Emily T. Richardson, Tamara E. C. Kraus, Crystal L. Sturgeon, Katy O'Donnell, Brian A. Bergamaschi
{"title":"确定与三种不同叶绿素荧光计产生的异常值相关的条件:仪器的比较和校正公式的发展","authors":"Emily T. Richardson, Tamara E. C. Kraus, Crystal L. Sturgeon, Katy O'Donnell, Brian A. Bergamaschi","doi":"10.1002/lom3.10705","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Measurements of chlorophyll concentration reported by fluorometers (fChl) are used in environmental research and monitoring, as inputs to models, and in the interpretation of remote sensing data. Researchers and managers benefit from understanding how to interpret and ensure the accuracy of fChl data collected by in situ fluorometers. Although fChl values produced by different manufacturers are often in agreement with discrete laboratory-derived Chlorophyll <i>a</i> (Chl <i>a</i>) concentration measurements, there are instances in which results significantly differ. Further, when measuring fChl side by side, different fluorometers may report values that differ significantly from each other, despite passing calibration checks prior to deployment. We compared environmental conditions and phytoplankton species composition associated with instances in which fChl measurements from three different fluorometers (EXO2 Total Algae Smart Sensor, YSI Inc./Xylem Inc., Yellow Springs, Ohio; FluoroProbe III, bbe Moldaenke GmbH, Kiel, Germany; WETStar, Sea-Bird Scientific, Bellevue, Washington) were significantly different from laboratory-derived Chl <i>a</i> concentrations. Results indicated that elevated primary productivity, as indicated by high pH, dissolved oxygen, and the ratio of Chl <i>a</i> to phaeophytin, were correlated with underestimated fChl values recorded by each sensor. After removing outliers, we determined unique correction guidance for each of the three sensors and demonstrated that after applying correction formulae, fChl measurements produced by each sensor became directly comparable.</p>","PeriodicalId":18145,"journal":{"name":"Limnology and Oceanography: Methods","volume":"23 9","pages":"673-687"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/lom3.10705","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying conditions associated with outliers produced by three different chlorophyll fluorometers: A comparison of instrumentation and development of correction formulae\",\"authors\":\"Emily T. Richardson, Tamara E. C. Kraus, Crystal L. Sturgeon, Katy O'Donnell, Brian A. Bergamaschi\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/lom3.10705\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Measurements of chlorophyll concentration reported by fluorometers (fChl) are used in environmental research and monitoring, as inputs to models, and in the interpretation of remote sensing data. Researchers and managers benefit from understanding how to interpret and ensure the accuracy of fChl data collected by in situ fluorometers. Although fChl values produced by different manufacturers are often in agreement with discrete laboratory-derived Chlorophyll <i>a</i> (Chl <i>a</i>) concentration measurements, there are instances in which results significantly differ. Further, when measuring fChl side by side, different fluorometers may report values that differ significantly from each other, despite passing calibration checks prior to deployment. We compared environmental conditions and phytoplankton species composition associated with instances in which fChl measurements from three different fluorometers (EXO2 Total Algae Smart Sensor, YSI Inc./Xylem Inc., Yellow Springs, Ohio; FluoroProbe III, bbe Moldaenke GmbH, Kiel, Germany; WETStar, Sea-Bird Scientific, Bellevue, Washington) were significantly different from laboratory-derived Chl <i>a</i> concentrations. Results indicated that elevated primary productivity, as indicated by high pH, dissolved oxygen, and the ratio of Chl <i>a</i> to phaeophytin, were correlated with underestimated fChl values recorded by each sensor. After removing outliers, we determined unique correction guidance for each of the three sensors and demonstrated that after applying correction formulae, fChl measurements produced by each sensor became directly comparable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18145,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Limnology and Oceanography: Methods\",\"volume\":\"23 9\",\"pages\":\"673-687\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/lom3.10705\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Limnology and Oceanography: Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lom3.10705\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LIMNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Limnology and Oceanography: Methods","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lom3.10705","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LIMNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
荧光计报告的叶绿素浓度测量值用于环境研究和监测,作为模型的输入,以及用于遥感数据的解释。研究人员和管理人员从了解如何解释和确保原位荧光仪收集的氟氯甲烷数据的准确性中受益。虽然不同制造商生产的fChl值通常与独立的实验室衍生的叶绿素a (Chl a)浓度测量值一致,但在某些情况下,结果显着不同。此外,当并排测量氟氯化碳时,尽管在部署之前通过了校准检查,但不同的荧光计可能报告的值彼此之间差异很大。我们比较了环境条件和浮游植物物种组成,其中使用三种不同的荧光仪(EXO2 Total Algae Smart Sensor, YSI Inc./Xylem Inc., Yellow Springs, Ohio; FluoroProbe III, bbe Moldaenke GmbH, Kiel, Germany; WETStar, Sea-Bird Scientific, Bellevue, Washington)测量的fChl浓度与实验室得出的Chl a浓度显著不同。结果表明,初级生产力的提高(如高pH值、溶解氧和Chl a / phaophytin的比值)与每个传感器记录的fChl值被低估有关。在去除异常值后,我们为三个传感器确定了独特的校正指导,并证明在应用校正公式后,每个传感器产生的fChl测量值具有直接可比性。
Identifying conditions associated with outliers produced by three different chlorophyll fluorometers: A comparison of instrumentation and development of correction formulae
Measurements of chlorophyll concentration reported by fluorometers (fChl) are used in environmental research and monitoring, as inputs to models, and in the interpretation of remote sensing data. Researchers and managers benefit from understanding how to interpret and ensure the accuracy of fChl data collected by in situ fluorometers. Although fChl values produced by different manufacturers are often in agreement with discrete laboratory-derived Chlorophyll a (Chl a) concentration measurements, there are instances in which results significantly differ. Further, when measuring fChl side by side, different fluorometers may report values that differ significantly from each other, despite passing calibration checks prior to deployment. We compared environmental conditions and phytoplankton species composition associated with instances in which fChl measurements from three different fluorometers (EXO2 Total Algae Smart Sensor, YSI Inc./Xylem Inc., Yellow Springs, Ohio; FluoroProbe III, bbe Moldaenke GmbH, Kiel, Germany; WETStar, Sea-Bird Scientific, Bellevue, Washington) were significantly different from laboratory-derived Chl a concentrations. Results indicated that elevated primary productivity, as indicated by high pH, dissolved oxygen, and the ratio of Chl a to phaeophytin, were correlated with underestimated fChl values recorded by each sensor. After removing outliers, we determined unique correction guidance for each of the three sensors and demonstrated that after applying correction formulae, fChl measurements produced by each sensor became directly comparable.
期刊介绍:
Limnology and Oceanography: Methods (ISSN 1541-5856) is a companion to ASLO''s top-rated journal Limnology and Oceanography, and articles are held to the same high standards. In order to provide the most rapid publication consistent with high standards, Limnology and Oceanography: Methods appears in electronic format only, and the entire submission and review system is online. Articles are posted as soon as they are accepted and formatted for publication.
Limnology and Oceanography: Methods will consider manuscripts whose primary focus is methodological, and that deal with problems in the aquatic sciences. Manuscripts may present new measurement equipment, techniques for analyzing observations or samples, methods for understanding and interpreting information, analyses of metadata to examine the effectiveness of approaches, invited and contributed reviews and syntheses, and techniques for communicating and teaching in the aquatic sciences.