eddies and ocean biogeochemistry
DESCRIPTION
Eddies and Ocean Biogeochemistry. Andreas Oschlies IFM-GEOMAR. The Biological Pump: Traditional 1D View. CO 2 , O 2. z. Sea surface. z(mix)~z(euph). inorganic nutrients. organic matter. nutrients, CO 2. ``relatively constant´´ C:N:P:-O 2. (2). particulate and dissolved - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Eddies and Eddies and Ocean BiogeochemistryOcean Biogeochemistry
Andreas Oschlies
IFM-GEOMAR
The Biological Pump: The Biological Pump: Traditional 1D ViewTraditional 1D View
Sea surface
z(mix)~z(euph)
CO2, O2
organic matterinorganic nutrientsnutrients, CO2
z
``relatively constant´´ C:N:P:-O2
Biological Pump in 3DBiological Pump in 3D
Z(euphot. zone)
Z(winter mixed layer)
CO2, O2
(1)
(2)particulate and dissolved organic matter
low lats high lats
Z(euphot. zone)
Z(winter mixed layer)
CO2, O2
newly-remineralised dissolved inorganic matter
(3a)
(1)
(2)particulate and dissolved organic matter
low lats high lats
Biological Pump in 3DBiological Pump in 3D
Z(euphot. zone)
Z(winter mixed layer)
CO2, O2
newly-remineralised dissolved inorganic matter
(3a)
(1)
(2)particulate and dissolved organic matter
low lats high lats
(3b)
newly-generated inorganic matter deficit
(Oschlies & Kähler, 2004)
Biological Pump in 3DBiological Pump in 3D
Potential of the biological pumpPotential of the biological pumpPresent-day sea-surface nitrate concentrations
mmol/m3
Mean profile
(Conkright et al., 1994)
Controls are not fully understood
Potential of the biological pumpPotential of the biological pumpPresent-day sea-surface nitrate concentrations
mmol/m3
Mean profile
(Conkright et al., 1994)
Controls are not fully understood
Subtropical deserts
Surface ChlorophyllSurface Chlorophyll
Biogeographical Provinces
Nitrate distributionNitrate distributionSubtropical nitrate “bowl”
• Observed biological production requires net supply across NO3=const surfaces.
• Gauss’s theorem: mean advection cannot contribute to transport across mean iso-surface.
diapycnal mixing Ekman transport anomalies eddy stirring (isopycnal &
dia-nutrial)
Where have eddies come into play?Where have eddies come into play?
Apparent observational discrepancy in oligotrophic subtropical gyres:
• Large-scale biogeochemical estimates of export production >> local direct measurements
• Still not fully resolved despite several decades of research
Subtropical desert conundrumsSubtropical desert conundrumsSimulated NO3 supply to euphotic zone Eastern basin: ~factor 12
•high rates of O2 consumption, (Jenkins, 1982: ~0.6 mol N m-2 yr-1)
Subtropical desert conundrumsSubtropical desert conundrumsSimulated NO3 supply to euphotic zone Eastern basin: ~factor 12
•high rates of O2 consumption, (Jenkins, 1982: ~0.6 mol N m-2 yr-1)
• low 15NO3 uptake, diff. NO3 supply (Lewis et al., 1986: ~0.05 mol N m-2 yr-1)
Subtropical desert conundrumsSubtropical desert conundrumsSimulated NO3 supply to euphotic zone Eastern basin: ~factor 12
•high rates of O2 consumption, (Jenkins, 1982: ~0.6 mol N m-2 yr-1)
• low 15NO3 uptake, diff. NO3 supply (Lewis et al., 1986: ~0.05 mol N m-2 yr-1)
• low simulated NO3 supply (Oschlies, 2002: ~0.02 mol N m-2 yr-
1)
Subtropical desert conundrumsSubtropical desert conundrumsSimulated NO3 supply to euphotic zone Eastern basin: ~factor 12
•high rates of O2 consumption, (Jenkins, 1982: ~0.6 mol N m-2 yr-1)
• low 15NO3 uptake, diff. NO3 supply (Lewis et al., 1986: ~0.05 mol N m-2 yr-1)
