Grunert_Brice_23October_2017

Graduate School of Oceanography - OCG 695
23 October, 3:30 PM, Coastal Institute Auditorium

Brice Grunert

Assessing the ability to optically estimate CDOM composition across diverse regions and spectral ranges

 

Satellite remote sensing of colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM) has focused on CDOM absorption (aCDOM) at a reference wavelength, as its magnitude provides insight into the underwater light field and large-scale biogeochemical processes. CDOM spectral slope, SCDOM, has been treated as a constant or semi-constant parameter in satellite retrievals of aCDOM despite significant regional and temporal variability. SCDOM and other optical metrics provide insights into CDOM composition, processing, food web dynamics, and carbon cycling. To date, much of this work relies on fluorescence techniques or aCDOM in spectral ranges unavailable to current and planned satellite sensors (e.g. <300 nm). In preparation for anticipated future hyperspectral satellite missions, we take the first step here of exploring global variability in SCDOM and fit deviations in the aCDOM spectra using the recently proposed Gaussian decomposition method. From this, we investigate if global variability in retrieved SCDOM and Gaussian components is significant and regionally distinct. We iteratively decreased the spectral range considered and analyzed the number, location and magnitude of fitted Gaussian components to understand if a reduced spectral range impacts information obtained within a common spectral window. We compared the fitted slope from the Gaussian decomposition method to absorption-based indices that indicate CDOM composition to determine the ability of satellite-derived slope to inform the analysis and modeling of large-scale biogeochemical processes. Finally, we present implications of the observed variability for remote sensing of CDOM characteristics via SCDOM.

 

 

Brice earned his B.A. in Biology and English from the University of Missouri, a M.S. in Freshwater Science from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and is currently a Ph.D. candidate at Michigan Technological University.  His primary advisor is Colleen Mouw.

Question Title

* 1. EVALUATOR FIRST NAME

Question Title

* 2. EVALUATOR LAST NAME

Question Title

* 4. What aspects of the presentation were successful?  Why?

Question Title

* 5. What do you suggest to improve?

Question Title

* 6. ABSTRACT METHODS/RESULTS: Methods succinctly identified the methods used. Results are succinct and provide a specific explanation of what was discovered, accomplished, collected or produced.

Question Title

* 7. ABSTRACT MOTIVATION/IMPACT: Succinctly describes and appropriately connects the subject and background to the purpose of the research . Provides a succinct interpretation of the results and evaluates what the results mean to the investigation and the field of study.

Question Title

* 8. PRESENTATION ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERN: Specific introduction and conclusion, sequenced material within the body and transitions.

Question Title

* 9. PRESENTATION STYLE: Posture, gestures, eye contact and use of the voice.  Speaker stands and moves with authority, looks more often at the audience than notes, uses the voice expressively, and uses few vocal fillers (‘um” “uh,” “like,” “you know,” etc.).

Question Title

* 10. PRESENTATION SUPPORTING MATERIAL: Slide contents, figures, table, supporting material support the presentation and facility the central message.

Question Title

* 11. PRESENTATION CENTRAL MESSAGE AND CONTENT:  The main point/thesis/bottom line/take away of the presentation. A clear central message is easy to identify and compelling (broader impacts.)

Question Title

* 12. PRESENTATION - ANSWER QUESTIONS: Speaker demonstrates understanding of material and answers the questions asked and is respectful.

T