Premium
Oxygen utilization rate (OUR) underestimates ocean respiration: A model study
Author(s) -
Koeve W.,
Kähler P.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
global biogeochemical cycles
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.512
H-Index - 187
eISSN - 1944-9224
pISSN - 0886-6236
DOI - 10.1002/2015gb005354
Subject(s) - ocean gyre , respiration , advection , biogeochemical cycle , oxygen , ocean current , apparent oxygen utilisation , oceanography , environmental science , atmospheric sciences , geology , chemistry , biology , environmental chemistry , ecology , subtropics , physics , botany , organic chemistry , thermodynamics
Abstract We use a simple 1‐D model representing an isolated density surface in the ocean and 3‐D global ocean biogeochemical models to evaluate the concept of computing the subsurface oceanic oxygen utilization rate (OUR) from the changes of apparent oxygen utilization (AOU) and water age. The distribution of AOU in the ocean is not only the imprint of respiration in the ocean's interior but is strongly influenced by transport processes and eventually loss at the ocean surface. Since AOU and water age are subject to advection and diffusive mixing, it is only when they are affected both in the same way that OUR represents the correct rate of oxygen consumption. This is the case only when advection prevails or with uniform respiration rates, when the proportions of AOU and age are not changed by transport. In experiments with the 1‐D tube model, OUR underestimates respiration when maximum respiration rates occur near the outcrops of isopycnals and overestimates when maxima occur far from the outcrops. Given the distribution of respiration in the ocean, i.e., elevated rates near high‐latitude outcrops of isopycnals and low rates below the oligotrophic gyres, underestimates are the rule. Integrating these effects globally in three coupled ocean biogeochemical and circulation models, we find that AOU‐over‐age based calculations underestimate true model respiration by a factor of 3. Most of this difference is observed in the upper 1000 m of the ocean with the discrepancies increasing toward the surface where OUR underestimates respiration by as much as factor of 4.