• low simulated NO3 supply (Oschlies, 2002: ~0.02 mol N m-2 yr-
1)
Bermuda: ~ factor 4
•high rates of 3He supply (Jenkins, 1988 : ~0.6 mol N m-2 yr-1)
• lower sedimentation rates (Michaels et al.,1994:~0.15 mol N m-2 yr-1)
Subtropical desert conundrumsSubtropical desert conundrumsSimulated NO3 supply to euphotic zone Eastern basin: ~factor 12
•high rates of O2 consumption, (Jenkins, 1982: ~0.6 mol N m-2 yr-1)
• low 15NO3 uptake, diff. NO3 supply (Lewis et al., 1986: ~0.05 mol N m-2 yr-1)
• low simulated NO3 supply (Oschlies, 2002: ~0.02 mol N m-2 yr-
1)
Bermuda: ~ factor 4
•high rates of 3He supply (Jenkins, 1988 : ~0.6 mol N m-2 yr-1)
• lower sedimentation rates (Michaels et al.,1994:~0.15 mol N m-2 yr-1)
•Substantial interannual variability (Lipschultz, 2001; Oschlies, 2001)
Subtropical desert conundrumsSubtropical desert conundrumsSimulated NO3 supply to euphotic zone Eastern basin: ~factor 12
•high rates of O2 consumption, (Jenkins, 1982: ~0.6 mol N m-2 yr-1)
• low 15NO3 uptake, diff. NO3 supply (Lewis et al., 1986: ~0.05 mol N m-2 yr-1)
• low simulated NO3 supply (Oschlies, 2002: ~0.02 mol N m-2 yr-
1)
Bermuda: ~ factor 4
•high rates of 3He supply (Jenkins, 1988 : ~0.6 mol N m-2 yr-1)
• lower sedimentation rates (Michaels et al.,1994:~0.15 mol N m-2 yr-1)
•Substantial interannual variability (Lipschultz, 2001; Oschlies, 2001)
Discrepancy based on different tracers!Role of conversion factors?
Where have eddies come into play?Where have eddies come into play?
• Large-scale biogeochemical estimates of export production >> local direct measurements– Trace metal contamination, sediment trap problems,…
=> underestimated local production rates?
Where have eddies come into play?Where have eddies come into play?
• Large-scale biogeochemical estimates of export production >> local direct measurements– Trace metal contamination, sediment trap problems,…
=> underestimated local production rates?
– Unintended tradition of undersampling!
under-representation of episodic eddy events?
Evidence for episodic nutrient supplyEvidence for episodic nutrient supply
Section Azores – Cape Farewell (Strass, 1992)
Evidence for Evidence for episodic episodic
nutrient supply nutrient supply by eddiesby eddies
(McNeil et al., 1999)
Bermuda Testbed Mooring
Time series 4 months,
eddy time scale 15 days.
Eddy pumping concept (vertical one)Eddy pumping concept (vertical one)
(McGillicuddy et al., 1998)
On the relevance of eddy pumpingOn the relevance of eddy pumping
• “vertical flux of nutrients induced by the dynamics of mesoscale eddies is sufficient to balance the nutrient budget”
• “Eddy pumping and wintertime convection are the two dominant mechanisms transporting new nutrients into the euphotic zone”
• Nutrient flux by eddy pumping “is more than an order of magnitude higher than the diapycnal diffusive flux as well as … vertical transport due to isopycnal mixing”.
First counterargument: StatisticsFirst counterargument: Statistics
• Should we have missed the important events?
Undersampling of episodic events
under-representation of episodic events?
• chance of under-representation = change of over-representation
Undersampling = under-representation?Undersampling = under-representation?
Hawaii Ocean Timeseries Site (Karl et al., 2003)
T, z = 0m
T, z = 200m
(Siegel et al., 1999)
SLA
>3 years BATS vs Topex-Poseidon
Undersampling = under-representation?Undersampling = under-representation?
