the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Ise Bay Reanalysis (IBRA): An Ecological Hydrodynamic Dataset Based on EcoPARI
Abstract. Reanalysis datasets based on coupled ocean circulation and ecosystem models are essential tools for understanding coastal environmental variability and supporting water quality management. However, the development of such datasets for highly enclosed coastal systems remains limited, particularly those incorporating subsurface biogeochemical observations, such as dissolved oxygen (DO). This study presents the Ise Bay Reanalysis (IBRA), a 12-year (2011–2022), high-resolution reanalysis dataset of hydrodynamic and biogeochemical variables for Ise Bay, Japan. The dataset was generated using the Ecological hydrodynamic simulation system of the Port and Airport Research Institute (EcoPARI)-simulator, coupled with an ensemble Kalman filter data assimilation system that assimilates in situ observations of water temperature, salinity, and bottom-layer DO at 6 h intervals. The resulting dataset has an hourly temporal resolution and resolves the full water column. IBRA has three key distinguishing features: first, unlike many previous reanalysis datasets that rely primarily on satellite observations, IBRA assimilates continuous in situ measurements throughout the water column, including high-frequency DO observations, allowing improved representation of subsurface dynamics; second, the 6-hour assimilation cycle enables the dataset to resolve short-term variability driven by tidal processes, which are a dominant control on coastal transport and mixing; third, spatially coherent corrections are applied over the entire bay using an ensemble Kalman filter, ensuring spatial consistency of both physical and biogeochemical fields while avoiding artificial discontinuities often associated with simpler assimilation approaches. Its quality was evaluated using statistical metrics and detailed comparisons with in situ observations. Data assimilation improved the overall agreement with observations across multiple stations and depths, particularly for bottom-layer DO. The dataset successfully reproduced seasonal variability, vertical stratification, and the formation and persistence of hypoxic conditions in the inner bay, while also capturing well-oxygenated conditions near the bay mouth. Furthermore, the spatial distributions of temperature, salinity, and DO were realistically represented, including the intrusion of offshore water masses and associated horizontal gradients. The IBRA dataset thus provides a dynamically consistent and comprehensive description of both physical and biogeochemical variability in a highly enclosed coastal system. It is expected to serve as a valuable resource for studies of coastal hypoxia, water quality assessment, and environmental management.
- Preprint
(5753 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(55634 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 01 Oct 2026)
-
RC1: 'Referee comments on essd-2026-521', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Sep 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yoshitaka Matsuzaki, 17 Sep 2026
reply
Response to Referee #1
We would like to thank the referee for the positive evaluation of our dataset and for the constructive comments. We appreciate the time and effort devoted to reviewing our manuscript. All comments have been carefully considered, and the manuscript has been revised accordingly.
Comment 1:
The number of figures is rather large. Maybe some could be moved to the appendix.
Response:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We understand the referee’s concern regarding the relatively large number of figures. However, we believe that the current set of figures is necessary to comprehensively demonstrate the accuracy, validation results, and uncertainties of the reanalysis dataset. In particular, the figures provide essential information on the statistical performance, temporal and vertical variability, and spatial distribution of the assimilated results. Moving key figures to the appendix may reduce the accessibility of these important validation results and make it more difficult for readers to evaluate the dataset quality. Therefore, we have retained the figures in the main text.
Comment 2:
Date format: Please use it like 1 January 2011.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this suggestion and have revised the date format throughout the manuscript to follow the style "1 January 2011".
Comment 3:
Dissolved oxygen data are presented in mg/L. This concentration is not in SI units. In oceanography often the units µmol/kg are used. For shallow continental shelf regions, one could also use µmol/L. I leave it to the editor to decide which units are appropriate.
Response: Thank you for this valuable comment. We recognize that units such as µmol/kg and µmol/L are commonly used for dissolved oxygen concentrations in oceanographic studies. However, the primary target users of this dataset are researchers and practitioners in civil engineering and coastal environmental management, where dissolved oxygen concentrations are conventionally expressed in mg/L. To ensure consistency with the conventions of the intended user community and related studies in this field, we would prefer to retain the unit mg/L in the manuscript, while the publicly available dataset is provided in mol m-3. We have clarified this rationale in the revised manuscript.
Comment 4
Title: I think not many readers will be familiar with EcoPARI. Maybe it is better to remove this from the title and choose another description.
