Abstract

Abstract. Since the mid-1990s, Australia's Commonwealth Science Industry and Research Organisation (CSIRO) has been developing a biogeochemical (BGC) model for coupling with a hydrodynamic and sediment model for application in estuaries, coastal waters and shelf seas. The suite of coupled models is referred to as the CSIRO Environmental Modelling Suite (EMS) and has been applied at tens of locations around the Australian continent. At a mature point in the BGC model's development, this paper presents a full mathematical description, as well as links to the freely available code and user guide. The mathematical description is structured into processes so that the details of new parameterisations can be easily identified, along with their derivation. In EMS, the underwater light field is simulated by a spectrally resolved optical model that calculates vertical light attenuation from the scattering and absorption of 20+ optically active constituents. The BGC model itself cycles carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous and oxygen through multiple phytoplankton, zooplankton, detritus and dissolved organic and inorganic forms in multiple water column and sediment layers. The water column is dynamically coupled to the sediment to resolve deposition, resuspension and benthic–pelagic biogeochemical fluxes. With a focus on shallow waters, the model also includes detailed representations of benthic plants such as seagrass, macroalgae and coral polyps. A second focus has been on, where possible, the use of geometric derivations of physical limits to constrain ecological rates. This geometric approach generally requires population-based rates to be derived from initially considering the size and shape of individuals. For example, zooplankton grazing considers encounter rates of one predator on a prey field based on summing relative motion of the predator with the prey individuals and the search area; chlorophyll synthesis includes a geometrically derived self-shading term; and the bottom coverage of benthic plants is calculated from their biomass using an exponential form derived from geometric arguments. This geometric approach has led to a more algebraically complicated set of equations when compared to empirical biogeochemical model formulations based on populations. But while being algebraically complicated, the model has fewer unconstrained parameters and is therefore simpler to move between applications than it would otherwise be. The version of EMS described here is implemented in the eReefs project that delivers a near-real-time coupled hydrodynamic, sediment and biogeochemical simulation of the Great Barrier Reef, northeast Australia, and its formulation provides an example of the application of geometric reasoning in the formulation of aquatic ecological processes.

Highlights

  • The first model of marine biogeochemistry was developed more than 70 years ago to explain phytoplankton blooms (Riley, 1947)

  • The modelling of estuarine, coastal and global biogeochemical systems has been used for a wide variety of applications including coastal eutrophication (Madden and Kemp, 1996; Baird et al, 2003), shelf carbon and nutrient dynamics (Yool and Fasham, 2001; Dietze et al, 2009), plankton ecosystem diversity (Follows et al, 2007), ocean acidification (Orr et al, 2005), impact of local developments such as fish farms and sewerage treatment plants (Wild-Allen et al, 2010), fishery production (Stock et al, 2008) and operational forecasting (Fennel et al, 2019), to name a few

  • The biogeochemical model considers four groups of microalgae, four macrophytes types and coral polyps

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The first model of marine biogeochemistry was developed more than 70 years ago to explain phytoplankton blooms (Riley, 1947). Two innovations arose from this imperative: (1) the software development of a process-based modelling architecture, such that model processes could be included, or excluded, while using the same executable file; and (2) the use, where possible, of geometric descriptions of physical limits to ecological processes as a means of reducing parameter uncertainty (Baird et al, 2003). It is the use of these geometric descriptions that has led to the greatest differences between EMS and other aquatic biogeochemical models. 3. the stoichiometric link of excess photons to reactive oxygen production in zooxanthellae

Paper outline
Overview of the EMS optical and biogeochemical models
Structure of the model description
Presentation of process equations dP
Model stoichiometry
Transport model
Optical model
Water column optical model
Epibenthic optical model
Sediment optical model
Microalgae
Microalgal growth
Nutrient uptake
Light capture and chlorophyll synthesis
Application of single cell rates to a population
Conservation of mass of microalgae model
Nitrogen-fixing Trichodesmium
Nitrogen fixation
Buoyancy adjustment
Carbon chemistry
Nitrification
Phosphorus absorption–desorption
Zooplankton herbivory
Conservation of mass in zooplankton grazing
Zooplankton carnivory
Zooplankton respiration
Non-grazing plankton mortality
Air–sea gas exchange
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Macroalgae
Light capture
Growth
Mortality
Seagrass
Coral polyps
Coral calcification
Dissolution of shelf carbonate sands
Brief summary of processes in the sediments
Sediment phosphorus absorption–desorption
Detritus remineralisation
Anaerobic and anoxic respiration
Common ecological parameterisations
Preferential uptake of ammonium
Oxygen release during nitrate uptake
Temperature dependence of ecological rates
Diffusive exchange of dissolved tracers across sediment–water interface
10.1 Splitting of physical and ecological integrations
10.2 Optical integration
10.3.1 Approximation of stoichiometric coefficients
10.3.2 Mass conservation in water column and sediment porewaters
10.3.3 Mass conservation in the epibenthic
10.3.4 Unconditional stability
11 Model evaluation
11.1 Analysis of microalgae growth and pigment synthesis dynamics
11.2 Model assessment of the GBR configuration
11.2.1 Chlorophyll dynamics
11.2.2 Nutrient dynamics
11.2.3 Carbon chemistry
13.1 History of the development of the EMS biogeochemical model
13 Discussion
13.2 Comparison with other marine biogeochemical models
Findings
13.3 Future developments in EMS
13.4 Concluding thoughts
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call