Sarasota Bay Chlorophyll Targets Sarasota Bay Chlorophyll Targets Sarasota Bay Chlorophyll Targets Objective: Objective: Objective: Is an empirical approach like that Is an empirical approach like that Is an empirical approach like that used for Tampa Bay applicable to used for Tampa Bay applicable to used for Tampa Bay applicable to the Sarasota Bay data? the Sarasota Bay data? the Sarasota Bay data?
Question: Question: Question: Are the sample sizes and parameters Are the sample sizes and parameters Are the sample sizes and parameters reported sufficient to develop reported sufficient to develop reported sufficient to develop empirical relationships between light empirical relationships between light empirical relationships between light attenuation and water quality? attenuation and water quality? attenuation and water quality? Approach: Approach: Approach: Tabulation of reported data, and Tabulation of reported data, and Tabulation of reported data, and consideration of parameters. consideration of parameters. consideration of parameters.
Years Chl a Chl a (Uncorr Colo Sampled (Corr) ) r Turb TSS Kd Secchi 01 - Anna Maria Sound 1972-2004 465 122 654 465 593 59 0 02 - North Palma Sola Bay 1972-1994 4 220 421 121 247 47 0 03 - Palma Sola Bay 1972-1994 0 223 305 60 253 53 0 05 - NW Sarasota Bay 1972-1994 8 250 294 74 280 87 0 06 - NE Sarasota Bay 1987-1994 0 315 349 174 350 124 0 07 - W Sarasota Bay 1979-2004 99 126 503 465 237 168 60 08 - E Sarasota Bay 1972-2004 271 181 594 489 473 152 58 09 - New Pass 1990-2004 75 14 91 75 91 15 0 10 - SW Sarasota Bay 1978-2004 621 114 957 971 692 658 358 11 - SE Sarasota Bay 1972-2004 852 143 1136 1393 762 698 465 12 - Big Sarasota Pass 1981-2004 69 41 112 64 117 105 37 13 - Roberts Bay 1972-2004 577 127 1202 1201 709 684 303 14 - Little Sarasota Bay 1975-2004 557 135 1018 903 708 676 276 15 - Midnight Pass 1990-1994 0 28 32 0 32 30 0 16 - Blackburn Bay 1979-2004 553 70 825 801 639 626 241
Question: Question: Question: Are Kd Kd values in the range expected? values in the range expected? Are Are Kd values in the range expected? Approach: Approach: Approach: Apply relationship Kd=1/Secchi. Apply relationship Kd=1/Secchi. Apply relationship Kd=1/Secchi. Giessen (1990) reported Kd=1.5/Secchi to (1990) reported Kd=1.5/Secchi to Giessen Giessen (1990) reported Kd=1.5/Secchi to Kd=1.8/Secchi Kd=1.8/Secchi Kd=1.8/Secchi
Deviation from 1/Secchi Deviation from 1/Secchi
Deviation from 1/Secchi Deviation from 1/Secchi
Roberts Bay Roberts Bay Little Sarasota Bay Little Sarasota Bay
1.5/Secchi (1.5/m)
1.5/Secchi (1.5/m)
Question: Question: Question: Are there vertical spatial sources of Are there vertical spatial sources of Are there vertical spatial sources of variation in light attenuation values variation in light attenuation values variation in light attenuation values that should be accounted for in the that should be accounted for in the that should be accounted for in the Approach ( e.g ., back scattering)? Approach ( e.g ., back scattering)? Approach ( e.g ., back scattering)? Approach: Approach: Approach: Review observed relationship between Review observed relationship between Review observed relationship between Kd and 1/Secchi by water depth. Kd and 1/Secchi by water depth. Kd and 1/Secchi by water depth.
Kd – 1/Secchi (1/m)
Question: Question: Question: Are there temporal sources of Are there temporal sources of Are there temporal sources of variation in light attenuation values variation in light attenuation values variation in light attenuation values that should be accounted for in the that should be accounted for in the that should be accounted for in the approach? approach? approach? Approach: Approach: Approach: Review observed data time series. Review observed data time series. Review observed data time series.