Response:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that the term "EcoPARI" may not be familiar to many readers and could reduce the accessibility of the title. Therefore, we have removed "EcoPARI" from the title and revised the title to provide a more descriptive and accessible description of the dataset.
We would like to revise the title as follows and will follow the editor's recommendation regarding the proposed change:
Ise Bay Reanalysis (IBRA): A 12-Year Ecological Hydrodynamic Reanalysis Dataset for Ise Bay, Japan
We appreciate this helpful comment, which has improved the clarity and accessibility of the manuscript for a broader readership.
Comment 5
L35 “highly enclosed” is strange. It is either “enclosed” or “not enclosed”, or for that sake, “almost enclosed”.
Response:
Thank you for this comment. We agree that the expression "highly enclosed" may be ambiguous and is not the most appropriate terminology for describing the target coastal systems. We have revised the manuscript by replacing "highly enclosed coastal systems" with the more commonly used term "semi-enclosed coastal systems" throughout the manuscript.
Comment 6
L40 field, not area
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have replaced "area" with "field" in the revised manuscript.
Comment 7
L41 … produced a global …
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the article "a" before "global" in the revised manuscript.
Comment 8
L52, L59 same as in L35 above
Response:
Thank you for this comment. We have replaced these expressions with "semi-enclosed coastal systems" throughout the manuscript for consistency with the terminology used in the revised version.
Comment 9
L69-71 “IBRA was developed as part of a research project funded by the Environmental Research and Technology Development Fund of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency (JPMEERF20221R01), Ministry of the Environment, Japan.” This sentence should be moved to the acknowledgments.
Response:
Thank you for this suggestion. Since this information is already provided in the funding section, we have removed the sentence from the main text to avoid redundancy.
Comment 10
L75 variables, not parameters
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have replaced "parameters" with "variables" in the revised manuscript.
Comment 11
L75 This sentence should start with “First”, as second and thirds appear further down
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have added "First" at the beginning of the sentence to maintain consistency with the subsequent use of "Second" and "Third" in the manuscript.
Comment 12
L81 Why is the reference underscored?
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. The unintended underlining has been removed from the reference.
Comment 13
L75-87 I think this part would fit better in the Methods section
Response:
Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that the detailed descriptions are more appropriate for the Methods section. Therefore, we have moved the detailed explanations to Section 2 and retained only a brief summary of the three key features of the IBRA dataset in the Introduction.
Comment 14
Figure 1: The figure as it is now is quite useful. However, it would be helpful to have another panel in Figure 1 with the larger region and the place of the bay along the Pacific coastline.
Response:
Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that providing a larger-scale map would improve the geographical context of the study area for international readers. Therefore, we have added an additional panel to Figure 1 showing the location of Ise Bay along the Pacific coast of Japan.
Comment 15
L141 are, not have been
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the sentence accordingly.
Comment 16
L145 variables, not quantities
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the sentence accordingly by replacing "quantities" with "variables" in the revised manuscript.
Comment 17
L193, 194 These two equations are different and do something different. Why are there two of them? Which one was used?
Response:
Thank you for this comment. Both equations were used in this study. The choice between Equation (10) and Equation (11) depended on the type of boundary condition or parameter being perturbed, as summarized in Table 1. To clarify this point, we have added an explanatory sentence in the manuscript describing the criteria for selecting each equation.
Comment 18
Table 1: parameter should be variable
Response:
Thank you for this comment. We agree that the original terminology may cause confusion because the table includes both variables and model parameters. We have revised the table heading to improve clarity and distinguish between these two types of terms.
Comment 19
L220-222 First it is said that data of eight stations are assimilated. Then in the next sentence, data of only 5 stations are assimilated. Please eliminate the confusion.
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. The statement that data from five observation stations were assimilated was incorrect. Data from all eight observation stations were assimilated in this study. We have corrected the text accordingly to eliminate this inconsistency.
Comment 20
Sub-section 2.5 The measured values are mentioned and their uncertainties. In this section briefly the methods used for these measurements should be given. The assumed errors can then be better placed into context.
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have added information on the observation methods in Section 2.5 to provide additional context for the measurement uncertainties.
Comment 21
L225 Why is the reference underscored?
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. The underlining has been removed from the reference.
