. (2016) measured nutrient fluxes approximately twice as high inpotential effects on entrainment of nitrate into the open-water stations in the Marginal Ice Zone comparedsurface layer has to those covered by melting sea ice. Hence, changing upper ocean stratification may ultimately lead to larger changes in vertical nutrient transport than the potentially minor difference between input of mixing energy through open water and through summer sea ice.our knowledge not been systematically studied. A major uncertainty forin any future prognoses is the scarcity of large-scale surveys of the ice-ocean boundary layer which is hard to access from large vessels, a notable exception being the airborne SIZRS campaigns described by Dewey, Morison, and Zhang (2017).

While these increased open water fluxes were close to negligible in terms of total annual nitrate supply, they may slightly relax nutrient limitation during the summer and hence alter plankton community composition (Li et al. 2009). In addition, under sea ice, irradiance is strongly reduced but its variability enhanced, likely exacerbating such changes in community composition. Lastly, if the overall loss of sea ice eventually leads to drastic changes in background stratification, nutrient fluxes would change as well.

layer.

Arctic nitrate fluxes in a global context

Based on a literature review (Table 2), Arctic vertical nitrate fluxes tend to be approximately one order of magnitude lower than in the rest of the world ocean (Fig. 8). Even though study sites in the global ocean may be biased by measurements seeking to explain high biological productivity (most often as the result of strong mixing)mixing and upwelling), this simple comparison demonstrates thethere is a considerable gapdifference between potential for new and hence harvestable production in most of the Arctic Ocean and the world’s fishery grounds.most productive areas.

Conclusions

Summary

  1. Determining nitrate fluxes is a laborious task. With measurements accumulating through the last 10 years, we are now approaching a Pan-Arctic baseline. In individual regions however, perhaps with the exception of the Barents Sea, seasonal coverage remains patchy at best.patchy.
  2. Arctic nitrate fluxes are, on average, one to two orders of magnitude smaller than those observed elsewhere in the world ocean.
  3. The spatial patterns of the upper ocean nitrate inventory in the Arctic are well explained by vertical nitrate fluxes, and the seasonality in this inventory is reflected in the seasonality of the nitrate fluxes.
  4. Nitrate On annual timescales, nitrate fluxes are a powerful tool to constrain export fluxes and new production, both of which are hard to measure autonomously. There is an important distinction between ”(net) primary production” and “new production”, highlighted by the fact that the former is considerably larger than annual nitrate supply.
  5. On weekly or shorter timescales, the relation between nitrate supply and new production is unclear, mostly due to lack of appropriate time series data. A certain asynchronicity between the different nitrogen pools may confound budget calculations.

Avenues for further research

Besides further aggregate scale (seasonal or basin-scale) measurements of the turbulent vertical nitrate flux, two avenues emerge from our conclusions.

  1. Advances in turbulence-ecosystem coupling will require dedicated or autonomous sampling and time series. Physically-Purely physics-oriented turbulence sampling often does not sufficiently resolve the biologically relevant surface layer.
  2. Prediction of upper ocean mixing and ice-ocean interaction depends on sea ice melt and freeze rates, expressed as buoyancy fluxes or in units of meters of freshwater equivalent per unit area. Yet, to our knowledge, this quantity is not routinely investigated as output of coupled ice-ocean circulation models and henceso no such data product exists that could aid in the extrapolation of Pan-Arctic patterns of the seasonal vertical nitrate flux.

Nitrate fluxes in diagnosis and prognosis ofUpscaling

primary production measurements

While currently publicly available datasets aremay be more comprehensive for new and export production(Stein and MacDonald 2004) than for nitrate fluxes, they possess some drawbacks concerning evaluating large-scale patterns. IncubationsAs incubations to determine new production are usually point measurements, and hence averaging them is not trivial. Sediment traps, while measuring export fluxes at a single location, integrate the time dimension, and so are hence more representative, but also require a large logistic effort. Chemical tracer approaches (e.g. Moran et al. 2003) make the data acquisition phase easier, but still require water samples and are hence not easily amenable to autonomous exploration. In sum, current Arctic Ocean exploration does not scale well. NO₃⁻Nitrate fluxes, on the other hand, can be estimated purely based on physical sensor data and hence with larger scope both in time and space.

Such turbulence measurements do not necessarily have to be conducted using microstructure profilers - mixing can also be estimated from current shear or density strain fine-structure with more standard instruments, which may work especially well in discerning relative magnitudes but can also be calibrated using regional microstructure estimates (Gargett and Garner 2008; Guthrie, Morison, and Fer 2013; Polzin et al. 2014; Chanona, Waterman, and Gratton 2018). Parameterizations of this kind, relying on models of internal wave breaking, are most useful away from boundaries, hence forin scenarios of perennial stratification where year-round background fluxes dominate (Achim Randelhoff and Guthrie 2016), and less so to characterize near-surface mixing. Other promising avenues are approaches based on turbulence structure functions (Wiles et al. 2006), high-frequency ADCPAcoustic Doppler Current Profiler measurements, or microstructure sensors deployed on moorings and gliders (Scheifele et al. 2018).

Turbulence also obeys tight physical constraints imposed by wind, tidal and other energy available for mixing, and by the freshwater (density) fluxes that cause background stratification. Hence nitrateNitrate fluxes aremay therefore be more easily constrained than plankton photophysiology that is notoriously variable across species and environmental conditions (e.g. Bouman et al. 2018).

Perspectives

This study has focused on vertical diffusive transport. Upwelling,transport, largely ignoring other transport modes. Upwelling (Carmack and Chapman 2003; Kämpf and Chapman 2016), horizontal advection,advection (Torres-Valdés et al. 2013), mesoscale eddy shedding,shedding (Watanabe et al. 2014), benthic processes,processes (Renaud et al. 2015), and theriver biogeochemistry of the catchment basins are other factors(Frey and McClelland 2009) all likely affectingaffect Arctic Ocean primary production at least regionally. The fact that Pan-Arctic patterns of primary production can seemingly be explained without the need to invoke any of these mechanisms also showcases the stark contrasts between the different Arctic regimes that likely shadow intra-regional nuances.

Mesoscale turbulence can contribute to cross-shelf transport and nutrient supply in the Chukchi sea (Watanabe et al. 2014). Some studies suggest that eddies may also contribute to cross-shelf transport along the West Spitsbergen Current (Hattermann et al. 2016). Crews et al. (2018) found eddies may contribute to ventilation of halocline waters in the European Arctic, meaning they would be apparent in the upward vertical fluxes measured out of the halocline waters instead of contributing directly to mixed-layer nitrate pools. Johnson, Riser, and Karl (2010), working in the Subtropical North Pacific, stressed the importance of event-driven upward nitrate transport not easily captured by vertical diffusivities, and even the possibility of immediate utilisation of nitrate in an otherwise diabatic isopycnal excursion, for example associated with a passing eddy. Attention is required summing these contributions, however, as there is a certain danger of double counting nitrate fluxes in eddies (Martin and Richards 2001; Martin and Pondaven 2003).

Coastal areas and the shallow shelves, affected by permafrost mobilization and sea ice decreases, may see large changes compounded by changes in benthic communities (Renaud et al. 2015) and river biogeochemistry (Frey and McClelland 2009).

Advection with ocean currents manifests itself largely as transport with the Pacific and Atlantic currents that e.g. Torres-Valdés et al. (2013) have discussed. For the most part, these currents are subducted under local (Arctic) water masses and can hence be accounted for as part of the vertical fluxes downstream. Achim Randelhoff, Fer, et al. (2016) have argued that as these currents come from further south where primary production starts earlier and terminates later, the surface waters they carry are as nutrient-depleted as the Arctic surface waters. This argument has, however, never been tested quantitatively. Similarly, upwelling along coasts, shelf breaksbreaks, in eddies, and in eddiesat marine-terminating glaciers may also contribute regionally to ocean productivity (Carmack and Chapman 2003; Kämpf and Chapman 2016; but see Meire et al. 2017). Arguments as to how exactly upwelling is caused and how it impacts nutrient fluxes have largely remained qualitative (A. Randelhoff and Sundfjord 2018). Arguments have largely remained qualitative with respect to the exact pathways and nutrient budgets (2018; but see Spall et al. 2014 for a careful modelling exercise).

The fact that Pan-Arctic patterns of primary production can seemingly be explained without the need to invoke any of these mechanisms also showcases the stark contrasts between the different Arctic regimes that likely shadow intra-regional nuances. Lastly, turbulent mixing is much more than only the vertical nitrate flux. It affects predator-prey interactions,interactions (Kiørboe 2008), nutrient uptake rates at the cell level,level (Karp-Boss, Boss, and Jumars 1996), light exposure of individual cells,cells (Sverdrup 1953), etc. In fact, mixing and variability is a resource in itself that can be exploited by different plankton life strategies.strategies (Margalef 1978). These concepts may turn out to be important in particular when interpreting regional specifics such as biological hotspots. As methods advance and measurements accumulate, we expect that more efforts can be dedicated to studying regional phenomena in a Pan-Arctic unified manner.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Author Contributions

AR designed the study, made all visualizations, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. AR, JMH, and MS conducted field sampling and data analysis of the Young Sound data. MBA and MJ conducted samplingsampled and data analysisanalyzed the Laptev Sea data. MB lead the acquisition of the Laptev SeaBaffin Bay data. JET contributed Canadian Archipelago nutrient data. All authors commented on the manuscript.

Funding

Data acquisition of BGC-Argo Floats in Baffin Bay was led by M. Babin and funded through the NAOS project. Work in Young Sound was supported by the DANCEA project “De-icing Arctic coasts” and the Greenland Ecosystem Monitoring Programme. AR was supported by the Sentinel North program of Université Laval, partly funded by the Canada First Research Excellence Fund, and CARBON BRIDGE: Bridging marine productivity regimes: How Atlantic advective inflow affects productivity, carbon cycling, and export in a melting Arctic Ocean,Carbon Bridge, a Polar Programme (project 226415) funded by the Norwegian Research Council. JMH was supported by the European Commission H2020 programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (GrIS-Melt: grant no. 752325). MBA was supported by the National Science Foundation (PLR-1203146 AM003) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NA15OAR4310156).

