Metadata Report for BODC Series Reference Number 1680832
Definition of BOTTFLAG
|0||The sampling event occurred without any incident being reported to BODC.|
|1||The filter in an in-situ sampling pump physically ruptured during sample resulting in an unquantifiable loss of sampled material.|
|2||Analytical evidence (e.g. surface water salinity measured on a sample collected at depth) indicates that the water sample has been contaminated by water from depths other than the depths of sampling.|
|3||The feedback indicator on the deck unit reported that the bottle closure command had failed. General Oceanics deck units used on NERC vessels in the 80s and 90s were renowned for reporting misfires when the bottle had been closed. This flag is also suitable for when a trigger command is mistakenly sent to a bottle that has previously been fired.|
|4||During the sampling deployment the bottle was fired in an order other than incrementing rosette position. Indicative of the potential for errors in the assignment of bottle firing depth, especially with General Oceanics rosettes.|
|5||Water was reported to be escaping from the bottle as the rosette was being recovered.|
|6||The bottle seals were observed to be incorrectly seated and the bottle was only part full of water on recovery.|
|7||Either the bottle was found to contain no sample on recovery or there was no bottle fitted to the rosette position fired (but SBE35 record may exist).|
|8||There is reason to doubt the accuracy of the sampling depth associated with the sample.|
|9||The bottle air vent had not been closed prior to deployment giving rise to a risk of sample contamination through leakage.|
Definition of Rank
A caution flag has been applied to this series in order to alert users that measurements made during this fieldwork activity may have been affected by the artificial perturbation of the natural environment. An in-situ perturbation experiment (e.g. iron enrichment, nutrient addition, addition of surfactant) is a deliberate large-scale change to one or more environmental factors in order to study its effect on biological or biogeochemical properties of interest. They would typically involve the use of an inert and non-toxic tracer such as SF6 to mark the area treated; sampling would then typically take place using a combination of spatial surveys and lagrangian sampling mode. Whether the sampling station is "IN" or "OUT" of the patch is based on the detectable presence of tracer in the samples. Users are therefore advise to use data from these fieldwork activities with caution.
Open Data supplied by Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
You must always use the following attribution statement to acknowledge the source of the information: "Contains data supplied by Natural Environment Research Council."
The Niskin bottle is a device used by oceanographers to collect subsurface seawater samples. It is a plastic bottle with caps and rubber seals at each end and is deployed with the caps held open, allowing free-flushing of the bottle as it moves through the water column.
The standard version of the bottle includes a plastic-coated metal spring or elastic cord running through the interior of the bottle that joins the two caps, and the caps are held open against the spring by plastic lanyards. When the bottle reaches the desired depth the lanyards are released by a pressure-actuated switch, command signal or messenger weight and the caps are forced shut and sealed, trapping the seawater sample.
Lever Action Niskin
The Lever Action Niskin Bottle differs from the standard version, in that the caps are held open during deployment by externally mounted stainless steel springs rather than an internal spring or cord. Lever Action Niskins are recommended for applications where a completely clear sample chamber is critical or for use in deep cold water.
A modified version of the standard Niskin bottle has been developed for clean sampling. This is teflon-coated and uses a latex cord to close the caps rather than a metal spring. The clean version of the Levered Action Niskin bottle is also teflon-coated and uses epoxy covered springs in place of the stainless steel springs. These bottles are specifically designed to minimise metal contamination when sampling trace metals.
Bottles may be deployed singly clamped to a wire or in groups of up to 48 on a rosette. Standard bottles have a capacity between 1.7 and 30 L, while Lever Action bottles have a capacity between 1.7 and 12 L. Reversing thermometers may be attached to a spring-loaded disk that rotates through 180° on bottle closure.
Phytoplankton pigment measurements from CTD bottle samples collected during CROZEX cruises D285 and D286
Originator's Protocol for Data Acquisition and Analysis
CTD stations were sampled for phytoplankton pigment using a Sea-Bird 911plus CTD mounted on either a titanium or stainless steel sampling frame fitted with 24 Niskin bottles.
The following methods were taken from Seeyave et al. (2007). One litre samples from six optical depths were filtered onto 25 mm Whatman GF/F filters except where phytoplankton biomass was high enough to clog the filter. high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) filter samples were stored on-board at -80°C and were analysed at the National Oceanography Centre Southampton on return. Phytoplankton cells captured on the filters were ruptured by sonication for 30 seconds in a Sonics and Materials Inc. Vibracell sonicator. Pigments were extracted in 2-4 ml 90% HPLC grade acetone and coarsely separated from the filters by centrifugation (MSE Mistral 1000). After filtration through a 0.2 mm filter, particulate-free pigments were analysed following the method of Barlow et al. (1997). Different pigments were separated with a 3 mm Hypersil MOS2 C8 column on a Thermo Separations Products HPLC, detected by absorbance at 440 and 665 nm, and identified by retention time and online diode array spectroscopy.