Comment 22
L234 delete observation (as “observed” occurs in the same sentence)
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have deleted "observation" as suggested to avoid redundancy in the sentence.
Comment 23
L269-274 I would recommend to just write out full the statistical terms for clarity because some of the abbreviations are not commonly used. In times of online publishing the space saving does not play a role anymore.
Response:
Thank you for this suggestion. We have written out the full names of the statistical metrics when they are first introduced in each chapter and retained the abbreviations thereafter for readability.
Comment 24
L295 “relatively pronounced” This combination does not fit together. Either it is pronounced, or not.
Response:
Thank you for this comment. We agree that the expression "relatively pronounced" was unclear and could be misleading. We have revised the sentence accordingly to improve the description of the severity of hypoxic conditions.
Comment 25
L297 replace: (Figs. 5 and 6)
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the citation accordingly.
Comment 26
Figure 6: the data and their variation in panels (b) and (c) would be better visible and interpretable when the axis ranges would be smaller, i.e. different from those at panel (a). The scatter plots with regression lines are not really useful in this way. After changes being implemented, one may then add a warning in the caption that the axis ranges for the panels are different.
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the figure axis ranges and updated the caption accordingly.
Comment 27
L323 replace (Figs. 9 and 10) ; and check formatting of sentence
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the figure reference and checked the sentence formatting accordingly.
Comment 28
L326 What is reasonable? Please be more specific
Response:
Thank you for this comment. We agree that the term "reasonably" was too vague. We have revised the sentence to provide a more specific description of the reproduced features and improve the clarity of the statement.
Comment 29
Figure 9: Please indicate in the caption that the axis ranges are not different for the different panels
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the caption to clarify the relationship between the axis ranges among the panels.
Comment 30
Figure 10: Similar to Figure 6. Change the axis ranges so that more details will be visible in panels (b) and (c)
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the figure axis ranges and updated the caption accordingly.
Comment 31
Figure 11: Please indicate in the caption that the axis ranges are not different for the different panels
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the caption to clarify the relationship between the axis ranges among the panels.
Comment 32
L351 delete relatively
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have deleted "relatively" as suggested.
Comment 33
L352 replace (Figs. 13 and 14)
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the figure reference accordingly.
Comment 34
Figure 13, figure 14, figure 15: Please indicate in the caption that the axis ranges are not different for the different panels. Also maybe reduce the axis ranges for showing more details
Response:
Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the figure captions to clarify the axis ranges among the panels and adjusted the axis ranges where appropriate to improve the visibility of the data details.
Comment 35
L372 replace Figs. 16 and 17
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the figure reference accordingly.
Comment 36
L372 suggestion: “lateral” instead of “horizontal”
Response:
Thank you for this suggestion. We have replaced "horizontal" with "lateral" in the revised manuscript.
Comment 37
L403-405 “This represents a significant advancement for this study, as many previous reanalysis datasets have relied primarily on satellite observations, which provide only surface information.” The same information was also given in the previous paragraph and sub-section
Response:
Thank you for this comment. We agree that this statement repeated information already provided in the Introduction and previous sections. Therefore, we have removed the redundant description and streamlined the discussion to improve conciseness and avoid repetition.
Comment 38
L409 Why is the reference underscored?
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. The underlining has been removed from the reference.
Comment 39
L418 replace (Figs. 8 and 12)
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the figure reference accordingly.
Comment 40
L419 replace (Figs. 16 and 17)
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the figure reference accordingly.
Comment 41
L437 In all figures DO is given in mg/L, but here is written mol/m3
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. The dissolved oxygen data in the publicly available dataset are provided in units of mol m-3, whereas mg L-1 is used in the figures and statistical evaluations presented in the manuscript. To avoid confusion, we have revised the manuscript to explicitly explain this difference and the rationale for using different units.
Comment 42
L438-439 “the dataset includes water level (m) and horizontal velocity components in the x and y directions (m s-1).” It is fine that additional data is included in the dataset. However, it would be good to give little information about the origin of these data. This does not have to be at this position in the text, it may well fit at another appropriate position.
