Sarasota Bay Chlorophyll Targets Sarasota Bay Chlorophyll Targets - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
sarasota bay chlorophyll targets sarasota bay chlorophyll
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Sarasota Bay Chlorophyll Targets Sarasota Bay Chlorophyll Targets - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 10, 2023 680 likes •1.22k views

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

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Sarasota Bay Chlorophyll Targets Objective: Is an empirical approach like that used for Tampa Bay applicable to the Sarasota Bay data? Sarasota Bay Chlorophyll Targets Sarasota Bay Chlorophyll Targets Objective: Objective: Is an empirical approach like that Is an empirical approach like that used for Tampa Bay applicable to used for Tampa Bay applicable to the Sarasota Bay data? the Sarasota Bay data?

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Question: Are the sample sizes and parameters reported sufficient to develop empirical relationships between light attenuation and water quality? Approach: Tabulation of reported data, and consideration of parameters. Question: Question: Are the sample sizes and parameters Are the sample sizes and parameters reported sufficient to develop reported sufficient to develop empirical relationships between light empirical relationships between light attenuation and water quality? attenuation and water quality? Approach: Approach: Tabulation of reported data, and Tabulation of reported data, and consideration of parameters. consideration of parameters.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

241 626 639 801 825 70 553 1979-2004 16 - Blackburn Bay 30 32 32 28 1990-1994 15 - Midnight Pass 276 676 708 903 1018 135 557 1975-2004 14 - Little Sarasota Bay 303 684 709 1201 1202 127 577 1972-2004 13 - Roberts Bay 37 105 117 64 112 41 69 1981-2004 12 - Big Sarasota Pass 465 698 762 1393 1136 143 852 1972-2004 11 - SE Sarasota Bay 358 658 692 971 957 114 621 1978-2004 10 - SW Sarasota Bay 15 91 75 91 14 75 1990-2004 09 - New Pass 58 152 473 489 594 181 271 1972-2004 08 - E Sarasota Bay 60 168 237 465 503 126 99 1979-2004 07 - W Sarasota Bay 124 350 174 349 315 1987-1994 06 - NE Sarasota Bay 87 280 74 294 250 8 1972-1994 05 - NW Sarasota Bay 53 253 60 305 223 1972-1994 03 - Palma Sola Bay 47 247 121 421 220 4 1972-1994 02 - North Palma Sola Bay 59 593 465 654 122 465 1972-2004 01 - Anna Maria Sound Secchi Kd TSS Turb Colo r (Uncorr ) (Corr) Sampled Chl a Chl a Years

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Question: Are Kd values in the range expected? Approach: Apply relationship Kd=1/Secchi.

Giessen (1990) reported Kd=1.5/Secchi to Kd=1.8/Secchi

Question: Question: Are Are Kd Kd values in the range expected? values in the range expected? Approach: Approach: Apply relationship Kd=1/Secchi. Apply relationship Kd=1/Secchi.

Giessen Giessen (1990) reported Kd=1.5/Secchi to (1990) reported Kd=1.5/Secchi to Kd=1.8/Secchi Kd=1.8/Secchi

slide-5
SLIDE 5
slide-6
SLIDE 6
slide-7
SLIDE 7
slide-8
SLIDE 8
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Deviation from 1/Secchi Deviation from 1/Secchi

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Deviation from 1/Secchi Deviation from 1/Secchi

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Roberts Bay Roberts Bay Little Sarasota Bay Little Sarasota Bay

slide-12
SLIDE 12

1.5/Secchi (1.5/m)

slide-13
SLIDE 13

1.5/Secchi (1.5/m)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Question: Are there vertical spatial sources of variation in light attenuation values that should be accounted for in the Approach (e.g., back scattering)? Approach: Review observed relationship between Kd and 1/Secchi by water depth. Question: Question: Are there vertical spatial sources of Are there vertical spatial sources of variation in light attenuation values variation in light attenuation values that should be accounted for in the that should be accounted for in the Approach ( Approach (e.g e.g., back scattering)? ., back scattering)? Approach: Approach: Review observed relationship between Review observed relationship between Kd and 1/Secchi by water depth. Kd and 1/Secchi by water depth.

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Kd – 1/Secchi (1/m)

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Question: Are there temporal sources of variation in light attenuation values that should be accounted for in the approach? Approach: Review observed data time series. Question: Question: Are there temporal sources of Are there temporal sources of variation in light attenuation values variation in light attenuation values that should be accounted for in the that should be accounted for in the approach? approach? Approach: Approach: Review observed data time series. Review observed data time series.

slide-17
SLIDE 17
slide-18
SLIDE 18

Kd – 1/Secchi (1/m)

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Kd – 1/Secchi (1/m)

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Kd – 1/Secchi (1/m) 1996-97

Deviation from Kd =f(1/Secchi) Before 1998

“ “Typical Typical” ”

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Prior to 1998:

* Secchi disk was deeper than typical * Color was lower than typical * Chlorophyll a was lower than typical * TSS was typical These observations were logically consistent with each other.

