1 / 24

Assessing Ecosystem Dynamics: Model-Data and Model-Model Comparisons for Carbon and Chlorophyll

This study examines the dynamics of marine ecosystems through the lens of carbon and chlorophyll modeling. We perform comprehensive comparisons between model outputs and in-situ data, emphasizing NCEP winds and their influence on biomass and primary production. Key parameters such as particulate organic matter (POM) are defined and evaluated across multiple models. Our findings reveal significant spatial and temporal variations, suggesting that the Eco-model generally overestimates variability in warm waters, while the Cb-model captures timing inconsistencies. The results contribute to improved understanding of ecosystem health and productivity.

marcia-anderson
Télécharger la présentation

Assessing Ecosystem Dynamics: Model-Data and Model-Model Comparisons for Carbon and Chlorophyll

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Outline • Ecosystem model & winds • Model-data comparisons • Key parameters • Model-model comparisons

  2. Dynamic Ecosystem-Carbon Model Chlorophyll

  3. Quickscat Winds

  4. NCEP Winds

  5. Wind comparisons Qscat winds: stronger mixing, colder SST, higher biomass….. ……..following outputs from NCEP

  6. NCEP Winds

  7. In situ chl. (left) and model chl. (right): Nov, 2006 (top)Oct-Nov, 2005 (bottom)

  8. Model (lines) vs. data (Symbols)

  9. PON from model (left) and in situ (right)Nov. 2003

  10. PON from model (top) and in situ (bottom)Sep. 2005

  11. 140W-125W, 8N-8S

  12. Carbon, chl., C:chl at 125W

  13. Carbon, chl., C:chl at 140W

  14. Question • How we define/measure POM? • In situ: phy+zoo(?%)+detritus(size?) • Satellite: phy+zoo(?%)+detritus(size?) • Model outputs: • Phy+zoo+large detritus • Phy+50%(ZS+DS)+DL • Phy+total detritus

  15. Phy+total detritus140W-125W, 8N-8S

  16. Phy+50%(ZS+DS)+large detritus140W-125W, 8N-8S

  17. Phy+zoo+large detritus140W-125W, 8N-8S

  18. Chlorophyll ML: similar (tuned), DCM: different

  19. C:Chl ratioML: similar; vertical: some difference

  20. Phytoplankton CML: different; vertical: similar

  21. Growth rate: large difference

  22. NPP: similar

  23. NPP (mg C/m2/d) from Cbmodel (red) and Ecomodel (black)

  24. Summary • Larger spatial & temporal variations in Eco-model than Cb-model • Eco-model over-estimates spatial variability or under-estimates magnitudes in warm waters • Cb-model under-estimates temporal variability • Similarity: • NPP>C:Chl>PhytoC, chl., growth rate

More Related