Barlow, R.G., Cummings, D.G., Gibb, S.W., 1997. Improved resolution of mono- and divinyl chlorophylls a and b and zeaxanthin and lutein in phytoplankton extracts using reverse phase C-8 HPLC. Marine Ecology Progress Series 161, 303-307.
Seeyave, S., Lucas, M.I., Moore, C.M., Poulton, A.J., 2007. Phytoplankton productivity and community structure in the vicinity of the Crozet Plateau during austral summer 2004/2005. Deep-Sea Research II, 2020-2044.
BODC Data Processing Procedures
The data were provided in one excel file and were loaded into the BODC database using established data banking procedures. Note that no instrumentation detection limits were provided by the originators. The following table shows how the variables were mapped to appropriate BODC parameter codes:
|Originator's Parameter||Unit||Description||BODC Parameter Code||BODC Unit||Comments|
|Chlorophyll c3||µg l-1||Concentration of chlorophyll-c3||CLC3HPP5||ng l-1||Units converted from µg l-1 to ng l-1 by multiplying by 1000|
|Integrated chlorophyll c3||mg m-2||Concentration of chlorophyll-c3 and profile integration||CLC3INTC||mg m-2||-|
|Chlorophyll c2||µg l-1||Concentration of chlorophyll-c2||CLC2HPP5||ng l-1||Units converted from µg l-1 to ng l-1 by multiplying by 1000|
|Integrated chlorophyll c2||mg m-2||Concentration of chlorophyll-c2 and profile integration||CLC2INTC||mg m-2||-|
|Peridinin||µg l-1||Concentration of peridinin||PERIHPP5||ng l-1||Units converted from µg l-1 to ng l-1 by multiplying by 1000|
|Integrated peridinin||mg m-2||Concentration of peridinin and profile integration||PERIINTC||mg m-2||-|
|19'But||µg l-1||Concentration of 19'-butanoyloxyfucoxanthin||BUTAHPP5||ng l-1||Units converted from µg l-1 to ng l-1 by multiplying by 1000|
|Integrated 19'But||mg m-2||Concentration of 19'-butanoyloxyfucoxanthin and profile integration||BUTAINTC||mg m-2||-|
|Fucoxanthin||µg l-1||Concentration of fucoxanthin||FUCXHPP5||ng l-1||Units converted from µg l-1 to ng l-1 by multiplying by 1000|
|Integrated fucoxanthin||mg m-2||Concentration of fucoxanthin and profile integration||FUCXINTC||mg m-2||-|
|19'Hex||µg l-1||Concentration of 19'-hexanoyloxyfucoxanthin||HEXOHPP5||ng l-1||Units converted from µg l-1 to ng l-1 by multiplying by 1000|
|Integrated 19'Hex||mg m-2||Concentration of 19'-hexanoyloxyfucoxanthin and profile integration||HEXOINTC||mg m-2||-|
|Prasinoxanthin||µg l-1||Concentration of prasinoxanthin||PRSXHPP5||ng l-1||Units converted from µg l-1 to ng l-1 by multiplying by 1000|
|Integrated prasinoxanthin||mg m-2||Concentration of prasinoxanthin and profile integration||PRSXINTC||mg m-2||-|
|Violaxanthin||µg l-1||Concentration of violaxanthin||VILXHPP5||ng l-1||Units converted from µg l-1 to ng l-1 by multiplying by 1000|
|Integrated violaxanthin||mg m-2||Concentration of violaxanthin and profile integration||VILXINTC||mg m-2||-|
|Diadinoxanthin||µg l-1||Concentration of diadinoxanthin||DIADHPP5||ng l-1||Units converted from µg l-1 to ng l-1 by multiplying by 1000|
|Integrated diadinoxanthin||mg m-2||Concentration of diadinoxanthin and profile integration||DIADINTC||mg m-2||-|
|Alloxanthin||µg l-1||Concentration of alloxanthin||ALLOHPP5||ng l-1||Units converted from µg l-1 to ng l-1 by multiplying by 1000|
|Integrated alloxanthin||mg m-2||Concentration of alloxanthin and profile integration||ALLOINTC||mg m-2||-|
|Zeaxanthin||µg l-1||Concentration of zeaxanthin||ZEOXHPP5||ng l-1||Units converted from µg l-1 to ng l-1 by multiplying by 1000|
|Integrated zeaxanthin and profile integration||mg m-2||Concentration of zeaxanthin||ZELUINTC||mg m-2||-|
|Lutein||µg l-1||Concentration of lutein||LUTNHPP5||ng l-1||Units converted from µg l-1 to ng l-1 by multiplying by 1000|
|Integrated lutein||mg m-2||Concentration of lutein and profile integration||LUTNINTC||mg m-2||-|
|Chlorophyll b||µg l-1||Concentration of chlorophyll-b||CHLBHPP5||ng l-1||Units converted from µg l-1 to ng l-1 by multiplying by 1000|
|Integrated chlorophyll b||mg m-2||Concentration of chlorophyll-b and profile integration||CHLBINTC||mg m-2||-|
