the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 17 Mar 2026
Decadal ocean observations in the Northwestern Mediterranean: insights from the MOOSE-GE cruises
Abstract. The annual MOOSE-GE cruise series is the backbone of the MOOSE regional ocean observing system providing a unique dataset to observe and understand large-scale physical, biogeochemical and biological processes in the northwestern Mediterranean basin, a key region that is responding to climate change faster than many other parts of the world. These cruises address major scientific challenges, such as monitoring the variability and impact of deep and intermediate convection, which plays a crucial role in deep-water ventilation, coastal–open ocean exchanges, and the evolution of phytoplankton production in this highly dynamic system. They also allow the assessment of climate change effects on ocean physics, marine biodiversity, biological resources, and seawater chemistry, including oxygen, nutrients, and dissolved carbon. Sustained observations are required to track rapid trends such as increasing temperature and salinity in intermediate and deep waters, declining oxygen concentrations, nutrients and carbonate system inter-annual variabilities, expected increased stratification of the water column and variations in heat and salt contents. These long-term datasets are indispensable both for climate model validation and process studies, as well as for assessing the environmental status of the Mediterranean Sea. The data can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.18142/235 (Testor et al., 2010), https://doi.org/10.17882/99825 (Bosse et al., 2024), https://doi.org/10.17882/44411 (Bosse et al., 2025), https://doi.org/10.17882/45980 (Durrieu de Madron et al., 2024), https://doi.org/10.17882/43749 (Coppola et al., 2025), https://doi.org/10.17882/99865 (Dimier et al., 2024).
- Preprint
(4475 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 04 Jun 2026)
- AC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-127', Laurent Coppola, 02 Apr 2026 reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-127', Giuseppe M.R. Manzella, 05 May 2026
reply
Comments on essd-2026-127
Decadal ocean observations in the Northwestern Mediterranean: insights from the MOOSE-GE cruises
By Coppola et al.
General comment
The paper presents very interesting data and is very comprehensive in its descriptions of technologies and control analysis methodologies. The research team's efforts over the years are very important for assessing environmental changes in a critical area like the northwestern Mediterranean.
The few criticisms concern the excessive use of acronyms, which are often indecipherable to readers unfamiliar with the scientific literature on the Mediterranean and European regions. These acronyms should be accompanied by references. Another small point concerns the fact that the campaigns are held in summer, but in the introduction, the discussion of environmental characteristics during that season is overshadowed by that of essentially winter-related phenomena (even though these are very important and have repercussions in the medium and long term).
I find the bibliography limited to relatively recent research, but the issues discussed in the introduction are the subject of publications from the 1980s and 1990s, many by French authors (e.g., Bethoux). It's a shame that the works of these ‘old’ authors are not included in the bibliography of a well-written article like this.
My opinion is that small adjustments may therefore be appropriate for the publication of this important article.
Special comments
Line 48. The statement 'deep-water renewal time of only a few decades' seems to me to be a bit inaccurate. There are several works by Bethoux (see, for example, Behoux and Gentili 1999 - https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-7963(98)00069-4 and the references given therein) that lead to deep-water renewal times of several decades. I think it is appropriate to cite the reference by Bethoux and Gentili alongside that of Schroeder et al., 2016 (line 49). On the trends of the Levantine water it could be useful to also cite the work of Astraldi et al (1994): The Seasonal and Interannual Variability in the Ligurian-Provençal Basin - https://doi.org/10.1029/CE046p0093Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and of Sparnocchia et al (1994) The Interannual and Seasonal Variability of the MAW and LIW Core Properties in the Western Mediterranean Sea- https://doi.org/10.1029/CE046p0117Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Line 83. Many acronyms HyMeX, MERMeC, ChArMEx, (not only here but throughout the article) Each of them must be accompanied by a brief description of the objectives and related bibliography.
Linea 92. The system is structured around four thematic work packages: is it a system or a programme? Does this only refer to MOOSE or also to the other HyMeX, MERMeX, and ChArMEx? It's unclear.
Linee 99 – 100. provide a yearly basin-scale overview in summer of the Northwestern Mediterranean Sea from surface to bottom. This introduction doesn't clearly identify the summer characteristics of the Ligurian-Provençal basin. Some information should be included.
Linea 135. CNRM, S. Somot – under the responsibility of S. Somot? Please specify. Is there a publication by Somot that can be cited?