Counter argument 2: high estimates Counter argument 2: high estimates based on modelsbased on models
• Falkowski et al. (1991), eddy off Hawaii:
infer ~< 20% enhancement of large-scale primary production by eddies.– based on direct fluorescence measurements of
primary production
Counter argument 2: high estimates Counter argument 2: high estimates based on modelsbased on models
• Falkowski et al. (1991), eddy off Hawaii:
infer ~< 20% enhancement of large-scale primary production by eddies.– based on direct fluorescence measurements of
primary production
• McGillicuddy et al. (1998), eddy off Bermuda: infer ~100% enhancement of large-scale nutrient supply.– based on nitrate-density relationship and
inconsistent model assumptions
Altimetry-based eddy-pumping estimateAltimetry-based eddy-pumping estimate
(Siegel et al., 1999)
SLA
zeuph
Estimated nitrate supply
Altimetry-based eddy-pumping estimateAltimetry-based eddy-pumping estimate
(Martin & Pondaven, 2003)
Based on mutually exclusive assumptions:
• All eddy events contribute to local nitrate flux (wave-like eddies)
• 100% of upwelled nutrient is taken up locally (slow growth at base of euphotic zone water must be trapped in moving eddy)
• Plausible efficiency more likely 20-25%
Model-based assessmentModel-based assessment
Spring bloom in eddy-resolving model (1/9x2/15 degrees)
ecosystem model,(Oschlies & Garcon, 1999)
(Oschlies, 2002)
Model statistics at BATSModel statistics at BATSmean NO3
rms vert. displ. of iso-NO3 surfaces Corr2(SSH,Z(NO3)) Corr2(,NO3))
BATS(1/9)o model
~ correct amplitude for lifting of iso-NO3 surfaces
Model-based assessment at BATSModel-based assessment at BATS
mg C
hl/m3
mm
ol NO
3 /m3
Chlorophyll
Nitrate
cumulative NO3 supply
SSH
0.05mol/m2 after spring (Lipschultz (2001):
0.07 in 1992,0.04 in 1993)
Siegel et al. (1999) method would predict 6 times too much NO3 supply associated with eddy event (1).
(Oschlies, 2002)
Counter argument 3: Recharging issuesCounter argument 3: Recharging issues
Eddy-pumping process
.
recharging
time
Eddy-pumping process
.
recharging
time
• Sinking is diapycnal transport
Counter argument 3: Recharging issuesCounter argument 3: Recharging issues
Eddy-pumping process
.
recharging
time
• Sinking is diapycnal transport
• Recharging of nutrients on shallow isopycnals matters.
Counter argument 3: Recharging issuesCounter argument 3: Recharging issues
Eddy-pumping process
.
recharging
time
• Sinking is diapycnal transport
• Recharging of nutrients on shallow isopycnals matters.
• Recharging requires diapycnal nutrient transport (local or remote).
Counter argument 3: Recharging issuesCounter argument 3: Recharging issues
Eddy-pumping process
.
recharging
time
• Sinking is diapycnal transport
• Recharging of nutrients on shallow isopycnals matters.
• Recharging requires diapycnal nutrient transport (local or remote).
• Bottleneck is diapycnal transport rather than isopycnal uplift!
(Oschlies, 2002)
Counter argument 3: Recharging issuesCounter argument 3: Recharging issues
What about eddy-resolving models?What about eddy-resolving models?
• Idealised models (frontal dynamics)
Idealised modelsIdealised models
(Levy et al., 2001)
Large local impacts
> 100% increase in regional production.
Often run in spin-up or spin-down mode.
Representative of steady-state large-scale mean?
““We can never do merely one thing”We can never do merely one thing”(Hardin, 1985)(Hardin, 1985)
SST New Production (Mahadevan & Archer, 2000)
New production increases with finer and finer resolution.No convergence seen, yet.
(Mahadevan & Archer, 2000)
0.36oC cooling over 120/2=60 days BATS: Hawaiifor MLD = 50m: 14 W/m2 18 W/m2
for MLD = 100m: 28 W/m2 36 W/m2
120 day mean
higher NO3 supplylower SST
Heat transport constraint on nutrient transport?
