slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Ru Morrison, UNH Phil Trowbridge, NH DES Tom Gregory, UNH Mike Novak, UNH

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 23

Ru Morrison, UNH Phil Trowbridge, NH DES Tom Gregory, UNH Mike Novak, UNH - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 166 Views
  • Uploaded on

Preliminary results from light attenuation sensors on the Great Bay buoy and hyper-spectral imagery of Great Bay. Ru Morrison, UNH Phil Trowbridge, NH DES Tom Gregory, UNH Mike Novak, UNH. 2006. 2007. Discharge ft 3 /s. Great Bay Coastal Buoy Climatology Visualization. Salinity (psu).

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Ru Morrison, UNH Phil Trowbridge, NH DES Tom Gregory, UNH Mike Novak, UNH' - cecily


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Preliminary results from light attenuation sensors on the Great Bay buoy and hyper-spectral imagery of Great Bay

Ru Morrison, UNH

Phil Trowbridge, NH DES

Tom Gregory, UNH

Mike Novak, UNH

NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

slide2
NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

slide3
NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

slide4

2006

2007

Discharge ft3/s

Great Bay Coastal Buoy Climatology Visualization

Salinity (psu)

Plots available real time at http://www.cooa.unh.edu/data/buoys/great_bay/

NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

univariate regression of kd vs water quality parameters
Univariate Regression of Kd vs. Water Quality Parameters

Kd vs Chlorophyll-a

Kd vs TSS

Kd vs Salinity (CDOM)

N = 184

R2 = 0.07

N = 176

R2 = 0.13

N = 209

R2 = 0.54

Phil Trowbridge, NHDES

NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

multivariate regression of kd vs water quality parameters
Multivariate Regression of Kd vs. Water Quality Parameters

Multivariate Regression of Kd vs. TSS, Chla, and Salinity (CDOM)

TSS and Salinity are significant, R2 = 0.61, n=176

Phil Trowbridge, NHDES

NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

buoy light attenuation measurements
Buoy Light Attenuation Measurements
  • Surface Irradiance (Hyperspectral 350 nm – 800 nm)
  • Subsurface Irradiance (1.1 m)
  • FLNTUS – Chlorophyll and Turbidity
  • FLCDS – CDOM

And much more……

NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

provisional buoy relationship par
Provisional Buoy relationship –PAR

Kd(PAR) = 0.3561 + 0.0083.CDOM + 0.0152.Chl + 0.0737.NTUS

r2 = 0.94, N=3371

NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

buoy spectral attenuation
Buoy – Spectral Attenuation

Gallegos, 2001

NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

contributions to k d par
Contributions to Kd(PAR)

NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

sources of variability turbidity
Sources of Variability - turbidity

Turbidity = 10(1.03 + 0.087.Wind - 0.041.Salinity)

r2 = 0.75, N=207

NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

sources of variability cdom
Sources of Variability - CDOM

NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

sources of variability chlorophyll
Sources of variability - chlorophyll

Nitrate (µmol / L)

Chlorophyll-a (mg / m3)

NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

slide15
NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

sources of variability chlorophyll1
Sources of variability - chlorophyll

NO3 = 19.0 - 1.59.Chl-a

r2 = 0.90, N = 69

NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

spatial variability
Spatial variability
  • EPA grant with NHEP
  • Expand results from Great Bay Buoy with hyperspectral imagery
  • SpecTIR collected imagery (2 flights between end of July and end of October)
  • Grab samples and spatial survey underneath with multiple partners

NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

flow thru data
Flow thru data

NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

slide19
NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

slide20
NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

slide21
NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

how much light does eelgrass need
How much light does eelgrass need?

Median survival depth = 1.72 m

Median Kd(PAR) = 0.88 m-1

Median survival depth = 2.31 m

NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

acknowledgements
Acknowledgements

Thanks to:

  • All those who collected the historical data
  • Dave Shay and the faculty and staff of Jackson Estuarine Laboratory
  • Chris Hunt and Shawn Shelito for help with the flow through measurements
  • The captain and crew of the R/V Gulf Challenger
  • Rich Lagan and Jon Pennock, University of New Hampshire
  • Darrell Adams, Cyril Dempsey, and all at Satlantic Inc.
  • Andrew Barnard, Ian Walsh, Alex Derr, Ron Zaneveld and all at WET Labs, Inc.
  • NOAA for the funding
  • NHEP and NHDES

NHEP TAC

December 7 2007

ad