Acknowledgments

The present paper started taking shape around the 4th “Symposium on Pan-Arctic Integration”, held in Motovun, Croatia, 2017, and we thank all participants for inspiring discussions.

We thank Andrey Novikhin (AARI) for preparing the nutrient measurements from the Laptev Sea shelf, Xiaogang Xing for quality-controlling and calibrating the Baffin Bay BGC Argo data, and Jørgen Bendtsen and Torben Vang for providing Young Sound bathymetry data. We are further grateful to Shigeto Nishino for clarifying discussions about his work in the Chukchi Sea.

Data exploration and visualization relied heavily on the Holoviews library (Stevens, Rudiger, and Bednar 2015).

Supplementary Material

The supplemental material, accessible at https://github.com/poplarShift/arctic-nitrate-fluxes, contains:

Data Availability Statement

All data that were published for the first time in this study are included with the above repository. The rest are included to the extent possible.

Appendix

Numerous

The marine nitrogen cycle

Discussions of ocean surface nitrogen budgets center around the marine nitrogen cycle. Fig. 9 shows a simplified version adapted to Arctic conditions. The main component is the cycling between inorganic nitrate and particulate organic nitrogen (PON). Upward transport of NO₃⁻ compensates nitrate uptake by algae into PON (Dugdale and Goering 1967) and subsequent sinking of this organic matter. The loop is closed by remineralization into nitrate at depth. When nitrogen is scarce in the surface layer, there is also intense recycling of nitrogen that has already been assimilated into organic matter, which is called regenerated production.

Additional complexity arises from a number of sources, sinks, and recycling processes not accounted for in this simplistic view. One of the conclusions of the present study is that we do not need to invoke those processes to understand Arctic surface layer budgets on a Pan-Arctic scale. However, processes like advection, upwelling, mesoscale mixing, nitrification, denitrification, or nitrogen fixation, may be important depending on the regional scope. Riverine inputs of nitrate are thought to be sufficiently small to be neglected at larger-than-regional scales (see e.g. Tank et al. 2012). Some of the produced PON is also harvested e.g. by higher trophic levels or fisheries (e.g. Valiela 2015), although the latter process is likely only regionally important, e.g. in the Barents Sea. Other factors may be important depending on the regional scope. Advection, upwelling, and mesoscale mixing have already been discussed in the main text. Nitrification, denitrification, and nitrogen fixation are in general not well constrained in the Arctic Ocean (Tremblay et al. 2008; Blais et al. 2012; Sipler et al. 2017). Randelhoff, Sundfjord, and Reigstad (2015), for instance, argued that winter vertical turbulent nitrate fluxes in areas with deep mixing are likely much larger than nitrification, but did so based on sparse data. A complete assessment of all these factors is beyond the scope of this paper.

The vertical layering of Arctic Ocean nitrate

Fluxes are easiest to measure across strong gradients. A given vertical profile of nitrate concentrations in the Arctic Ocean can schematically be vertically divided by two nitraclines (Fig. 9A): First, a seasonal one, which marks the transition from surface waters, modulated by seasonal freshwater from ice melt or terrestrial runoff and algal growth, to the remnant winter mixed layer. Second, and mostly present in the deep basins of the Arctic Ocean, one that we dub “perennial” as it is not eroded and re-established on an annual basis.

The seasonal nitracline may be completely mixed during winter (Fig. 9B), rendering fluxes hard to estimate using the “diffusivity times gradient” formula. Across the perennial nitracline, fluxes can be estimated year-round stipulating the seasonal variations in nitracline dissipation are minor, a method exploited by Achim Randelhoff and Guthrie (2016) to estimate Pan-Arctic patterns of upward nitrate supply in the deep basin. In practice, the two nitraclines are often not clearly delineated. The distinctive characteristics of the two nitraclines are most easily seen in the Eurasian Basin, where deep winter mixed layers are clearly separated from underlying Atlantic Waters. In the Canadian Basin, strong stratification prevents winter mixing from penetrating deep into the nitracline (Peralta-Ferriz and Woodgate 2015), leading to relatively small seasonal excursions in surface nutrient concentrations and a less distinct winter remnant mixed layer (Fig. 9C).

Consequently, we classified the seasonality of all vertical nitrate flux estimates discussed in this paper in terms of whether the water column mixes deeply (“overturns”) in winter or not (in which case stratification is dubbed “perennial”). We used the published literature for each location as well as the data set corresponding to the flux estimate, if available. Importantly, our classification is generally well-founded but occasionally ad-hoc and tentative due to sparse data. An illustrative example are three summertime flux estimates north of the Barents sea polar front (Sundfjord et al. 2007; Wiedmann et al. 2017). For instance, Loeng (1991) indicates a weak but persistent salinity stratification in the Arctic water mass throughout winter, but the few vertical nitrate profiles available in our compiled data set indicate a seasonal cycle of surface nitrate in line with what is seen south of the Polar Front. These three fluxes were hence classified as being in a location where the water column overturns in winter because we focused on the vertical structure of nitrate profiles. Either way, because all three fluxes were based on a small sample size, not too much weight was given to them in the overall analysis.

Measuring vertical nitrate fluxes

Barring regionally important processes such as upwelling and eddy pumping (Carmack and Chapman 2003; Kämpf and Chapman 2016; A. Randelhoff and Sundfjord 2018), the most prevalent form of the upward transport of nitrate in the ocean is turbulent diffusion (Lewis et al. 1986). Such diffusion mixes the spent surface waters with deeper, more nutrient-rich waters, thereby replenishing their nitrate reservoir. A vertical turbulent nitrate flux is, by definition, the product of a so-called “diapycnal eddy diffusivity” with the vertical gradient of nitrate. (ThisThis is completely analogous to any other tracer such as temperature or salinity. The interested reader is referred to the vast literature on turbulent flows.)

To estimate both those quantities, one has to measure the turbulence and a vertical profile of nitrate concentrations at the same time and location. Determining nitrate concentrations is comparatively uncomplicated because only the non-turbulent background is needed; one can use either bottle samples or, preferably, optical nitrate sensors to achieve a better vertical resolution (Alkire et al. 2010; Achim Randelhoff, Fer, et al. 2016). Both of these options are easily integrated into standard sampling with a CTD rosette. While care should be taken to calibrate the absolute concentrations of optical sensors against water samples, such biases are usually depth-independent and hence do not matter for the calculation of the gradients (see Appendix of Achim Randelhoff, Fer, et al. 2016). Measuring turbulence is more challenging because it requires either measurements with sophisticated instruments, requiring dedicated ship time and personnel, or parameterizations that add layers of uncertainty (e.g. Garrett and Munk 1975; Guthrie, Morison, and Fer 2013).

Measuring turbulence

The most direct way of determining a nitrate flux is measuring the so-called “dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy” (ϵ) traditionally using free-falling microstructure profilers (Lueck, Wolk, and Yamazaki 2002). ϵ can also be estimated from larger-scalefinescale current shear (i.e. current profiles) or strain visible in CTD profiles (Guthrie, Morison, and Fer 2013), even though that adds another layer of parameterizations.. Once ϵ is determined, its accuracy usually cited as being within a factor of two (Moum et al. 1995), the vertical turbulent diffusivity can be calculated, following Osborn (1980), as


$$K_\rho = \Gamma\frac{\epsilon}{N^2}\qquad(1)$$

where N2 is the Brunt-Väisälä buoyancy frequency and Γ ≈ 0.2 is the mixing coefficient that reflects how much of ϵ is available for adiabatic mixing. Eq. 1 has a number of known issues, a major one being that Γ is not constant. A variety of different parameterizations have been proposed (e.g. Shih et al. 2005; Bouffard and Boegman 2013), with no clear alternative emerging. Eq. 1 is hence the de facto standard (Gregg et al. 2018), and in fact all turbulence-based estimates of the vertical nitrate flux compiled for this paper are based on it, albeitit. Most often, \(\)Γ = 0.2 is used, but e.g. Sundfjord et al. (2007) determinedused \(\)Γ = 0.12 following recommendations in the value of Γ\(\) that best fitliterature consistent with their observations using a detailed analysis of microstructure data.dataset (see references therein).

Using the inorganic nitrate drawdown as an indicator of nitrate flux

Another method to determine vertical nitrate fluxes, less direct, uses a set of nitrate profiles through fall and winter (Randelhoff, Sundfjord, and Reigstad 2015). It has been employed to calculate two of the fluxes presented in this study. Vertically integrating the successive differences between them, one essentially reverses the calculation of net community production by the nitrate drawdown between winter and summer (Codispoti et al. 2013). Randelhoff, Sundfjord, and Reigstad (2015) provided a brief overview over potentially interfering processes such as nitrogen fixation (Blais et al. 2012) and concluded they were likely not significantly disturbing the annual budgets, but it has to be acknowledged that data is sparse. While this method may be robust in the pelagic, one can doubt its effectiveness in waters where nitrogen cycling is heavily affected by other processes, such as benthic processes in shallow waters, or coastal effects.

New estimates of nitrate fluxes and new production in Young Sound,

NE Greenland

Methods

Sampling in the Young Sound/Tyrolerfjord system was conducted during three weeks in August 2015 from the Daneborg research station as part of the Danish MarineBasis program in Zackenberg (Fig. 10A).

Water column nutrient samples were taken at 5 stations using a manually operated Niskin bottle from depths of 1, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 100 m. They were filtered with Whatman GF/F filters before being stored in previously acid-washed 30 mL high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic bottles and frozen until analysis (-18 °C). Nitrite (NO2) and nitrate (NO₃⁻) concentrations in each sample were measured on a Smartchem200 (AMS Alliance) autoanalyzer.