|Divinyl chlorophyll||µg l-1||Concentration of divinyl chlorophyll-a||DVCAHPP5||ng l-1||Units converted from µg l-1 to ng l-1 by multiplying by 1000|
|Integrated divinyl chlorophyll||mg m-2||Concentration of divinyl chlorophyll-a and profile integration||DVCAINTC||mg m-2||-|
|Chlorophyll a||µg l-1||Concentration of chlorophyll-a||CPHLHPP5||mg m-3||-|
|Integrated chlorophyll a||mg m-2||Concentration of chlorophyll-a and profile integration||CPHLHPP5||mg m-2||-|
Data Quality Report
None (BODC assessment).
None (BODC assessment).
CROZet natural iron bloom EXport experiment (CROZEX)
The multidisciplinary CROZet natural iron bloom EXport experiment (CROZEX) was a major component of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) funded core strategic project Biophysical Interactions and Controls over Export Production (BICEP). The project is the first planned natural iron fertilisation experiment to have been conducted in the Southern Ocean.
The overall objective of CROZEX was to examine, from surface to sediment, the structure, causes and consequences of a naturally occurring phytoplankton bloom in the Southern Ocean. The Crozet Plateau was chosen as the study area. This area typically exhibits two phytoplankton blooms a year, a primary bloom in that peaks in October and a secondary bloom in December or January. Specific aims with respect to these were to:
- Determine what limits the primary bloom
- Determine the cause of the secondary bloom
The project was run by the George Deacon Division (GDD), now Ocean Biogeochemistry and Ecosystems (OBE) at the National Oceanography Centre Southampton (NOCS). Participants from five other university departments also contributed to the project.
The project ran from November 2004 to January 2008 with marine data collection between 3rd November 2004 and 21st January 2005. There were 2 cruises to the Crozet Islands Plateau, which are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1: Details of the RRS Discovery CROZEX cruises.
|D285||3rd November 2004 - 10th December 2004|
|D286||13th December 2004 - 21st January 2005|
The two cruises aimed to survey two areas at different phases of the bloom cycle described above. A control area to the south of the Crozet Islands, which is classified as High Nutrient Low Chorophyll (HNLC), where the blooms do not occur and a second area in the region of the blooms to the north of the Crozet Islands.
Sampling was undertaken at ten major stations (see Pollard et al., 2007) numbered M1 to M10. The following observations/sampling were conducted at each station where possible:
- Several CTD casts sampling:
- Iron (using a titanium rig)
- Physical parameters (temperature, salinity etc)
- Nutrients using a stainless steel rig including a Lowered Acoustic Doppler Current Profiller (LADCP)
- At each thorium cast there was an associated Stand Alone Pump System (SAPS) deployment
- At some stations, a drifting PELAGRA trap was deployed for the duration of the work
- Megacoring was undertaken at M5 and M6
- Gravity coring was undertaken at M5, M6 and M10
- Longhurst Hardy Plankton Recorder (LPHR) tows were undertaken at a few major stations
For each of the major stations (M1 to M10), the following were determined:
- Primary productivity
- New Production
- Phytoplankton community composition
- Bacterial activity
- Nutrient drawdown
- Thorium export
Sampling between major stations included:
- SeaSoar runs instrumented with:
- Optical Plankton Counter (OPC)
- Fast Repetition Rate fluorimeter (FRRf)
- Physics CTD casts on several lines
- Argo float deployments
- Zooplankton nets at nearly every CTD and major station
- Underway and on-station CO2 measurements
- Underway nutrients and radium sampling
- 5 to 6 day ship-board iron-addition incubation experiments
- Checks against near-real-time satellite and model data
- Mooring deployments based on the satellite imagery in support of the CROZET (Benthic CROZEX) project.
