4.5 Article

Methods to estimate solar radiation dosimetry in coral reefs using remote sensed, modeled, and in situ data

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
Volume 151, Issue 1-4, Pages 445-455

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-008-0288-4

Keywords

Solar radiation; Dosimetry; Coral; Modeling; Attenuation

Funding

  1. Dry Tortugas National Park [DRTO-2005- SCI-0010]
  2. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary [FKNMS-2003-050]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Solar irradiance has been increasingly recognized as an important determinant of bleaching in coral reefs, but measurements of solar radiation exposure within coral reefs have been relatively limited. Solar radiation dosimetry within multiple coral reef areas of South Florida was assessed using remote sensed, modeled, and measured values during a minor bleaching event during August 2005. Coral reefs in the Dry Tortugas and Upper Keys had similar diffuse downwelling attenuation coefficients (Kd, m(-1)), whereas Kd values were significantly greater in the Middle and Lower Keys. Mean 1% attenuation depths varied by reef region for ultraviolet B (UVB; 9.7 to 20 m), ultraviolet A (UVA; 22 to 40 m) and visible (27 to 43 m) solar radiation. Solar irradiances determined from remote sensed data were significantly correlated with measured values, but were generally overestimated at the depth of corals. Solar irradiances modeled using an atmospheric radiative transfer model parameterized with site specific approximations of cloud cover showed close agreement with measured values. Estimated daily doses (W h/m(2)) of UVB (0.01-19), UVA (2-360) and visible (29-1,653) solar radiation varied with coral depth (2 to 24 m) and meteorological conditions. These results indicate large variation in solar radiation dosimetry within coral reefs that may be estimated with reasonable accuracy using regional Kd measurements and radiative transfer modeling.

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