An MSS-90L (Sea and Sun Technology, Germany) free-falling microstructure profiler was deployed at a total of 37 stations, many of them repeat stations, to measure vertical profiles of the dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy. At the same stations, we deployed a SUNA (Satlantic) nitrate spectrophotometer to collect co-located vertical profiles of nitrate concentration. SUNA profiles were post-processed following (Achim Randelhoff, Fer, et al. 2016) and calibrated using a constant bias determined from comparison with the nutrient water samples.

New and regenerated production were investigated at a subset of five stations. They were measured in two parallel incubations, labelled with ca. 10% ambient concentration of ¹⁵NO₃⁻ and ¹⁵NH₄⁺ respectively. Water samples were incubated in triplicate 500 ml polycarbonate bottles in situ. Additionally ca. 10% ambient concentration of ¹³C-bicarbonate was added to both sets of incubations to follow the incorporation of inorganic carbon into biomass. Samples were taken for NO₂⁻+NO₃⁻ , ¹⁵NO₃⁻ and ¹⁵NH₄⁺ before and after addition of tracers by filtering through a syringe filter (Whatman GF/C) into 10 ml polystyrene vials which were frozen (-18 °C) until analysis. After the incubation the particulate matter from each incubation vessel was filtered onto pre-combusted GF/F filters and later the ¹⁵N and ¹³C content of the particles on the filters was determined by mass spectrometry. Before filtration a third set of samples for NO₂⁻+NO₃⁻, ¹⁵NO₃⁻ and ¹⁵NH₄⁺ were taken. NO₂⁻+NO₃⁻ was determined photometrically following Schnetger and Lehners (2014). ¹⁵NH₄⁺ was determined based on Risgaard-Petersen, Revsbech, and Rysgaard (1995). ¹⁵NO₃⁻ was determined as in Kalvelage et al. (2011). New and regenerated production were calculated as the ratio of nitrate or ammonium to total N-uptake in each incubation respectively multiplied by the total C-uptake in each incubation.

In total, we collected 43 profiles of co-located SBE25+SUNA profiles, 103 MSS casts, 40 nutrient bottle samples and 20x3 triplicates of new and regenerated production incubations.

Results

A freshwater layer was present throughout the fjord, but most prominent in the innermost parts (Fig. 10B-D). Nitrate was depleted throughout the upper 40 m, below which concentrations steeply rose to about 4 µM. The fjord was remarkably quiescient in terms of turbulent dissipation rates, but mixing was significantly elevated over the sills. Vertical nitrate fluxes, computed for each station of co-located MSS and SUNA measurements, ranged from 0.012 to 13.26 mmol N m⁻² d⁻¹, with some of the values in the fjord interior being the lowest observed across this entire study. Median upward fluxes were 0.036 and 0.33 mmol N m⁻² d⁻¹ in the fjord interior and over the sills, respectively. Incubations, although only available at two depths (5 and 20 m), indicated new production rates on the order of 0.1 to 1 mmol N m⁻² d⁻¹ (Fig. 10E).

Nitrate flux estimate in the Laptev Sea

Data description

Microstructure and nutrient measurements from the Laptev Sea were collected under the framework of the German-Russian “Laptev Sea System”-partnership in 2008,winter 2008 and the summers of 2011, 2014, and 2018 (Fig. 11B). The 2008-winter2008 profile was averaged from measurements collected during the helicopter-supported “Transdrift 13” winter expedition (6 April to 10 May 2008) to the southeastern Laptev shelf. The summer nitrate profile was averaged from profiles collected during the “Transdrift 19” expedition on board the RV Jakov Smirnitsky in September 2011 (Bauch et al. 2018).

In 2014 microstructure turbulence profiles were collected on 19 September 2014 during the Transdrift 22-expedition aboard the RV Viktor Buinitsky (see Janout et al., to be submitted to this issue). The dissipation rates of turbulent kinetic energy (ϵ) were derived from shear variance measured with a freely falling MSS-90L microstructure profiler manufactured by Sea and Sun Technology (SST, Germany). Vertical profiles of epsilon were calculated from the isotropic formula and spectral analysis of 1-s segments and subsequently averaged into 1-m bins. Turbulent vertical fluxes are based on a diapycnal eddy diffusivity with a constant mixing efficiency taken to be 0.2 (Osborn 1980). For statistical robustness, the 2014 MSS profile shown in this paper was averaged from a series of five casts.

In 2018 a joint German-US-Russian expedition to the Eurasian Arctic was carried out aboard the RV Akademik Tryoshnikov from 18 August to 30 September 2018. The expedition combined the German-Russian CATS (Changing Arctic Transpolar System) and the US-Russian NABOS (Nansen Amundsen Basin Observing System) programs. The dissipation profile was again generated with a MSS-90L, while the nitrate profile was recorded with a Deep SUNA V2 nitrate profiler (Seabird Scientific) attached to the shipboard CTD/rosette. These data files were then processed using a program (ISUSDataProcessor) developed by Ken Johnson (MBARI) that corrects the spectral data for temperature effects on the bromide absorption and applies a linear baseline correction to account for absorption by colored dissolved organic matter (Sakamoto, Johnson, and Coletti 2009). SUNA nitrate concentrations were then compared with nitrate concentrations measured from discrete seawater samples collected at various depths above 20 and below 300 m depth where concentrations were sufficiently constant with depth. The full description of the methods is distributed with the data (Alkire 2019).

Nitrate fluxes

Two representative profiles were selected to compute nitrate fluxes (Fig. 11A): Cast 59 and a co-located MSS profile, both sampled in 2018, and the 2014 MSS profiles and cast 62, also co-located but from separate years. For both profiles, we visually determined the nitracline, averaged ε over that interval, and computed the average nitrate and density gradients by a linear regression. The resulting nitrate fluxes were 0.014 and 0.017 mmol N m⁻² d⁻¹, and hence we entered the average value of 0.015 mmol N m⁻² d⁻¹ for the Laptev Sea into the nitrate fluxes compilation.

Even though we have a winter and a summer vertical profile of nitrate concentrations, we cannot calculate a winter flux using the integrated drawdown (Codispoti et al. 2013; Randelhoff, Sundfjord, and Reigstad 2015) because comparison of the winter and summer profiles does not indicate any reliable vertical structure in the drawdown. This may indicate that winter fluxes might be too small to make a noticeable difference between the summer and winter profiles. More importantly, in such a shallow shelf sea, other factors (such as benthic nitrogen cycling or riverine freshwater) may also play a role as detailed above.

Nitrate flux estimate in Baffin Bay

Three biogeochemical Argo floats, part of the NAOS project, overwintered in Baffin Bay from July 2017 to July 2018, described in detail by Randelhoff et al. (2019,(2020, in prep.).

Nitrate concentration was observed by the Satlantic Submersible Ultraviolet Nitrate Analyzer (SUNA). Each sensor’s offset, taken to be constant and depth-independent (Achim Randelhoff, Fer, et al. 2016), was corrected based on nitrate concentration profiles sampled during deployment of the floats. Mixed layer depth was defined as the shallowest depth where density rose more than 0.1 kg m⁻³ above the surface density.

Integrating the nitrate deficit Δ[NO₃⁻] ≡ [NO₃⁻](60m) − [NO₃⁻](z) over the upper 60 meters for each station shows that over the course of four months (from November to March), a deficit of 200 mmol N m⁻² was replenished, approximately equivalent to an upward nitrate flux of 1.66 mmol N m⁻² d⁻¹ (Fig. 12). Although each float was drifting during the course of the winter, which may have introduced advective changes, the floats were well dispersed across Baffin Bay and should give a representative picture of winter mixed layer evolution. Details are deferred to the aforementioned manuscript (Randelhoff et al., in prep.). The usual caveats about neglecting mixed-layer regeneration and consumption of nutrients apply, and henceso this calculation makes the same kind of assumptions as have been detailed by Randelhoff, Sundfjord, and Reigstad (2015).