The CROZEX cruises included 6 extra days in support of the CROZET (Benthic CROZEX) project, whose main cruise took place one year after the CROZEX cruises. The CROZET work undertaken during the CROZEX cruises was primarily the moored sediment trap deployments, although some of the coring work is applicable to both projects.
CROZEX produced significant findings in several disciplines, including confirmation that iron from Crozet fertilised the bloom and that phytoplankton production rates and most export flux estimates were much larger in the bloom area than the HNLC area (Pollard et al. 2007). Many of the project results are presented in a special CROZEX issue of Deep-Sea Research II (volume 54, 2007).
Pollard R., Sanders R., Lucas M. and Statham P., 2007. The Crozet natural iron bloom and export experiment (CROZEX). Deep-Sea Research II, 54, 1905-1914.
|Start Date (yyyy-mm-dd)||2004-12-27|
|End Date (yyyy-mm-dd)||2004-12-27|
|Organization Undertaking Activity||Southampton Oceanography Centre (now National Oceanography Centre, Southampton)|
|Country of Organization||United Kingdom|
|Originator's Data Activity Identifier||D286_CTD_15581|
|Platform Category||lowered unmanned submersible|
BODC Sample Metadata Report for D286_CTD_15581
|Sample reference number||Nominal collection volume(l)||Bottle rosette position||Bottle firing sequence number||Minimum pressure sampled (dbar)||Maximum pressure sampled (dbar)||Depth of sampling point (m)||Bottle type||Sample quality flag||Bottle reference||Comments|
|173462||10.00||1||1||4302.40||4303.40||4224.80||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173463||10.00||2||2||4074.90||4075.90||4003.50||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173464||10.00||3||3||3050.60||3051.60||3004.30||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173465||10.00||4||4||2538.50||2539.50||2503.00||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173466||10.00||5||5||1770.80||1771.80||1749.30||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173467||10.00||6||6||1268.20||1269.20||1254.50||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173468||10.00||7||7||1014.70||1015.70||1004.40||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173469||10.00||8||8||509.30||510.30||505.00||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173470||10.00||9||9||307.10||308.10||304.80||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173471||10.00||10||10||176.60||177.60||175.60||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173472||10.00||11||11||105.60||106.60||105.20||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173473||10.00||12||12||84.50||85.50||84.30||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173474||10.00||13||13||84.60||85.60||84.40||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173475||10.00||14||14||64.60||65.60||64.60||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173476||10.00||15||15||64.40||65.40||64.40||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173477||10.00||16||16||44.20||45.20||44.30||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173478||10.00||17||17||44.50||45.50||44.60||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173479||10.00||18||18||44.40||45.40||44.50||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173480||10.00||19||19||24.20||25.20||24.50||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173481||10.00||20||20||24.30||25.30||24.60||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173482||10.00||21||21||13.90||14.90||14.30||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173483||10.00||22||22||13.80||14.80||14.20||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173484||10.00||23||23||8.50||9.50||8.90||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|173485||10.00||24||24||8.90||9.90||9.30||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
Please note:the supplied parameters may not have been sampled from all the bottle firings described in the table above. Cross-match the Sample Reference Number above against the SAMPRFNM value in the data file to identify the relevant metadata.
|Principal Scientist(s)||Richard Sanders (Southampton Oceanography Centre)|
Complete Cruise Metadata Report is available here
No Fixed Station Information held for the Series
The following single character qualifying flags may be associated with one or more individual parameters with a data cycle:
|<||Below detection limit|
|>||In excess of quoted value|
|A||Taxonomic flag for affinis (aff.)|
|B||Beginning of CTD Down/Up Cast|
|C||Taxonomic flag for confer (cf.)|
|E||End of CTD Down/Up Cast|
|G||Non-taxonomic biological characteristic uncertainty|
|I||Taxonomic flag for single species (sp.)|
|K||Improbable value - unknown quality control source|
|L||Improbable value - originator's quality control|
|M||Improbable value - BODC quality control|
|O||Improbable value - user quality control|
The following single character qualifying flags may be associated with one or more individual parameters with a data cycle:
|0||no quality control|
|2||probably good value|
|3||probably bad value|
|6||value below detection|
|7||value in excess|
|A||value phenomenon uncertain|
|Q||value below limit of quantification|