4.5 Article

On the variability of the exponent in the power law depth dependence of POC flux estimated from sediment traps

Journal

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr.2006.06.003

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Using the power law relationship J(z) = J(0)(z/z(0))(-b) relating the particulate organic carbon (POC) flux in the water column at depth z to the export flux J(0) at z(0) = 100 m, I reanalyzed the sediment-trap data set compiled by Berelson [2001. The flux of particulate organic carbon into the ocean interior: a comparison of four U.S. JGOFS regional studies. Oceanography 14, 59-67]. The goal is to better understand the variability of the exponent b. I show that the usual approach of estimating parameters for each station separately and then pooling the estimates from all stations confounds within-station estimation errors with true regional variability and so tends to inflate the apparent variance of b. Furthermore, I show that the correlation between b and J(0) observed by Berelson [2001. The flux of particulate organic carbon into the ocean interior: a comparison of four U.S. JGOFS regional studies. Oceanography 14, 59-67] is spurious and attributable to the fact that the estimation errors for b and J(0) are correlated. A two level mixed-effects regression model is introduced to properly take into account the contribution to the variability of the POC fluxes of within- and between-station effects. The analysis shows that the variability of b across stations is only a small contributor to the POC flux variance in the sediment trap data set. In fact the additional POC flux variance captured by a model with regionally varying b in comparison to a simple model with a fixed b is not statistically significant. The best estimate for the fixed b applicable to all stations is 0.70 +/- 0.08 (95% C.I. 90 d.f.). (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available