““We can never do merely one thing”We can never do merely one thing”(Hardin, 1985)(Hardin, 1985)
Basin-scale models (i)Basin-scale models (i)
Spring bloom in eddy-resolving model (1/9x2/15 degrees)
ecosystem model,(Oschlies & Garcon, 1999)
(Oschlies, 2002)
permitting
Surface heat “flux correction”Surface heat “flux correction”
1/9o model, forced by ECMWF 1989-93 ERA
1/3o model, forced by ECMWF 1989-93 ERA
About 25W/m2 additional heating required to reproduce observed SSTs,(little less at higher resolution: ML restratification by eddies)
(Oschlies, 2002)
Eddy-induced stratificationEddy-induced stratification
Heat flux required to balance eddy-induced stratification of ML.Eddies stratify and heat the surface ML in most areas.
(Oschlies, 2002)
Baroclinic instabilities in ML generate stratification
lightwarm
densecold
(Nurser & Zhang, 2000)
y
z
Sub-mesoscale Sub-mesoscale heatfluxheatflux
Inferred from altimetry: Positive everywhere!
(Fox-Kemper & Ferrari, 2008)
NH winter
SH winter
Simulated North Simulated North Atlantic spring Atlantic spring
bloombloom1/3 x 2/5 degrees
1/9 x 2/15 degrees
Eddy resolving looks “better”.Is there a significant net impact?
Surface chlorophyll (mg/m3)
(Oschlies, 2002)
Small difference in oligotrophic subtropical gyre.Some difference at gyre’s margins.
Simulated annual NOSimulated annual NO33
supply into upper supply into upper 126m (mol m126m (mol m-2 -2 yryr-1-1))
eddy resolving
eddy permitting
viscous
(Oschlies, 2002)
Eddy impacts on Eddy impacts on mean nutrient supplymean nutrient supply
total supply by eddies
Eddy supply by vertical excursions (includes “eddy pumping”)
Eddy supply by lateral stirring(exceeds vertical eddy contribution over large parts of subtropical gyre!)
(Oschlies, 2002)
Role of lateral stirringRole of lateral stirring• Supply by lateral stirring might reach larger distances
for organic nutrients with longer lifetimes/slower utilisation rates (Lee & Williams, 2000)
=3 months =1 year
Basin-scale models (ii)Basin-scale models (ii)
McGillicuddy et al. (2003):
• Nutrient transport model– z = 0-104m:
N uptake rate = min(QN,L)
– z > 104m:
Remineralisation:
1/ [ NO3obs(x,y,0) – NO3]
– Sensitivity experiments: = 10, 30, 60 days
(results only shown for = 10 days, though)
NO3
0
(McGillicuddy et al., 2003)
Basin-scale models (ii): NP pathwaysBasin-scale models (ii): NP pathways
1/10o degree model (McGillicuddy et al., 2003)
For = 10 days, vertical advection by eddies dominates nutrient supply!
Overestimated eddy pumping Overestimated eddy pumping by rapid restoringby rapid restoring
.
Recharging issue: •10 days realistic? •How different are results for = 30 days, 60 days?
time
Conclusions (i)Conclusions (i)
• Eddy pumping occurs, but mean impact has often been grossly overestimated because of inconsistent assumptions about time scales.
Conclusions (i)Conclusions (i)
• Eddy pumping occurs, but mean impact has often been grossly overestimated because of inconsistent assumptions about time scales.
• Vertical eddy pumping cannot resolve observational discrepancy.
Conclusions (i)Conclusions (i)
• Eddy pumping occurs, but mean impact has often been grossly overestimated because of inconsistent assumptions about time scales.
• Vertical eddy pumping cannot resolve observational discrepancy.
• Lateral stirring by eddies at least as important.
Conclusions (i)Conclusions (i)
• Eddy pumping occurs, but mean impact has often been grossly overestimated because of inconsistent assumptions about time scales.
• Vertical eddy pumping cannot resolve observational discrepancy.
