Dataset Information

Particulate Backscattering in the Global Ocean: A Comparison of Independent Assessments.

ABSTRACT: How well do we know the particulate backscattering coefficient (b_bp) in the global ocean? Satellite lidar b_bp has never been validated globally and few studies have compared lidar b_bp to b_bp derived from reflectances (via ocean color) or in situ observations. Here, we validate lidar b_bp with autonomous biogeochemical Argo floats using a decorrelation analysis to identify relevant spatiotemporal matchup scales inspired by geographical variability in the Rossby radius of deformation. We compare lidar, float, and ocean color b_bp at the same locations and times to assess performance. Lidar b_bp outperforms ocean color, with a median percent error of 18% compared to 24% in the best case and a relative bias of -11% compared to -21%, respectively. Phytoplankton carbon calculated from ocean color and lidar exhibits basin-scale differences that can reach ±50%.

SUBMITTER: Bisson KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8442828 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Particulate Backscattering in the Global Ocean: A Comparison of Independent Assessments.

Bisson K M KM Boss E E Werdell P J PJ Ibrahim A A Behrenfeld M J MJ

Geophysical research letters 20201214 2

How well do we know the particulate backscattering coefficient (bbp) in the global ocean? Satellite lidar bbp has never been validated globally and few studies have compared lidar bbp to bbp derived from reflectances (via ocean color) or in situ observations. Here, we validate lidar bbp with autonomous biogeochemical Argo floats using a decorrelation analysis to identify relevant spatiotemporal matchup scales inspired by geographical variabi ...[more]

PMID: 34531620

Similar Datasets

Project description:The magnitude of impacts some alien species cause to native environments makes them targets for regulation and management. However, which species to target is not always clear, and comparisons of a wide variety of impacts are necessary. Impact scoring systems can aid management prioritization of alien species. For such tools to be objective, they need to be robust to assessor bias. Here, we assess the newly proposed Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) used for amphibians and test how outcomes differ between assessors. Two independent assessments were made by Kraus (Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 46, 2015, 75-97) and Kumschick et al. (Neobiota, 33, 2017, 53-66), including independent literature searches for impact records. Most of the differences between these two classifications can be attributed to different literature search strategies used with only one-third of the combined number of references shared between both studies. For the commonly assessed species, the classification of maximum impacts for most species is similar between assessors, but there are differences in the more detailed assessments. We clarify one specific issue resulting from different interpretations of EICAT, namely the practical interpretation and assigning of disease impacts in the absence of direct evidence of transmission from alien to native species. The differences between assessments outlined here cannot be attributed to features of the scheme. Reporting bias should be avoided by assessing all alien species rather than only the seemingly high-impacting ones, which also improves the utility of the data for management and prioritization for future research. Furthermore, assessments of the same taxon by various assessors and a structured review process for assessments, as proposed by Hawkins et al. (Diversity and Distributions, 21, 2015, 1360), can ensure that biases can be avoided and all important literature is included.

Dataset Information

Particulate Backscattering in the Global Ocean: A Comparison of Independent Assessments.

Publications

Particulate Backscattering in the Global Ocean: A Comparison of Independent Assessments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets