Chlorophyll Results叶绿素的的的结果.pptVIP

Chlorophyll Results Ocean Optics 2004 Mike Sauer Eric Rehm Sources of [Chl] Variability Spatial Different Dock locations Dock vs. Buoy Temporal Different sampling days / times Fluorometer sample BB2F measurements made at different times Diel Cycle differences Tidal influences Sample Sub-sampling technique Filtration volume for spec was constant = 400 ml Calibration of instruments Chlorophyll / aΦ ratio Spec path length amplification correction (? or CW) Wavelength E.g., Spec data is at 675 nm Local Amax Other sources? Chlorophyll Variability BB2F Chlorophyll Chlorophyll / aΦ ratio @ 676 nm Chlorophyll / aΦ ratio @ 676 nm This is an estimated relationship based on data set from Oregon coast: [Chl] = aΦ(676) / .014 (μg / L) Chlorophyll / aΦ ratio Used .014, as per lab handout In reality, range = .008-.023 depending on phytoplankton packaging (more packaging, smaller ratio, smaller phy tend to have less packaging, large phy near surface tend to have more packaging). Think: do you really need a [Chl] measurement? Could we model a better value based on the g we estimate from Cp? Variability of [Chl] between BB2F and (Spec, AC-9, Fluorometer) We are looking at : Variability between sampling times and Variability between instruments Variability of the BB2F [Chl] Observatory vs. Handheld Different sampling locations Metal piling was dumping water stream one day Relied on Wetlabs calibration data No cross-calibration between instruments Spectrophotometer Method We used the QFT technique Possible problem: Smaller particles reflect (backscatter) more light, overestimating absorbance. Spectrophotometer Method T-R (Transmittance-Reflectance) Method Integrating sphere attached to dual-beam spec Uses a model that eliminates the effect of light backscattering by the particles. “Studies have shown that values of path-length amplification were less widely dispersed in the case of the T-R method”Lohrehnz et al., Journal of Phytoplankton Research, 25/1, p35-61, 2003“Phytoplan