Kd – 1/Secchi (1/m)
Kd – 1/Secchi (1/m)
Deviation from Kd =f(1/Secchi) Before 1998 “Typical Typical” ” “ 1996-97 Kd – 1/Secchi (1/m)
Prior to 1998: Prior to 1998: Prior to 1998: * Secchi disk was deeper than typical * Secchi disk was deeper than typical * Secchi disk was deeper than typical * Color was lower than typical * Color was lower than typical * Color was lower than typical * Chlorophyll a was lower than typical * Chlorophyll a was lower than typical * Chlorophyll a was lower than typical * TSS was typical * TSS was typical * TSS was typical These observations were logically These observations were logically These observations were logically consistent with each other. consistent with each other. consistent with each other.
Prior to 1998: Prior to 1998: Prior to 1998: * Secchi disk was deeper than typical * Secchi disk was deeper than typical * Secchi disk was deeper than typical * Color was lower than typical * Color was lower than typical * Color was lower than typical * Chlorophyll a was lower than typical * Chlorophyll a was lower than typical * Chlorophyll a was lower than typical * TSS was typical * TSS was typical * TSS was typical These observations were logically These observations were logically These observations were logically consistent with each other. consistent with each other. consistent with each other. However, Kd was greater than typical. However, Kd was greater than typical. However, Kd was greater than typical.
Prior to 1998: Prior to 1998: Prior to 1998: * Secchi disk was deeper than typical * Secchi disk was deeper than typical * Secchi disk was deeper than typical * Color was lower than typical * Color was lower than typical * Color was lower than typical * Chlorophyll a was lower than typical * Chlorophyll a was lower than typical * Chlorophyll a was lower than typical * TSS was typical * TSS was typical * TSS was typical These observations were logically These observations were logically These observations were logically consistent with each other. consistent with each other. consistent with each other. However, Kd was greater than typical. However, Kd was greater than typical. However, Kd was greater than typical. Conclusion: Use 1999- -2004 Kd data. 2004 Kd data. Conclusion: Use 1999 Conclusion: Use 1999-2004 Kd data.
Secchi disk depth was deeper than typical 1996-97
Color was lower than typical 1996-97
Chlorophyll a was lower than typical 1996-97
Although variable, TSS was typical 1996-97
However, Kd was greater than typical 1996-97
Kd – 1/Secchi (1/m) Deviation from Kd =f(1/Secchi) Before 1998 1996-97
Kd – 1/Secchi (1/m) Conclusion: Use 1999 to 2004 Kd Data 1996-97
Question: Question: Question: Can an empirical approach relating the Can an empirical approach relating the Can an empirical approach relating the variation in light attenuation to the variation in light attenuation to the variation in light attenuation to the variation in water quality be used? variation in water quality be used? variation in water quality be used? Approach: Approach: Approach: Review observed relationships, and Review observed relationships, and Review observed relationships, and develop a strawman model for develop a strawman model for develop a strawman model for discussion. discussion. discussion.
Observations: Observations: Observations: * Kd was related to chlorophyll in a quantifiable * Kd was related to chlorophyll in a quantifiable * Kd was related to chlorophyll in a quantifiable manner manner manner * Kd was related to color in a quantifiable manner * Kd was related to color in a quantifiable manner * Kd was related to color in a quantifiable manner * Chlorophyll and color were strongly and * Chlorophyll and color were strongly and * Chlorophyll and color were strongly and consistently correlated across segments. consistently correlated across segments. consistently correlated across segments. * Chlorophyll was often correlate with turbidity and * Chlorophyll was often correlate with turbidity and * Chlorophyll was often correlate with turbidity and TSS, but to a lesser extent than color in strength TSS, but to a lesser extent than color in strength TSS, but to a lesser extent than color in strength of correlation and spatial consistency. of correlation and spatial consistency. of correlation and spatial consistency.
Kd was related to Chlorophyll in a quantifiable manner
Kd was related to Color in a quantifiable manner
Chlorophyll was correlated with Color
Question: Question: Question: Can an empirical approach relating the Can an empirical approach relating the Can an empirical approach relating the variation in light attenuation to the variation in light attenuation to the variation in light attenuation to the variation in water quality be used? variation in water quality be used? variation in water quality be used? Approach: Approach: Approach: Review observed relationships, and Review observed relationships, and Review observed relationships, and develop a strawman model for develop a strawman model for develop a strawman model for discussion. discussion. discussion.
Recommend
More recommend