Figures

Figure 1: (A) Seasonal cycles of surface nitrate concentrations in different regions of the Arctic. (B) The delineation of these regions largely follows Codispoti et al. (2013) and Peralta-Ferriz and Woodgate (2015).
Figure 2: All nitrate flux compilation across the AO compiled for this study, irrespective of season and vertical levels. The smaller dots indicate single stations, whereas the big dots represent averages over larger time or space scales.
Figure 3: NitrateVertical turbulent nitrate fluxes as a function of the month. BlueBlack lines mark the regions where the water column overturns in winter and orange those where it does not. ThickDotted lines represent measurements, whereas thin lines denote values (stipulated by the authors) that extrapolate the measured fluxesreflect flux estimates based on general considerations about stratification and the seasonality of primary production. Pale lines reflect single stations,small sample sizes (N), potentially not very representative of the regional or seasonal scale, whereas solid lines indicate data that are representative of a larger spatial or temporal scale.
Figure 4: The surface nitrate inventory dominated by variations in turbulent mixing. The annual pre-bloom surface nitrate inventoryconcentration graphed as a function of (A) the vertical nitrate flux during winter and (B) the strength of water column stratification in the upper 30-60 m depth interval. The bold curves show average nitrate concentration for a given strength of stratification for either of three bathymetry types, whereas the closed contourstypes. Vertical bars (horizontally slightly offset to increase readability) indicate the underlying probability distributionstandard deviation of all data points.for each bin. Data sources: (A) nitrate flux compilation, (B) nitrate profile database.
Figure 5: UpwardAnnual nitrogen fluxes in the Arctic surface ocean. Winter average upward nitrate flux, new production, and vertical downward particle export (Redfield-equivalent)(converted to nitrogen units using the Redfield ratio) at 200 m depth compared across four regions of the Arctic Ocean. Data sources: Nitrate fluxes, see Table 1; new production, Sakshaug (2004); export production, Wiedmann (2015), Honjo et al. (2010), and Cai et al. (2010). Error bars were systematically only available for nitrate fluxes.
Figure 6: (A) New production incubations compared with upward nitrate flux for three case studies. Data sources: Achim Randelhoff, Fer, et al. (2016), Nishino et al. (2015), this study (see Appendix). (B) Annual cycle of dissolved (DON) and particulate organic nitrogen (PON) observed in the seasonal ice zone of Fram Strait. Shaded areas indicate the standard deviation. Data source: Paulsen et al. (2018), their Table 11.
Figure 7: Summer surface nitrate concentration.
Figure 8: Distributions (kernel density estimates) of observed nitrate fluxes based on Tables 1 and 2. Note that these curves give each observation the same weight, regardless of areal or temporal scope.
Figure 9: A simplified marine nitrogen cycle and idealized Arctic hydrography. (A) General schematic of a vertical profile of nitrate concentration, along with the respective portion of the nitrogen cycle that takes place in each layer. In this idealized case, there is a clear separation between the seasonal variations in nitrate concentrations in the surface layer which give rise to the seasonal nitracline, and the underlying perennial nitracline. (B) In areas with deep overturning into the waters of maximum nitrate concentration, the deep nitracline ceases to be meaningful. Instead, nitrate fluxes tap into high-nutrient water every winter. (C) Highly stratified areas do not see large seasonal excursions in surface layer nitrate concentrations or mixing depths.
Figure 10: Young Sound data. (A) Bathymetry and coast data courtesy T. Vang and J. Bendtsen (Rysgaard et al. (2003); not included in the supplemental material). Transect starting in the inner end of the fjord, going over two sills and out into the Greenland Sea, demonstrating (B) low salinity due to ice sheet runoff, (C) nitrate depletion in the upper 30-40 meters, and (D) a quiescent fjord interior with vigorous mixing over the two sills. (E) Upward nitrate fluxes observed in Young Sound (shaded areas represent kernel density estimates) and observed values of new production, integrated new productionover 0-20 meters (black bars). Note that new production estimates are based on only two measurement depths; see methods.
Figure 11: Laptev Sea data. (A) Vertical profiles of salinity, nitrate concentration and dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy (ϵ) in the Laptev Sea. (B) Measurement locations in the Laptev Sea. Map drawn using a Lambert conformal projection (PROJ4 string: +ellps=WGS84 +proj=lcc +lon_0=110 +lat_0=75 +x_0=0.0 +y_0=0.0 +lat_1=33 +lat_2=45 +no_defs).
Figure 12: Seasonal cycle of nitrate concentrations in Baffin Bay alongside mixed layer depth (A) and the 0-60 m vertically integrated nitrate deficit Δ[NO₃⁻] = NO₃⁻ − [NO₃⁻](z) (B).

Tables

Table 1: Nitrate fluxes observed in the Arctic Ocean. * Turbulent vertical nitrate flux given in mmol N m⁻² d⁻¹. ** Under ice cover. *** Open water. AABC: Anticyclonic Arctic Boundary Current. Perennial: Measured below the extent of seasonal nitrate variation. See Supplementary Material for complete data set.
Reference FN Region Season NO₃⁻ flux* Reference Sample size
Amundsen Basin Winter 0.05 Achim Randelhoff and Guthrie (2016) Large Microstruct. Optic
Baffin Bay Winter 1.7 this study Large N/A Optic
Barents Sea Summer 0.1 Sundfjord et al. (2007) 0.1 Small Microstruct. Bottle
Barents Sea Summer Few measurements 0.1 Wiedmann et al. (2017) Small Microstruct. Optic
Barents Sea Summer 2.0 Sundfjord et al. (2007) 2.0 Small Microstruct. Bottle
Barents Sea Summer Few measurements 5.0 Wiedmann et al. (2017) Small Microstruct. Optic
Bourgault et al. (2011) 0.12 Amundsen Gulf Barents Sea, AABC Winter Aggregate value 2.5
Randelhoff, Sundfjord, and Reigstad (2015) 2.5 Large Barents Sea, AABC N/A Optic
Beaufort Sea Winter Aggregate value 0.12 Bourgault et al. (2011) Large Microstruct. Optic
Canada Basin Winter 0.01 Achim Randelhoff and Guthrie (2016) Large Finestruct. Optic
Chukchi Sea Summer 0.02 this study, Nishino et al. (2015) 0.02 Small Microstruct. Bottle
Chukchi Sea Summer Few measurements 0.19 Nishino et al. (2018) Large Microstruct. Bottle
Laptev Shelf (outer) Summer 0.015 this study Small Microstruct. Bottle & Optic
Makarov Basin Winter 0.015 Achim Randelhoff and Guthrie (2016) 0.01 Large Canada Basin Finestruct. Perennial
Achim Randelhoff and Guthrie (2016) N Svalbard/Fram Strait Summer 0.0153** Makarov Basin Perennial Aggregate value
Achim Randelhoff and Guthrie (2016) 0.05 Amundsen Basin Perennial Aggregate value
Achim Randelhoff and Guthrie (2016) 0.2 Nansen Basin/Yermak Plateau Perennial Aggregate value
Achim Randelhoff, Fer, et al. (2016) 0.3 Large Microstruct. Optic
N Svalbard/Fram Strait Summer Aggregate value 0.7***
Achim Randelhoff, Fer, et al. (2016) 0.7 Large N Svalbard/Fram Strait Microstruct. Optic
Nansen Basin/Yermak Plateau Winter 0.2 Achim Randelhoff and Guthrie (2016) Large Microstruct. Optic
Young Sound (Interior) Summer Aggregate value 0.035
Wiedmann et al. (2017) 0.1 Barents Sea Summer Few measurements
Wiedmann et al. (2017) 5.0 Barents Sea Summer Few measurements
Nishino et al. (2018) 0.19 Chukchi Sea Summer Aggregate value
this study 1.7 Large Baffin Bay Microstruct. Winter Aggregate value Optic
this study 0.015 Laptev Shelf (outer) Summer Few measurements
this study 0.33 Young Sound (Sills) Summer Aggregate value 0.33
this study 0.035 Large Young Sound (Interior) Microstruct. Summer Aggregate value Optic

: Table 1: Nitrate fluxes observed in the Arctic Ocean. * Turbulent vertical nitrate flux given in mmol N m⁻² d⁻¹. ** Under ice cover. *** Open water. AABC: Anticyclonic Arctic Boundary Current. Perennial: Measured below the extent of seasonal nitrate variation. See Supplementary Material for complete data set.



Table 2: Nitrate fluxes in the global ocean, excluding the Arctic. * Turbulent vertical nitrate flux given in mmol N m⁻² d⁻¹.
Reference FN NO₃⁻ flux* Region
Lewis et al. (1986) 0.14 Subtropical North Atlantic
Jenkins (1988) 1.6 Subtropical North Atlantic
Hamilton, Lewis, and Ruddick (1989) re-analyzing Lewis et al. (1986) 0.85 Subtropical North Atlantic
Carr et al. (1995) 1.9 Equatorial Pacific (5 °N - 5 °S)
Carr et al. (1995) 4.3 Equatorial Pacific (1 °N - 1 °S)
Horne et al. (1996) 0.047 North Atlantic, Georges Bank
Horne et al. (1996) 0.18 North Atlantic, Georges Bank
Planas et al. (1999) 0.38 Central Atlantic
Law et al. (2001) 1.8 Subarctic North Atlantic
Sharples, Moore, and Abraham (2001) 12.0 New Zealand Shelf
Law (2003) 0.17 Antarctic Circumpolar Current
Hales (2005) 9.0 Oregon Shelf Upwelling System
Sharples et al. (2007) 1.3 Celtic Sea shelf edge (neap tide)
Sharples et al. (2007) 9.0 Celtic Sea shelf edge (spring tide)
Hales, Hebert, and Marra (2009) 0.9 New England shelf break front (seaward of)side)
Hales, Hebert, and Marra (2009) 5.2 New England shelf break front (shoreward of)side)
Rippeth et al. (2009) 1.5 Irish Sea
Martin et al. (2010) 0.09 North Atlantic, Porcupine Abyssal Plain
Schafstall et al. (2010) 1.0 Mauritanian Upwelling (offshore)
Schafstall et al. (2010) 3.7 Mauritanian Upwelling (shelf)
Schafstall et al. (2010) 10.0 Mauritanian Upwelling (slope)
Shiozaki et al. (2011), mean of values in their Table 1 0.25 North Pacific, East China Sea shelf
Kaneko et al. (2013) 0.003 North Pacific, Kuroshio (south of front)
Kaneko et al. (2013) 0.34 North Pacific, Kuroshio (north of front)
Cyr et al. (2015) 0.21 St. Lawrence Gulf, Canada
Cyr et al. (2015) 95.0 St. Lawrence Gulf, Canada (shallow sill)

: Table 2: Nitrate fluxes in the global ocean, excluding the Arctic. * Turbulent vertical nitrate flux given in mmol N m⁻² d⁻¹.

References

Aagaard, K., and E. C. Carmack. 1989. “The Role of Sea Ice and Other Fresh Water in the Arctic Circulation.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 94 (C10): 14485–98. https://doi.org/10.1029/JC094iC10p14485.

Agawin, Nona S. R., Carlos M. Duarte, and Susana Agustí. 2000. “Nutrient and Temperature Control of the Contribution of Picoplankton to Phytoplankton Biomass and Production.” Limnology and Oceanography 45 (3): 591–600. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2000.45.3.0591 .

Alkire, Matthew. 2019. “Ocean Conductivity, Temperature, Density (CTD), Oxygen, and Nitrate Profiles, Eurasian and Makarov Basins, Arctic Ocean, 2013-2018.” https://doi.org/10.18739/A24X54G9W.

Alkire, Matthew B., Kelly K. Falkner, James Morison, Robert W. Collier, Christopher K. Guay, Russell A. Desiderio, Ignatius G. Rigor, and Miles McPhee. 2010. “Sensor-Based Profiles of the NO Parameter in the Central Arctic and Southern Canada Basin New Insights Regarding the Cold Halocline.” Deep-Sea Research Part I-Oceanographic Research Papers 57 (11): 1432–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2010.07.011.

Allen, T. F. H., and T. W. Hoekstra. 2015. Toward a Unified Ecology. Second edition. Complexity in Ecological Systems Series. New York: Columbia University Press.

Ambühl, Heinz. 1959. “Die Bedeutung der Strömung als ökologischer Faktor.” Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Hydrologie 21 (2): 133. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505455.

Ardyna, Mathieu, Marcel Babin, Michel Gosselin, Emmanuel Devred, Luc Rainville, and Jean-Éric Tremblay. 2014. “Recent Arctic Ocean Sea Ice Loss Triggers Novel Fall Phytoplankton Blooms.” Geophysical Research Letters 41 (17): 6207–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014gl061047.

Arrigo, Kevin R., Matthew M. Mills, Gert L. van Dijken, Kate E. Lowry, Robert S. Pickart, and Reiner Schlitzer. 2017. “Late Spring Nitrate Distributions Beneath the Ice-Covered Northeastern Chukchi Shelf.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 122 (9): 2409–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JG003881.

Arrigo, Kevin R., and Gert L. van Dijken. 2015. “Continued Increases in Arctic Ocean Primary Production.” Progress in Oceanography 136: 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2015.05.002 .

Bauch, Dorothea, Ekaterina Cherniavskaia, Andrey Novikhin, and Heidemarie Kassens. 2018. “Physical Oceanography, Nutrients, and Δ18O Measured on Water Bottle Samples in the Laptev Sea, Supplement to: Bauch, D; Cherniavskaia, Ekaterina (2018): Water Mass Classification on a Highly Variable Arctic Shelf Region: Origin of Laptev Sea Water Masses and Implications for the Nutrient Budget. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans.” PANGAEA - Data Publisher for Earth & Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.885448.

Biogeochemical-Argo Planning Group. 2016. “The Scientific Rationale, Design and Implementation Plan for a Biogeochemical-Argo Float Array.” Ifremer. https://doi.org/10.13155/46601.

Blais, Marjolaine, Jean-Éric Tremblay, Anne D. Jungblut, Jonathan Gagnon, Johannie Martin, Mary Thaler, and Connie Lovejoy. 2012. “Nitrogen Fixation and Identification of Potential Diazotrophs in the Canadian Arctic.” Global Biogeochemical Cycles 26 (3). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011gb004096.

Bluhm, B. A., K. N. Kosobokova, and E. C. Carmack. 2015. “A Tale of Two Basins: An Integrated Physical and Biological Perspective of the Deep Arctic Ocean.” Progress in Oceanography, Overarching perspectives of contemporary and future ecosystems in the Arctic Ocean, 139 (December): 89–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2015.07.011.

Bokeh Development Team. 2018. Bokeh: Python Library for Interactive Visualization.

Bouffard, Damien, and Leon Boegman. 2013. “A Diapycnal Diffusivity Model for Stratified Environmental Flows.” Dynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans 61-62 (June): 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dynatmoce.2013.02.002.

Bouman, Heather A., Trevor Platt, Martina Doblin, Francisco G. Figueiras, Kristinn Gudmundsson, Hafsteinn G. Gudfinnsson, Bangqin Huang, et al. 2018. “Photosynthesis-Irradiance Parameters of Marine Phytoplankton: Synthesis of a Global Data Set.” Earth System Science Data 10 (1): 251–66. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-251-2018.

Bourgault, D., C. Hamel, F. Cyr, J.-É. Tremblay, P. S. Galbraith, D. Dumont, and Y. Gratton. 2011. “Turbulent Nitrate Fluxes in the Amundsen Gulf During Ice-Covered Conditions.” Geophysical Research Letters 38 (15). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047936.

Brzezinski, Mark A. 1985. “The Si:C:N Ratio of Marine Diatoms: Interspecific Variability and the Effect of Some Environmental Variables.” Journal of Phycology 21 (3): 347–57.

Cai, P., M. Rutgers van der Loeff, I. Stimac, E.-M. NÃthig, K. Lepore, and S. B. Moran. 2010. “Low Export Flux of Particulate Organic Carbon in the Central Arctic Ocean as Revealed by 234Th:238U Disequilibrium.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 115 (C10): n/a–n/a. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JC005595.

Carmack, E. C. 2007. “The Alpha/Beta Ocean Distinction: A Perspective on Freshwater Fluxes, Convection, Nutrients and Productivity in High-Latitude Seas.” Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 54 (November): 2578–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2007.08.018.

Carmack, Eddy, David Barber, Jens Christensen, Robie Macdonald, Bert Rudels, and Egil Sakshaug. 2006. “Climate Variability and Physical Forcing of the Food Webs and the Carbon Budget on Panarctic Shelves.” Progress in Oceanography 71 (2-4): 145–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2006.10.005.

Carmack, Eddy, and David C. Chapman. 2003. “Wind-Driven Shelf/Basin Exchange on an Arctic Shelf: The Joint Roles of Ice Cover Extent and Shelf-Break Bathymetry.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 30 (14). https://doi.org/10.1029/2003gl017526.

Carmack, Eddy, and Paul Wassmann. 2006. “Food Webs and Physical - Biological Coupling on Pan-Arctic Shelves: Unifying Concepts and Comprehensive Perspectives.” Progress in Oceanography 71 (2-4): 446–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2006.10.004.

Carr, Mary-Elena, Marlon R. Lewis, Dan Kelley, and Burton Jones. 1995. “A Physical Estimate of New Production in the Equatorial Pacific Along 150W.” Limnology and Oceanography 40 (1): 138–47. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1995.40.1.0138.

Chanona, Melanie, Stephanie Waterman, and Yves Gratton. 2018. “Variability of Internal Wave-Driven Mixing and Stratification in Canadian Arctic Shelf and Shelf-Slope Waters.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 123 (12): 9178–95. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC014342.

Chisholm, Sallie W. 1992. “Phytoplankton Size.” In Primary Productivity and Biogeochemical Cycles in the Sea, edited by Paul G. Falkowski, Avril D. Woodhead, and Katherine Vivirito, 213–37. Environmental Science Research. Boston, MA: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0762-2_12.

Cochlan, William P., and Paul J. Harrison. 1991. “Kinetics of Nitrogen (Nitrate, Ammonium and Urea) Uptake by the Picoflagellate Micromonas Pusilla (Prasinophyceae).” Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 153 (2): 129–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(91)90220-Q.

Codispoti, L. A., V. Kelly, A. Thessen, P. Matrai, S. Suttles, V. Hill, M. Steele, and B. Light. 2013. “Synthesis of Primary Production in the Arctic Ocean: III. Nitrate and Phosphate Based Estimates of Net Community Production.” Progress in Oceanography 110 (March): 126–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2012.11.006.

Cole, Sylvia T., John M. Toole, Luc Rainville, and Craig M. Lee. 2018. “Internal Waves in the Arctic: Influence of Ice Concentration, Ice Roughness, and Surface Layer Stratification.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, July. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC014096.

Collos, Yves. 1987. “Calculations of 15N Uptake Rates by Phytoplankton Assimilating One or Several Nitrogen Sources.” International Journal of Radiation Applications and Instrumentation. Part A. Applied Radiation and Isotopes 38 (4): 275–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-2889(87)90038-4 .

Comiso, Josefino C. 2012. “Large Decadal Decline of the Arctic Multiyear Ice Cover.” Journal of Climate 25 (4): 1176–93. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00113.1.

Crews, L., A. Sundfjord, J. Albretsen, and T. Hattermann. 2018. “Mesoscale Eddy Activity and Transport in the Atlantic Water Inflow Region North of Svalbard.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 123 (1): 201–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013198.

Cyr, Frédéric, Daniel Bourgault, Peter S. Galbraith, and Michel Gosselin. 2015. “Turbulent Nitrate Fluxes in the Lower St. Lawrence Estuary (Canada).” J. Geophys. Res. Oceans, February, n/a–n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014jc010272.

Dewey, Sarah R., James H. Morison, and Jinlun Zhang. 2017. “An Edge-Referenced Surface Fresh Layer in the Beaufort Sea Seasonal Ice Zone.” Journal of Physical Oceanography 47 (5): 1125–44. https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-16-0158.1.

Dosser, Hayley V., and Luc Rainville. 2016. “Dynamics of the Changing Near-Inertial Internal Wave Field in the Arctic Ocean.” Journal of Physical Oceanography 46 (2): 395–415. https://doi.org/10.1175/jpo-d-15-0056.1.

Dugdale, R. C., and J. J. Goering. 1967. “Uptake of New and Regenerated Forms of Nitrogen in Primary Productivity.” Limnology and Oceanography 12 (2): 196–206. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1967.12.2.0196.

Eppley, RW,Richard W., Jane N. Rogers, and BJ Peterson. 1979. “The FluxJames J. McCarthy. 1969. “Half-Saturation Constants for Uptake of Particulate Organic Matter to the Deep OceanNitrate and Its Relation to Planktonic New Production.Ammonium by Marine Phytoplankton1.NatureLimnology and Oceanography 282: 677–80.14 (6): 912–20. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1969.14.6.0912.

Fer, Ilker, and Kenneth Drinkwater. 2014. “Mixing in the Barents Sea Polar Front Near Hopen in Spring.” Journal of Marine Systems 130 (February): 206–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2012.01.005.

Frey, Karen E., and James W. McClelland. 2009. “Impacts of Permafrost Degradation on Arctic River Biogeochemistry.” Hydrological Processes 23 (1): 169–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7196.

Frigstad, Helene, Tom Andersen, Richard G. J. Bellerby, Anna Silyakova, and Dag O. Hessen. 2014. “Variation in the Seston C:N Ratio of the Arctic Ocean and Pan-Arctic Shelves.” Journal of Marine Systems 129 (January): 214–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.06.004.

Gargett, Ann, and Teresa Garner. 2008. “Determining Thorpe Scales from Ship-Lowered CTD Density Profiles.” Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 25 (9): 1657–70. https://doi.org/10.1175/2008jtecho541.1.

Garrett, Christopher, and Walter Munk. 1975. “Space-Time Scales of Internal Waves: A Progress Report.” Journal of Geophysical Research 80 (3): 291–97. https://doi.org/10.1029/JC080i003p00291.

Gregg, M. C., E. A. D’Asaro, J. J. Riley, and E. Kunze. 2018. “Mixing Efficiency in the Ocean.” Annual Review of Marine Science 10 (1): 443–73. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-121916-063643.

Guthrie, John D., James H. Morison, and Ilker Fer. 2013. “Revisiting Internal Waves and Mixing in the Arctic Ocean.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 118 (8): 3966–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrc.20294.

Hales, B. 2005. “Irreversible Nitrate Fluxes Due to Turbulent Mixing in a Coastal Upwelling System.” Journal of Geophysical Research 110 (C10): C10S11. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JC002685.

Hales, Burke, Dave Hebert, and John Marra. 2009. “Turbulent Supply of Nutrients to Phytoplankton at the New England Shelf Break Front.” Journal of Geophysical Research 114 (C5): C05010. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JC005011.

Hamilton, James M., Marlon R. Lewis, and Barry R. Ruddick. 1989. “Vertical Fluxes of Nitrate Associated with Salt Fingers in the World’s Oceans.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 94 (C2): 2137–45. https://doi.org/10.1029/JC094iC02p02137.

Hattermann, Tore, Pål Erik Isachsen, Wilken-Jon von Appen, Jon Albretsen, and Arild Sundfjord. 2016. “Eddy-Driven Recirculation of Atlantic Water in Fram Strait.” Geophysical Research Letters 43 (7): 3406–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gl068323.

Holding, Johnna M., Stiig Markager, Thomas Juul-Pedersen, Maria L. Paulsen, Eva F. Møller, Lorenz Meire, and Mikael K. Sejr. 2019. “Seasonal and Spatial Patterns of Primary Production in a High-Latitude Fjord Affected by Greenland Ice Sheet Run-Off.” Biogeosciences 16 (19): 3777–92. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-3777-2019.

Honjo, Susumu, Richard A. Krishfield, Timothy I. Eglinton, Steven J. Manganini, John N. Kemp, Kenneth Doherty, Jeomshik Hwang, Theresa K. McKee, and Takatoshi Takizawa. 2010. “Biological Pump Processes in the Cryopelagic and Hemipelagic Arctic Ocean: Canada Basin and Chukchi Rise.” Progress in Oceanography 85 (3À“4): 137–70. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2010.02.009.

Hopwood, Mark J, D Carroll, TJ Browning, L Meire, J Mortensen, Stephan Krisch, and Eric P Achterberg. 2018. “Non-Linear Response of Summertime Marine Productivity to Increased Meltwater Discharge Around Greenland.” Nature Communications 9 (1): 3256.

Hopwood, Mark J, Dustin Carroll, Thorben Dunse, Andy Hodson, Johnna M Holding, José L Iriarte, Sofia Ribeiro, et al. 2019. “How Does Glacier Discharge Affect Marine Biogeochemistry and Primary Production in the Arctic?” The Cryosphere Discussions, 1–51.

Horne, Edward P. W., John W. Loder, Christopher E. Naime, and Neil S. Oakey. 1996. “Turbulence Dissipation Rates and Nitrate Supply in the Upper Water Column on Georges Bank.” Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 43 (7): 1683–1712. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-0645(96)00037-9.

Ivanov, Vladimir, Vladimir Alexeev, Nikolay V. Koldunov, Irina Repina, Anne Britt Sandø, Lars Henrik Smedsrud, and Alexander Smirnov. 2016. “Arctic Ocean Heat Impact on Regional Ice Decay - a Suggested Positive Feedback.” Journal of Physical Oceanography 46 (5): 1437–56. https://doi.org/10.1175/jpo-d-15-0144.1.

Jenkins, W. J. 1988. “Nitrate Flux into the Euphotic Zone Near Bermuda.” Nature 331 (6156): 521–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/331521a0.

Johnson, Kenneth S., Stephen C. Riser, and David M. Karl. 2010. “Nitrate Supply from Deep to Near-Surface Waters of the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre.” Nature 465 (7301): 1062–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09170.

Kalvelage, Tim, Marlene M Jensen, Sergio Contreras, Niels Peter Revsbech, Phyllis Lam, Marcel Günter, Julie LaRoche, Gaute Lavik, and Marcel MM Kuypers. 2011. “Oxygen Sensitivity of Anammox and Coupled N-Cycle Processes in Oxygen Minimum Zones.” PloS One 6 (12): e29299.

Kaneko, Hitoshi, Ichiro Yasuda, Kosei Komatsu, and Sachihiko Itoh. 2013. “Observations of Vertical Turbulent Nitrate Flux Across the Kuroshio.” Geophysical Research Letters 40 (12): 3123–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50613.

Karp-Boss, L., E. S. Boss, and P. A. Jumars. 1996. “Nutrient Fluxes to Planktonic Osmotrophs in the Presence of Fluid Motion.” Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 34: 71–107.

Kämpf, Jochen, and Piers Chapman. 2016. Upwelling Systems of the World. Springer.

Kiørboe, Thomas. 2008. A Mechanistic Approach to Plankton Ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kowalik, Z., and A. Y. Proshutinsky. 2013. “The Arctic Ocean Tides.” In The Polar Oceans and Their Role in Shaping the Global Environment, 137–58. American Geophysical Union (AGU). https://doi.org/10.1029/GM085p0137.

Law, C. S. 2003. “Vertical Eddy Diffusion and Nutrient Supply to the Surface Mixed Layer of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current.” Journal of Geophysical Research 108 (C8): 3272. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JC001604.

Law, C. S., A. P. Martin, M. I. Liddicoat, A. J. Watson, K. J. Richards, and E. M. S. Woodward. 2001. “A Lagrangian SF6 Tracer Study of an Anticyclonic Eddy in the North Atlantic: Patch Evolution, Vertical Mixing and Nutrient Supply to the Mixed Layer.” Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, The Biological Oceanography of the north-east Atlantic-the PRIME study, 48 (4): 705–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-0645(00)00112-0.

Lewis, M. R., D. Hebert, W. G. Harrison, T. Platt, and N. S. Oakey. 1986. “Vertical Nitrate Fluxes in the Oligotrophic Ocean.” Science 234 (4778): 870–73. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.234.4778.870.

Li, W. K. W., F. A. McLaughlin, C. Lovejoy, and E. C. Carmack. 2009. “Smallest Algae Thrive as the Arctic Ocean Freshens.” Science 326 (5952): 539–39. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1179798.

Lincoln, Ben J., Tom P. Rippeth, Yueng-Djern Lenn, Mary Louise Timmermans, William J. Williams, and Sheldon Bacon. 2016. “Wind-Driven Mixing at Intermediate Depths in an Ice-Free Arctic Ocean.” Geophysical Research Letters 43 (18): 9749–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070454.

Loeng, Harald. 1991. “Features of the Physical Oceanographic Conditions of the Barents Sea.” Polar Research 10 (1): 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-8369.1991.tb00630.x .

Lueck, Rolf G., Fabian Wolk, and Hidekatsu Yamazaki. 2002. “Oceanic Velocity Microstructure Measurements in the 20th Century.” Journal of Oceanography 58 (1): 153–74. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015837020019.

Margalef, Ramon. 1978. “Life-Forms of Phytoplankton as Survival Alternatives in an Unstable Environment.” Oceanologica Acta 1 (4): 493–509.

Martin, Adrian P., Michael I. Lucas, Stuart C. Painter, Rosalind Pidcock, Hartmut Prandke, Holger Prandke, and Mark C. Stinchcombe. 2010. “The Supply of Nutrients Due to Vertical Turbulent Mixing: A Study at the Porcupine Abyssal Plain Study Site in the Northeast Atlantic.” Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 57 (15): 1293–1302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.01.006.

Martin, Adrian P., and Kelvin J. Richards. 2001. “Mechanisms for Vertical Nutrient Transport Within a North Atlantic Mesoscale Eddy.” Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, The Biological Oceanography of the north-east Atlantic-the PRIME study, 48 (4): 757–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-0645(00)00096-5.

Martin, A. P., and P. Pondaven. 2003. “On Estimates for the Vertical Nitrate Flux Due to Eddy Pumping.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 108 (C11): n/a–n/a. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JC001841.

Martin, Torge, Michel Tsamados, David Schroeder, and Daniel L. Feltham. 2016. “The Impact of Variable Sea Ice Roughness on Changes in Arctic Ocean Surface Stress: A Model Study.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 121 (3): 1931–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JC011186.

McPhee, Miles G. 1992. “Turbulent Heat Flux in the Upper Ocean Under Sea Ice.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 97 (C4): 5365–79. https://doi.org/10.1029/92JC00239.

McPhee, Miles G. , and Lakshmi H. Kantha. 1989. “Generation of Internal Waves by Sea Ice.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 94 (C3): 3287–3302. https://doi.org/10.1029/JC094iC03p03287.

McPhee, Miles G., and Timothy P. Stanton. 1996. “Turbulence in the Statically Unstable Oceanic Boundary Layer Under Arctic Leads.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 101 (C3): 6409–28. https://doi.org/10.1029/95JC03842.