Prior to 1998: Prior to 1998:

* Secchi disk was deeper than typical * Secchi disk was deeper than typical * Color was lower than typical * Color was lower than typical * Chlorophyll a was lower than typical * Chlorophyll a was lower than typical * TSS was typical * TSS was typical These observations were logically These observations were logically consistent with each other. consistent with each other.

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Prior to 1998:

* Secchi disk was deeper than typical * Color was lower than typical * Chlorophyll a was lower than typical * TSS was typical These observations were logically consistent with each other. However, Kd was greater than typical.

Prior to 1998: Prior to 1998:

* Secchi disk was deeper than typical * Secchi disk was deeper than typical * Color was lower than typical * Color was lower than typical * Chlorophyll a was lower than typical * Chlorophyll a was lower than typical * TSS was typical * TSS was typical These observations were logically These observations were logically consistent with each other. consistent with each other. However, Kd was greater than typical. However, Kd was greater than typical.

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Prior to 1998:

* Secchi disk was deeper than typical * Color was lower than typical * Chlorophyll a was lower than typical * TSS was typical These observations were logically consistent with each other. However, Kd was greater than typical. Conclusion: Use 1999-2004 Kd data.

Prior to 1998: Prior to 1998:

* Secchi disk was deeper than typical * Secchi disk was deeper than typical * Color was lower than typical * Color was lower than typical * Chlorophyll a was lower than typical * Chlorophyll a was lower than typical * TSS was typical * TSS was typical These observations were logically These observations were logically consistent with each other. consistent with each other. However, Kd was greater than typical. However, Kd was greater than typical. Conclusion: Use 1999 Conclusion: Use 1999-

  • 2004 Kd data.

2004 Kd data.

slide-24
SLIDE 24

1996-97

Secchi disk depth was deeper than typical

slide-25
SLIDE 25

1996-97

Color was lower than typical

slide-26
SLIDE 26

1996-97

Chlorophyll a was lower than typical

slide-27
SLIDE 27

1996-97

Although variable, TSS was typical

slide-28
SLIDE 28

1996-97

However, Kd was greater than typical

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Kd – 1/Secchi (1/m) 1996-97

Deviation from Kd =f(1/Secchi) Before 1998

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Kd – 1/Secchi (1/m) 1996-97

Conclusion: Use 1999 to 2004 Kd Data

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Question: Can an empirical approach relating the variation in light attenuation to the variation in water quality be used? Approach: Review observed relationships, and develop a strawman model for discussion. Question: Question: 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 water quality be used? variation in water quality be used? Approach: Approach: Review observed relationships, and Review observed relationships, and develop a strawman model for develop a strawman model for discussion. discussion.

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Observations:

* Kd was related to chlorophyll in a quantifiable manner * Kd was related to color in a quantifiable manner * Chlorophyll and color were strongly and consistently correlated across segments. * Chlorophyll was often correlate with turbidity and TSS, but to a lesser extent than color in strength

  • f correlation and spatial consistency.

Observations: Observations:

* Kd was related to chlorophyll in a quantifiable * Kd was related to chlorophyll in a quantifiable manner 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 consistently correlated across segments. consistently correlated across segments. * 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

  • f correlation and spatial consistency.
  • f correlation and spatial consistency.
slide-33
SLIDE 33

Kd was related to Chlorophyll in a quantifiable manner

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Kd was related to Color in a quantifiable manner

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Chlorophyll was correlated with Color

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Question: Can an empirical approach relating the variation in light attenuation to the variation in water quality be used? Approach: Review observed relationships, and develop a strawman model for discussion. Question: Question: 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 water quality be used? variation in water quality be used? Approach: Approach: Review observed relationships, and Review observed relationships, and develop a strawman model for develop a strawman model for discussion. discussion.

slide-37
SLIDE 37
slide-38
SLIDE 38
slide-39
SLIDE 39
slide-40
SLIDE 40
slide-41
SLIDE 41
slide-42
SLIDE 42
slide-43
SLIDE 43
slide-44
SLIDE 44
slide-45
SLIDE 45
slide-46
SLIDE 46
slide-47
SLIDE 47
slide-48
SLIDE 48
slide-49
SLIDE 49

Roberts Bay = 5 ug/L

slide-50
SLIDE 50

Lemon Bay = 8.5 ug/L

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Blackburn Bay = 28 ug/L

slide-52
SLIDE 52

Gallegos (2001)