1 / 29

VER tical T ransport I n the G lobal O cean VERTIGO

VER tical T ransport I n the G lobal O cean VERTIGO. What controls the efficiency of particle transport between the surface and deep ocean? Geochemistry (particle characteristics), Biology (euphotic zone and mesopelagic bacteria/plankton) Physics (particle source region). Cruises-

nitza
Download Presentation

VER tical T ransport I n the G lobal O cean VERTIGO

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. VERtical Transport In the Global OceanVERTIGO • What controls the efficiency of particle transport between the surface and deep ocean? • Geochemistry (particle characteristics), • Biology (euphotic zone and mesopelagic bacteria/plankton) • Physics (particle source region) Cruises- Jan & June 2004- Hawaii HOT station ALOHA w/RV Kilo Moana July 2005- Station “K2” 47N 160E with RV Revelle http://cafethorium.whoi.edu VERTIGO project web site

  2. VERTIGO PI’s & Institution Ken Buesseler, Woods Hole Oceanographic Jim Bishop, Lawrence Berkeley National Phil Boyd, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Res., NZ Karen Casciotti, Woods Hole Oceanographic Carl Lamborg, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Dave Siegel, University of California, Santa Barbara Mary Silver, University of California, Santa Cruz Debbie Steinberg, Virginia Institute of Marine Tom Trull, University of Tasmania, Australia Jim Valdes, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Ben Van Mooy, Woods Hole Oceanographic Frank Dehairs, University of Brussels, Belgium Collaborators Claudia Benitez-Nelson, University of South Carolina Bob Bidigare, University of Hawaii M. Sarin, Physical Research Laboratory, India Sei-ichi Saito, Hokkaido Univ., Japan Nianghi “George” Jiao, Xiamen Univ., China Toru Kobari, Kagoshima Univ., Japan

  3. NBST – Neutrally Buoyant Sediment Trap Free vehicle Active buoyancy control <1 day to multi day mission Return to surface closed GPS & flasher

  4. VERTIGO traps 10 in water! n=4 @150, 3@ 300, 3@ 500m both HgCl2 poisons & formalin (& blanks); 2 deployments Analyses include- mass, C, N, P, PIC, bSi ICPMS- Fe, Ca, Al, Mn, Ti……. 234Th, 210Pb, 210Po Chlorophyll pigments stable 13C & 15N DNA Microscope- ID, pellets, stains Frozen- organic biomarkers? Swimmer removal- screens & picking Separate experiments- “gel” traps Aging expt. “Splitter” wet split at sea with clean methods

  5. VERTIGO Site Surveys- sensors & geochemistry/biology

  6. What a trap samples… Origins surface 250m Collections trap path @500m Siegel et al.

  7. Subtle differences between traps NBST remineralization “b” >drifting CLAP trap CLAP NBST

  8. - natural variability in flux vs. depth is common in all flux data - but less difference in relative compositions: element to element ratios see preferential remineralization of N over C - follows Redfield w/residual low C/N material intact

  9. Iron shows less attenuation vs. depth than C NBST CLAP C/Fe ratio decreases with depth

  10. Incubations of Poisoned Trap Material (and DOC from brine) Incubation shows scant evidence for systematic loss of particulate material, or in the case of C, appearance in the overlying brine (small impact on P) Short-deployment trap experiments are not likely subject to diagenetic artifacts. 1,3,5days

  11. Incubations of Unpoisoned Large Particles from MULVFS Screens 150m 300m 500m These unpoisoned samples do show evidence of loss of material from particle phase, esp. at the shallowest depth (compare to in situ changes vs. depth) 0,1,3,5 days

  12. Comparison of Unpoisoned Degradation Rate with Vertical Flux Attenuation to derive effective sinking rate

  13. VERTIGO gear includes- Steinberg/Silver Trull Bishop Boyd Trull

  14. Biological studies- zooplankton Steinberg et al.

  15. bacteria- rates & ID Van Mooy, Casciotti et al. phytoplankton- rates & ID Dehairs, Silver, Boyd et al. - goal is to understand rates and controls of particle export and remineralization in the mesopelagic zone

  16. Preliminary PIC data (est. from Ca) Changes in PIC:POC ratio impact strength of ocean C sink - ballast/PIC increases w/z - compare: ALOHA- Ca & coccolithophores vs. NW Pacific K2- bSi & diatoms

  17. VERTIGO what’s next- - Summer 2005 VERTIGO cruise out of Japan - organize one day science workshop July 18- Yokohama 50% VERTIGO science presentations 50% Japanese time-series/K2/particle science - Japanese & Chinese scientists to join cruise (n=4) - July 21-Aug 28, RV Revelle, Yokohama to Honolulu - Special mesoplelagic/particle flux session Feb. 2006 Ocean Sciences meeting, Honolulu Joint with Cindy Lee (MedFlux); Hiroaki Saito (DEEP) & Buesseler (VERTIGO) PI meeting 2.5 days- prior to Ocean Sciences mtg. - VERTIGO II?

  18. VERTIGO PI’s & Institution Ken Buesseler, Woods Hole Oceanographic Jim Bishop, Lawrence Berkeley National Phil Boyd, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Karen Casciotti, Woods Hole Oceanographic Carl Lamborg, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Dave Siegel, University of California, Santa Barbara Mary Silver, University of California, Santa Cruz Debbie Steinberg, Virginia Institute of Marine Tom Trull, University of Tasmania Jim Valdes, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Ben Van Mooy, Woods Hole Oceanographic Collaborators Claudia Benitez-Nelson, University of South Carolina Bob Bidigare, University of Hawaii Frank Dehairs, University of Brussels M. Sarin, Physical Research Laboratory S. Honjo & Japanese scientists? K2 site

  19. Shallow sediment traps - accuracy issues Swimmers Horizontal flow (hydrodynamics) Preservation (solubilization in collection tubes)

  20. VERTIGO Site Surveys- sensors & geochemistry/biology

  21. An assessment of particulate organic carbon to thorium-234 ratios in the ocean and their impact on the application of 234Th as a POC flux proxy K. O. Buesseler, C. R. Benitez-Nelson, S. B. Moran, A. Burd, M. Charette, J. K. Cochran, L. Coppola, N. S. Fisher, S. W. Fowler, W. D. Gardner, L. D. Guo, O. Gustafsson, C. Lamborg, P. Masque, J. C. Miquel, U. Passow, P. H. Santschi, N. Savoye, G. Stewart, and T. Trull Submitted March 2005

  22. Marine Particles “separate biogeochemistry from physical oceanography” How do we get from here? C uptake in surface ocean- SeaWiFS global primary production Behrenfeld & Falkowski, 1997 To here? C flux to seafloor - benthic O2 demand Jahnke, 1996

  23. Coccolithophorid assoc. POC flux Diatom assoc. flux high “b” Why can’t diatoms control upper ocean export on regional or seasonal basis, while CaCO3 materials show stronger association with deep flux? Differences abound- in diatom types, sinking rates & bSi/C ratios

  24. Carbon flux = 234Th flux  [C/234Th]sinking particles • Empirical approach • Highest in (diatom) blooms & coastal ocean • Must use site and depth appropriate ratio • Issues remain on how best to sample particles

More Related