Meier, Walter N., Greta K. Hovelsrud, Bob E. H. van Oort, Jeffrey R. Key, Kit M. Kovacs, Christine Michel, Christian Haas, et al. 2014. “Arctic Sea Ice in Transformation: A Review of Recent Observed Changes and Impacts on Biology and Human Activity: ARCTIC SEA ICE: REVIEW OF RECENT CHANGES.” Reviews of Geophysics 52 (3): 185–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013RG000431.

Meire, L., P. Meire, E. Struyf, D. W. Krawczyk, K. E. Arendt, J. C. Yde, T. Juul Pedersen, M. J. Hopwood, S. Rysgaard, and F. J. R. Meysman. 2016. “High Export of Dissolved Silica from the Greenland Ice Sheet: Silica Export the Ice Sheet.” Geophysical Research Letters 43 (17): 9173–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070191.

Meire, Lorenz, John Mortensen, Patrick Meire, Thomas Juul-Pedersen, Mikael K. Sejr, Søren Rysgaard, Rasmus Nygaard, Philippe Huybrechts, and Filip J. R. Meysman. 2017. “Marine-Terminating Glaciers Sustain High Productivity in Greenland Fjords.” Global Change Biology 23 (12): 5344–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13801 .

Moore, C. M., M. M. Mills, K. R. Arrigo, I. Berman-Frank, L. Bopp, P. W. Boyd, E. D. Galbraith, et al. 2013. “Processes and Patterns of Oceanic Nutrient Limitation.” Nature Geoscience 6 (9): 701–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1765.

Moran, S. B., S. E. Weinstein, H. N. Edmonds, J. N. Smith, R. P. Kelly, M. E. Q. Pilson, and W. G. Harrison. 2003. “Does 234Th/238U Disequilibrium Provide an Accurate Record of the Export Flux of Particulate Organic Carbon from the Upper Ocean?” Limnology and Oceanography 48 (3): 1018–29. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2003.48.3.1018.

Moum, J. N., M. C. Gregg, R. C. Lien, and M. E. Carr. 1995. “Comparison of Turbulence Kinetic Energy Dissipation Rate Estimates from Two Ocean Microstructure Profilers.” Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 12 (2): 346–66. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0426(1995)012%3C0346:COTKED%3E2.0.CO;2.

Nishino, Shigeto, Yusuke Kawaguchi, Amane Fujiwara, Takuhei Shiozaki, Michio Aoyama, Naomi Harada, and Takashi Kikuchi. 2018. “Biogeochemical Anatomy of a Cyclonic Warm-Core Eddy in the Arctic Ocean.” Geophysical Research Letters 45 (20). https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079659.

Nishino, Shigeto, Yusuke Kawaguchi, Jun Inoue, Toru Hirawake, Amane Fujiwara, Ryosuke Futsuki, Jonaotaro Onodera, and Michio Aoyama. 2015. “Nutrient Supply and Biological Response to Wind-Induced Mixing, Inertial Motion, Internal Waves, and Currents in the Northern Chukchi Sea.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 120 (3): 1975–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014jc010407.

Nummelin, Aleksi, Mehmet Ilicak, Camille Li, and Lars H. Smedsrud. 2015. “Consequences of Future Increased Arctic Runoff on Arctic Ocean Stratification, Circulation, and Sea Ice Cover.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, December. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015jc011156.

Omand, M. M., F. Feddersen, R. T. Guza, and P. J. S. Franks. 2012. “Episodic Vertical Nutrient Fluxes and Nearshore Phytoplankton Blooms in Southern California.” Limnology and Oceanography 57 (6): 1673–88. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2012.57.6.1673.

Onarheim, Ingrid H., Tor Eldevik, Lars H. Smedsrud, and Julienne C. Stroeve. 2018. “Seasonal and Regional Manifestation of Arctic Sea Ice Loss.” Journal of Climate 31 (12): 4917–32. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0427.1.

Osborn, T. R. 1980. “Estimates of the Local Rate of Vertical Diffusion from Dissipation Measurements.” J. Phys. Oceanogr. 10 (1): 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(1980)010%3C0083:EOTLRO%3E2.0.CO;2.

Padman, Laurie. 1995. “Small-Scale Physical Processes in the Arctic Ocean.” In Coastal and Estuarine Studies, edited by Walker O. Smith and Jacqueline M. Grebmeier, 49:97–129. Washington, D. C.: American Geophysical Union. https://doi.org/10.1029/CE049p0097 .

Paulsen, Maria L., Sophia E. B. Nielsen, Oliver Müller, Eva F. Møller, Colin A. Stedmon, Thomas Juul-Pedersen, Stiig Markager, et al. 2017. “Carbon Bioavailability in a High Arctic Fjord Influenced by Glacial Meltwater, NE Greenland.” Frontiers in Marine Science 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00176.

Paulsen, Maria L., Lena Seuthe, Marit Reigstad, Aud Larsen, Mattias R. Cape, and Maria Vernet. 2018. “Asynchronous Accumulation of Organic Carbon and Nitrogen in the Atlantic Gateway to the Arctic Ocean.” Frontiers in Marine Science 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00416.

Peralta-Ferriz, Cecilia, and Rebecca A. Woodgate. 2015. “Seasonal and Interannual Variability of Pan-Arctic Surface Mixed Layer Properties from 1979 to 2012 from Hydrographic Data, and the Dominance of Stratification for Multiyear Mixed Layer Depth Shoaling.” Progress in Oceanography 134: 19–53. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2014.12.005.

Planas, Dolors, Susana Agustí, Carlos M. Duarte, Tim C. Granata, and Martín Merino. 1999. “Nitrate Uptake and Diffusive Nitrate Supply in the Central Atlantic.” Limnology and Oceanography 44 (1): 116–26. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1999.44.1.0116.

Polyakov, Igor V., Andrey V. Pnyushkov, Matthew B. Alkire, Igor M. Ashik, Till M. Baumann, Eddy C. Carmack, Ilona Goszczko, et al. 2017. “Greater Role for Atlantic Inflows on Sea-Ice Loss in the Eurasian Basin of the Arctic Ocean.” Science 356 (6335): 285–91. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai8204.

Polzin, Kurt L., Alberto C. Naveira Garabato, Tycho N. Huussen, Bernadette M. Sloyan, and Stephanie Waterman. 2014. “Finescale Parameterizations of Turbulent Dissipation.” J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 119 (2): 1383–1419. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013jc008979.

Rainville, Luc, and Rebecca A. Woodgate. 2009. “Observations of Internal Wave Generation in the Seasonally Ice-Free Arctic.” Geophysical Research Letters 36 (23). https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL041291.

Randelhoff, Achim, Ilker Fer, and Arild Sundfjord. 2017. “Turbulent Upper-Ocean Mixing Affected by Meltwater Layers During Arctic Summer.” Journal of Physical Oceanography 47 (4): 835–53. https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-16-0200.1.

Randelhoff, Achim, Ilker Fer, Arild Sundfjord, Jean-Eric Tremblay, and Marit Reigstad. 2016. “Vertical Fluxes of Nitrate in the Seasonal Nitracline of the Atlantic Sector of the Arctic Ocean.” Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans 121 (7): 5282–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JC011779.

Randelhoff, Achim, and John D. Guthrie. 2016. “Regional Patterns in Current and Future Export Production in the Central Arctic Ocean Quantified from Nitrate Fluxes.” Geophysical Research Letters. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gl070252.

Randelhoff, Achim, Marit Reigstad, Melissa Chierici, Arild Sundfjord, Vladimir Ivanov, Mattias Cape, Maria Vernet, Jean-Éric Tremblay, Gunnar Bratbak, and Svein Kristiansen. 2018. “Seasonality of the Physical and Biogeochemical Hydrography in the Inflow to the Arctic Ocean Through Fram Strait.” Frontiers in Marine Science 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00224.

Randelhoff, Achim, Arild Sundfjord, and Marit Reigstad. 2015. “Seasonal Variability and Fluxes of Nitrate in the Surface Waters over the Arctic Shelf Slope.” Geophysical Research Letters 42 (9): 3442–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015gl063655.

Randelhoff, A., and A. Sundfjord. 2018. “Short Commentary on Marine Productivity at Arctic Shelf Breaks: Upwelling, Advection and Vertical Mixing.” Ocean Science 14 (2): 293–300. https://doi.org/10.5194/os-14-293-2018.

Redfield, A. C., B. H. Ketchum, and F. A. Richards. 1963. “The Influence of Organisms on the Composition of Sea-Water.” In The Sea, edited by M. N. Hill, 26–77. Academic Press.

Rees, Andrew P, Ian Joint, E. Malcolm S Woodward, and Kirsten M Donald. 2001. “Carbon, Nitrogen and Phosphorus Budgets Within a Mesoscale Eddy: Comparison of Mass Balance with in Vitro Determinations.” Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, The Biological Oceanography of the north-east Atlantic-the PRIME study, 48 (4): 859–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-0645(00)00101-6.

Renaud, Paul E., Mikael K. Sejr, Bodil A. Bluhm, Boris Sirenko, and Ingrid H. Ellingsen. 2015. “The Future of Arctic Benthos: Expansion, Invasion, and Biodiversity.” Progress in Oceanography, Overarching perspectives of contemporary and future ecosystems in the Arctic Ocean, 139 (December): 244–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2015.07.007.

Rippeth, Tom P., Ben J. Lincoln, Yueng-Djern Lenn, J. A. Mattias Green, Arild Sundfjord, and Sheldon Bacon. 2015. “Tide-Mediated Warming of Arctic Halocline by Atlantic Heat Fluxes over Rough Topography.” Nature Geoscience 8 (3): 191–94. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2350.