• Lateral stirring by eddies at least as important.
• Other processes overlooked previously?– Eddy/wind interactions– Submesoscale
Eddy/wind interactionsEddy/wind interactions
• Theory: Induces vertical circulation at eddy’s margin (Martin & Richards, 2001; Mahadevan et al., 2008, comment on McGillicuddy et al., 2007)
Simulated impact of eddy-wind Simulated impact of eddy-wind interactioninteraction
(Eden & Dietze, 2009)
Simulated new production (mmol C m-2 d-1)
without wind-current
interaction
with wind-current
interaction
Difference
~ 5% reduction
Also: reduced EKE (10-50%),
reduced energy input by wind
Submesoscale upwelling?Submesoscale upwelling?• Ubiquitous, large associated vertical velocities
(Martin & Richards, 2001) (Levy et al., 2001)
PRIME eddy,c.i. 5m/day
• Heat flux constraint on nutrient fluxes?
First results from steady-state First results from steady-state basin-scale simulationbasin-scale simulation
1° 1/3° 1/9° 1/27° 1/54°
SSS,yr 100
1/27o – 1/9o:Less phytoplankton,Less new production!
(courtesy Marina Levy)
PHY NP
Conclusions (ii)Conclusions (ii)
• Eddy/wind interactions have small (negative) impact on nutrient supply.
• Submesoscale variability may reduce nutrient supply (ML restratification).
• Can we pump nutrients without pumping heat?– Useful constraints from surface heat fluxes?
– Depends on correlations of T and NO3 in thermo-/nutricline.
Why should we still want to resolve Why should we still want to resolve eddies in biogeochemical models?eddies in biogeochemical models?
• Isopycnal stirring important to get oxygen minimum zones right (“shaddow zones”)
Ventilation of OMZsVentilation of OMZsKiso zonal
Kiso meridional
(Eden & Greatbatch, 2009)
Ventilation of OMZsVentilation of OMZsKiso zonal
Kiso meridional
(Eden & Greatbatch, 2009)
Dissolved O2 along 23oW, 4/3o model
Kiso=0 m2/s
Kiso=2000 m2/s
mol/l
<5
>50
Impacts on species composition?Impacts on species composition?• Lima et al. (2002): larger phytoplankton
favoured at higher eddy activity
• Hansen & Samuelsen (2009): more diatoms, less flagellates at finer resolution off Norway
(run for 1.5 years)
(run for 200 days)
Why should we still want to resolve Why should we still want to resolve eddies in biogeochemical models?eddies in biogeochemical models?
• Isopycnal stirring important to get oxygen minimum zones right (“shaddow zones”)
• Sensitivity of Southern Ocean CO2 uptake to past & future climate change.
• Eddies as means to structure marine ecosystems? Impact on species composition?
Thank you!Thank you!
Why should be want to resolve eddies?Why should be want to resolve eddies?
• Plots look so much nicer…• It’s very expensive!
– Computational efforts: 1 x (1/10)o ~ 1000 x 1o
– OK for process studies
– Impact on mean properties?
Idealised models (ii)Idealised models (ii)
PHY
ZOO
PP
(Spall & Richards, 2000)
Large local impacts
< 10% increase in regional production.
Equilibrium reached?
Simulated impact of eddy-wind Simulated impact of eddy-wind interactioninteraction
(Eden & Dietze, 2009)
Simulated EKE (cm2 s-2)
without wind-current
interaction
with wind-current
interaction
Difference
~ 10-50% reduction
Analogy with heat budgetAnalogy with heat budget
(Greatbatch et al., 2007)
Gauss’s theorem: mean advection cannot contribute to net transport acrossclosed mean-isosurface
Analogy with heat budgetAnalogy with heat budget
(Greatbatch et al., 2007)
Export of organic matter
Gauss’s theorem: mean advection cannot contribute to net transport acrossclosed mean isosurface
Sensitivity to isopycnal mixing Sensitivity to isopycnal mixing
Typical range in coarse-resolution models(has little effect on density and velocity fields)
Which diffusivity is “correct”, if any?