Response:
Thank you for this suggestion. Water level and horizontal velocity are model-derived variables generated by the hydrodynamic model and data assimilation system described in Section 2. To clarify their origin, we have added an explanatory sentence in the revised manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-521-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yoshitaka Matsuzaki, 17 Sep 2026
reply
Data sets
Ise Bay ReAnalysis (IBRA): A Subset Ecological Hydrodynamic Dataset Based on EcoPARI (2011–2022) Yoshitaka Matsuzaki, Hayato Mizuguchi, and Tetsunori Inoue https://zenodo.org/records/19808667
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 185 | 75 | 37 | 297 | 51 | 36 | 50 |
- HTML: 185
- PDF: 75
- XML: 37
- Total: 297
- Supplement: 51
- BibTeX: 36
- EndNote: 50
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This is a useful dataset which was made with the use of a combination of different methods. The methods and computations are comprehensively explained and the uncertainties in the data are discussed.
The number of figures is rather large. Maybe some could be moved to the appendix.
Date format: Please use it like 1 January 2011
Dissolved oxygen data are presented in mg/L. This concentration is not in SI units. In oceanography often the units µmol/kg are used. For shallow continental shelf regions, one could also use µmol/L. I leave it to the editor to decide which units are appropriate.
My comments, mainly minor, are listed below:
Title: I think not many readers will be familiar with EcoPARI. Maybe it is better to remove this from the title and choose another description.
L35 “highly enclosed” is strange. It is either “enclosed” or “not enclosed”, or for that sake, “almost enclosed”.
L40 field, not area
L41 … produced a global …
L52, L59 same as in L35 above
L69-71 “IBRA was developed as part of a research project funded by the Environmental Research and Technology Development Fund of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency (JPMEERF20221R01), Ministry of the Environment, Japan.” This sentence should be moved to the acknowledgments.
L75 variables, not parameters
L75 This sentence should start with “First”, as second and thirds appear further down
L81 Why is the reference underscored?
L75-87 I think this part would fit better in the Methods section
Figure 1: The figure as it is now is quite useful. However, it would be helpful to have another panel in Figure 1 with the larger region and the place of the bay along the Pacific coastline.
L141 are, not have been
L145 variables, not quantities
L193, 194 These two equations are different and do something different. Why are there two of them? Which one was used?
Table 1: parameter should be variable
L220-222 First it is said that data of eight stations are assimilated. Then in the next sentence, data of only 5 stations are assimilated. Please eliminate the confusion.
Sub-section 2.5 The measured values are mentioned and their uncertainties. In this section briefly the methods used for these measurements should be given. The assumed errors can then be better placed into context.
L225 Why is the reference underscored?
L234 delete observation (as “observed” occurs in the same sentence)
L269-274 I would recommend to just write out full the statistical terms for clarity because some of the abbreviations are not commonly used. In times of online publishing the space saving does not play a role anymore.
L295 “relatively pronounced” This combination does not fit together. Either it is pronounced, or not.
L297 replace: (Figs. 5 and 6)
Figure 6: the data and their variation in panels (b) and (c) would be better visible and interpretable when the axis ranges would be smaller, i.e. different from those at panel (a). The scatter plots with regression lines are not really useful in this way. After changes being implemented, one may then add a warning in the caption that the axis ranges for the panels are different.
L323 replace (Figs. 9 and 10) ; and check formatting of sentence
L326 What is reasonable? Please be more specific
Figure 9: Please indicate in the caption that the axis ranges are not different for the different panels
Figure 10: Similar to Figure 6. Change the axis ranges so that more details will be visible in panels (b) and (c)
Figure 11: Please indicate in the caption that the axis ranges are not different for the different panels
L351 delete relatively
L352 replace (Figs. 13 and 14)
Figure 13, figure 14, figure 15: Please indicate in the caption that the axis ranges are not different for the different panels. Also maybe reduce the axis ranges for showing more details
L372 replace Figs. 16 and 17
L372 suggestion: “lateral” instead of “horizontal”
L403-405 “This represents a significant advancement for this study, as many previous reanalysis datasets have relied primarily on satellite observations, which provide only surface information.” The same information was also given in the previous paragraph and sub-section
L409 Why is the reference underscored?
L418 replace (Figs. 8 and 12)
L419 replace (Figs. 16 and 17)
L437 In all figures DO is given in mg/L, but here is written mol/m3
L438-439 “the dataset includes water level (m) and horizontal velocity components in the x and y directions (m s⁻¹).” It is fine that additional data is included in the dataset. However, it would be good to give little information about the origin of these data. This does not have to be at this position in the text, it may well fit at another appropriate position.