Rippeth, Tom P., Phil Wiles, Matt R. Palmer, Jonathan Sharples, and Jacqueline Tweddle. 2009. “The Diapcynal Nutrient Flux and Shear-Induced Diapcynal Mixing in the Seasonally Stratified Western Irish Sea.” Continental Shelf Research 29 (13): 1580–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2009.04.009.

Risgaard-Petersen, Nils, Niels Peter Revsbech, and Søren Rysgaard. 1995. “Combined Microdiffusion-Hypobromite Oxidation Method for Determining Nitrogen-15 Isotope in Ammonium.” Soil Science Society of America Journal 59 (4): 1077–80.

Rysgaard, Søren, Torben Vang, Michael Stjernholm, Bjarke Rasmussen, Anders Windelin, and Sissi Kiilsholm. 2003. “Physical Conditions, Carbon Transport, and Climate Change Impacts in a Northeast Greenland Fjord.” Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 35 (3): 301–12. https://doi.org/10.1657/1523-0430(2003)035%5B0301:PCCTAC%5D2.0.CO;2.

Sakamoto, Carole M., Kenneth S. Johnson, and Luke J. Coletti. 2009. “Improved Algorithm for the Computation of Nitrate Concentrations in Seawater Using an in Situ Ultraviolet Spectrophotometer.” Article. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods 7 (January): {132–143}.

Sakshaug, E. 2004. “Primary and Secondary Production in the Arctic Seas.” In The Organic Carbon Cycle in the Arctic Ocean, edited by Ruediger Stein and Robie W. Macdonald, 57–81. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18912-8_3.

Schafstall, Jens, Marcus Dengler, Peter Brandt, and Hermann Bange. 2010. “Tidal-Induced Mixing and Diapycnal Nutrient Fluxes in the Mauritanian Upwelling Region.” Journal of Geophysical Research 115 (C10): C10014. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JC005940.

Scheifele, Benjamin, Stephanie Waterman, Lucas Merckelbach, and Jeffrey R. Carpenter. 2018. “Measuring the Dissipation Rate of Turbulent Kinetic Energy in Strongly Stratified, Low-Energy Environments: A Case Study from the Arctic Ocean.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 123 (8): 5459–80. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JC013731.

Schnetger, Bernhard, and Carola Lehners. 2014. “Determination of Nitrate Plus Nitrite in Small Volume Marine Water Samples Using Vanadium (III) Chloride as a Reduction Agent.” Marine Chemistry 160: 91–98.

Sharples, Jonathan, C. Mark Moore, and Edward R. Abraham. 2001. “Internal Tide Dissipation, Mixing, and Vertical Nitrate Flux at the Shelf Edge of NE New Zealand.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 106 (C7): 14069–81. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JC000604.

Sharples, Jonathan, Jacqueline F. Tweddle, J. A. Mattias Green, Matthew R. Palmer, Young-Nam Kim, Anna E. Hickman, Patrick M. Holligan, et al. 2007. “Spring-Neap Modulation of Internal Tide Mixing and Vertical Nitrate Fluxes at a Shelf Edge in Summer.” Limnology and Oceanography 52 (5): 1735–47. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2007.52.5.1735.

Shih, Lucinda H., Jeffrey R. Koseff, Gregory N. Ivey, and Joel H. Ferziger. 2005. “Parameterization of Turbulent Fluxes and Scales Using Homogeneous Sheared Stably Stratified Turbulence Simulations.” Journal of Fluid Mechanics 525 (February): 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112004002587.

Shiozaki, Takuhei, Ken Furuya, Hiroyuki Kurotori, Taketoshi Kodama, Shigenobu Takeda, Takahiro Endoh, Yutaka Yoshikawa, Joji Ishizaka, and Takeshi Matsuno. 2011. “Imbalance Between Vertical Nitrate Flux and Nitrate Assimilation on a Continental Shelf: Implications of Nitrification.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 116 (C10). https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JC006934.

Shiozaki, T, K Furuya, T Kodama, and S Takeda. 2009. “Contribution of N2 Fixation to New Production in the Western North Pacific Ocean Along 155E.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 377 (February): 19–32. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07837.

Sipler, Rachel E., Donglai Gong, Steven E. Baer, Marta P. Sanderson, Quinn N. Roberts, Margaret R. Mulholland, and Deborah A. Bronk. 2017. “Preliminary Estimates of the Contribution of Arctic Nitrogen Fixation to the Global Nitrogen Budget.” Limnology and Oceanography Letters 2 (5): 159–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/lol2.10046.

Spall, Michael A., Robert S. Pickart, Eric T. Brugler, G. W. K. Moore, Leif Thomas, and Kevin R. Arrigo. 2014. “Role of Shelfbreak Upwelling in the Formation of a Massive Under-Ice Bloom in the Chukchi Sea.” Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 105: 17–29. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2014.03.017.

Stein, Ruediger, and Robie W. MacDonald, eds. 2004. The Organic Carbon Cycle in the Arctic Ocean. Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18912-8.

Stevens, Jean-Luc R., Philipp Rudiger, and James A. Bednar. 2015. “HoloViews: Building Complex Visualizations Easily for Reproducible Science.” In Proceedings of the 14th Python in Science Conference.

Stroeve, Julienne C., Mark C. Serreze, Marika M. Holland, Jennifer E. Kay, James Malanik, and Andrew P. Barrett. 2012. “The Arctic’s Rapidly Shrinking Sea Ice Cover: A Research Synthesis.” Climatic Change 110 (3): 1005–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0101-1 .

Sundfjord, Arild, Ilker Fer, Yoshie Kasajima, and Harald Svendsen. 2007. “Observations of Turbulent Mixing and Hydrography in the Marginal Ice Zone of the Barents Sea.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 112 (C5). https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JC003524.

Sverdrup, HU. 1953. “On Conditions for the Vernal Blooming of Phytoplankton.” ICES Journal of Marine Science 18 (3): 287–95.

Tamelander, Tobias, Marit Reigstad, Kalle Olli, Dag Slagstad, and Paul Wassmann. 2013. “New Production Regulates Export Stoichiometry in the Ocean.” Edited by HowardEditor Browman. PLoS ONE 8 (1): e54027. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054027.

Tank, Suzanne E., Manfredi Manizza, Robert Max Holmes, James W. McClelland, and Bruce J. Peterson. 2012. “The Processing and Impact of Dissolved Riverine Nitrogen in the Arctic Ocean.” Estuaries and Coasts 35 (2): 401–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-011-9417-3.

Torres-Valdés, Sinhue, Takamasa Tsubouchi, Sheldon Bacon, Alberto C. Naveira-Garabato, Richards Sanders, Fiona A. McLaughlin, Brian Petrie, Gerhard Kattner, Kumiko Azetsu-Scott, and Terry E. Whitledge. 2013. “Export of Nutrients from the Arctic Ocean.” J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 118 (4): 1625–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrc.20063.

Tremblay, Jean-Eric, Leif G. Anderson, Patricia Matrai, Pierre Coupel, Simon Belanger, Christine Michel, and Marit Reigstad. 2015. “Global and Regional Drivers of Nutrient Supply, Primary Production and CO2 Drawdown in the Changing Arctic Ocean.” Progress in Oceanography 139 (December): 171–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2015.08.009.

Tremblay, Jean-Eric, Kyle G. Simpson, Johannie Martin, Lisa Miller, Yves Gratton, David Barber, and Neil M. Price. 2008. “Vertical Stability and the Annual Dynamics of Nutrients and Chlorophyll Fluorescence in the Coastal, Southeast Beaufort Sea.” Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans 113 (C7): C07S90. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JC004547.

Valiela, Ivan. 2015. Marine Ecological Processes. 3rd ed. Springer-Verlag New York.

Vancoppenolle, Martin, Laurent Bopp, Gurvan Madec, John Dunne, Tatiana Ilyina, Paul R. Halloran, and Nadja Steiner. 2013. “Future Arctic Ocean Primary Productivity from CMIP5 Simulations: Uncertain Outcome, but Consistent Mechanisms.” Global Biogeochemical Cycles 27 (3): 605–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/gbc.20055.

Wassmann, Paul, Dag Slagstad, Christian Wexels Riser, and Marit Reigstad. 2006. “Modelling the Ecosystem Dynamics of the Barents Sea Including the Marginal Ice Zone.” Journal of Marine Systems 59 (1-2): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2005.05.006 .

Watanabe, Eiji, Jonaotaro Onodera, Naomi Harada, Makio C. Honda, Katsunori Kimoto, Takashi Kikuchi, Shigeto Nishino, et al. 2014. “Enhanced Role of Eddies in the Arctic Marine Biological Pump.” Nature Communications 5 (May). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4950.

Wiedmann, Ingrid. 2015. “Potential Drivers of the Downward Carbon and Particle Flux in Arctic Marine Ecosystems Under Contrasting Hydrographical and Ecological Situations.” PhD thesis, Tromsø, Norway: Tromsø University.

Wiedmann, Ingrid, Jean-Éric Tremblay, Arild Sundfjord, and Marit Reigstad. 2017. “Upward Nitrate Flux and Downward Particulate Organic Carbon Flux Under Contrasting Situations of Stratification and Turbulent Mixing in an Arctic Shelf Sea.” Elem Sci Anth 5.

Wiles, Philip J., Tom P. Rippeth, John H. Simpson, and Peter J. Hendricks. 2006. “A Novel Technique for Measuring the Rate of Turbulent Dissipation in the Marine Environment.” Geophysical Research Letters 33 (21). https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027050.

Woodgate, Rebecca A., Thomas J. Weingartner, and Ron Lindsay. 2012. “Observed Increases in Bering Strait Oceanic Fluxes from the Pacific to the Arctic from 2001 to 2011 and Their Impacts on the Arctic Ocean Water Column.” Geophysical Research Letters 39 (24). https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL054092.

Zeitzschel, B., P. Diekmann, and L. Uhlmann. 1978. “A New Multisample Sediment Trap.” Marine Biology 45 (4): 285–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00391814.