Linea 188 – 189. national projects (e.g., RIOMAR, FUTURE-OBS) and European initiatives involving several ERICs (e.g., Horizon EUROSEA, EA-RISE, and currently GEORGE). Please specify the purposes of these projects.
Linea 240. quality code (WOCE code in most cases). Does this mean that in other cases authors are using different vocabularies (SeaDataNet?). Details please.
Other corrections
Linea 78 : led by CNRS-led (too many ‘led’)
Linea 257: fluorometer (Chlesea), I suppose is Chelsea
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-127-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2026-127', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 May 2026
reply
The paper describes an impressive multiparameter/multiplatform datasets in a hot spot region of the thermohaline circulation of the Mediterranean Sea. This is of high interest for the scientific community. On the other hand, large part of the dataset has been already presented and published in many scientific papers. The draft itself seems a little bit immature, sometimes it sounds to me more like a post-cruise final report rather than a dedicated datapaper presenting a specific dataset.
- A geographical map showing all geographical names (Nice, Marseille, Sardinia, ecc…) cited in the text as well as major oceanographic features (i.e, northern current) is necessary for readers unfamiliar with the region
- Section 1 and 2 have several concepts repeated twice or more. The two sections should be harmonised so to avoid repetitions.
- Several details are somewhat beyond a data paper, that is primarily meant to describe the dataset, not the cruises. Happy to read that the ships are hosting students (l. 182-l. 189) or that the ecological footprint is taken into account (l.191- l.198), however these information are just making the paper longer. Please consider compressing these info in a 1 - 2 lines long statement.
- There are many acronyms that are not spelled out, or cited Programmes’ names that does not add much info to the reader. The national and international context, in my opinion, should be shortened/synthetised, presenting only the most relevant info.
- Section 3.10 Moorings: it would have been nice to see a figure with the design
- Section 3.11 happy to hear you that you have been deploying ARGOs, but this is not part of the core dataset. Maybe move (duly shortened) in the “strategy” section?
- Section 5.1: the two paragraphs have similar concepts repeated twice (e.g., years with mixing down to bottom vs years w/out) Please harmonize and avoid repetitions.
- Section 5.3. Much of this section should go to the “strategy” section, some into the “methods” section, very little remain about “results”. I would expect more data exploitation, e.g., some exploratory statistics and plots. I wonder also if it is available more than what is presented already in Lescot et al., FMASR 2026.
- Section 5.4: this section is OK for reporting to the funding agency, but in a data paper it is loosely connected and just making the paper longer.
- Section 5.5. Again, as the previous remark. I wonder if this section wouldn’t be more useful at the end of the “strategy” section, carefully shortened. Even as a closing remark of the conclusion section, duly synthesized.
- Figure 2: there is clearly some OA in the background. Somewhere (in the main text? in the caption?) it should be acknowledged and a little bit detailed.
- References should be carefully checked. I have found some inconsistencies (e.g., l.169 Bosse et al., 2017 not listed in the references, or Schroeder et al., 2017 in the references is a repetition of Schroeder et al., 2016 … maybe others, I didn’t check all … In addition, l. 265 “(Testor et al., 2010: MOOSE-GE cruise series, https://doi.org/10.18142/235)” should be just Testor et al., 2010… just as in l. 277 Bosse et al., (2024) is enough. Some manuals used for QC or protocols may be relegated in the references instead of being cited fully in the main text (e.g., l. 289).
- Data availability of biodiversity data: I had hard time digging into ECOTAXA (I am not familiar with), finally giving up. There is not a specific DOI to the dataset in the paper. Thus, I did not check this part of the dataset.
- 79 “CNRS-led” Typo?
- 134 SYMPHONIE model. Ref?
- 135 ref for the long term climate modelling instead of CNRM, S. Somot?
- 259 something is wrong with the grammar: missing words?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-127-RC2
Data sets
MOOSE_GE cruises P. Testor et al. https://doi.org/10.18142/235
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 255 | 111 | 23 | 389 | 13 | 22 |
- HTML: 255
- PDF: 111
- XML: 23
- Total: 389
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 22
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- Figure on TA-DIC: units should be in µmol/kg
- Need to add in the acknowledgment: "We also acknowledge INSU/CNRS and OSU ECCE-Terra for supporting the SNAPO-CO2 facility housed by the LOCEAN laboratory in Paris/France"