Upload
giana-vallance
View
221
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Toward Implementing BLING
(Biogeochemistry with Light, Iron, Nutrients and Gases)
in the MITgcm
Brendan Carter,Ariane Verdy, Matt Mazloff, Bob Key, and Jorge
Sarmiento
WHY?
DIC package
TOPAZ
Darwin NEMURO
Full Ecosystem
WHY?
DIC package
WHY?
DIC package
WHY?
BLING?DIC TOPAZ/Darwin
WHY?
BLING?DIC TOPAZ/Darwin
LIFE
34PO
DIC
DOM
Fe
0.66
0.33
34PO Fe
DOM
2O
2O
LIFE
34PO
DIC BLING
DOM
Fe 34PO
DOM
Fe
LIFE0.66
0.33
0.66
0.33
2O2O
LIFE
34PO
DIC BLING
DOM
Fe
0.66
0.33
34PO
DOM
Fe
LIFE0.1
?
2O2O
LIFE
34PO
DIC BLING
DOM
Fe The
rest
0.66
0.33
34PO
DOM
Fe
LIFE0.1
?
Implicit microbial loop.
2O2O
LIFE
34PO
DIC BLING
DOM
Fe The
rest
0.66
0.33
34PO
DOM
Fe
0.1Small
PhytoplanktonLarge Phytoplankton
1 0.18
2O2O
Implicit size structure.
Small v. Large Biomass
BLING assumes that:
1. Growth and mortality are in steady state.
2. Large phytoplankton has less density dependence to mortality (^4/3) than small (^2).
Biomass
Gro
wth
Horray!
Why hast thou forsaken us?
Small v. Large Biomass
BLING assumes that:
1. Growth and mortality are in steady state.
2. Large phytoplankton has less density dependence to mortality (^4/3) than small (^2).
Biomass
Gro
wth
/mor
tali
ty
Horray!
Why hast thou forsaken us?
Small
Large
Small v. Large Biomass
BLING assumes that:
1. Growth and mortality are in steady state.
2. Large phytoplankton has less density dependence to mortality (^4/3) than small (^2).
Biomass
Gro
wth
/mor
tali
ty
Horray!
Why hast thou forsaken us?
Small
Large
Small v. Large Biomass
BLING assumes that:
1. Growth and mortality are in steady state.
2. Large phytoplankton has less density dependence to mortality (^4/3) than small (^2).
Biomass
Gro
wth
/mor
tali
ty
Small
LargeHorray!
Why hast thou forsaken us?
Small v. Large Biomass
BLING assumes that:
1. Growth and mortality are in steady state.
2. Large phytoplankton has less density dependence to mortality (^4/3) than small (^2).
Biomass
Gro
wth
/mor
tali
ty
Small
LargeSmall phytoplankton do better when it is warm and when times are hard.
…they also export less.
Iron and light interaction
Experimental evidence suggests:
When iron is abundant, more chloroplasts are made, and chloroplasts are more efficient.
FeFe
FeFe
FeFe
FeFe
Fe
FeFe
Iron and light interaction
Experimental evidence suggests:
When iron is scarce, organisms can’t use light as effectively.
Fe
FeFe
Iron and light interaction
34
34
C C0 Fe CPO
0 Fe memPO
21 ^
2kT
kT
IP P e L L e
P e L L I
min max min FeL
min max min FeL
Shows up twice in the light limitation…
In the chlorophyll to carbon ratio
and a term representing photosynthetic efficiency
Both effectively decrease light limitation with iron.
As promised…With and B we can estimate [Chl]…
Excellent food for
a budding adjoint
state estimate.
With and B we can estimate [Chl]…
Excellent food for
a budding adjoint
state estimate.
But what if
was really ?
As promised…
DOM
DOM
LIFE
34PO
DIC BLING
DOM
Fe The
rest
0.66
0.33
34PO
DOM
Fe
0.1Small
PhytoplanktonLarge Phytoplankton
1 0.18
LIFE
34PO
DIC BLING
DOM
Fe The
rest
0.66
0.33
34PO Fe
0.1Small
PhytoplanktonLarge Phytoplankton
1 0.18
DOFe
DOP
Other changes
• Oxygen is required to remineralize POFe and POP
• Remineralization curve is not quite a Martin curve even with oxygen.
• Minor light-adaptation… the amount of light a plankton needs decreases slightly as the mixed layer consistently grows darker
Next steps
• Resolve: co-limitation vs. Leibig’s Law of the minimum.
• Resolve: mixed layer averaging for irradiance memory term.
• Compile/debug, test, optimize, and check-in.
Temp
and
prod.
Is BLING right for your application?
[Chl]
Large and
Small
Fe-Light
Light Weight
DIC BLING