Hypoxia in Narragansett BayWorkshop Oct 2006
“Modeling”In the Narragansett Bay
CHRP Project
Dan Codiga, Jim Kremer, Mark Brush, Chris Kincaid, Deanna
Bergondo
Does the word “Model” have meaning?
• Hydrodynamic
• Ecological
• Research vs Applied
• Prognostic vs Diagnostic
• Heuristic, Theoretical, Conceptual, Empirical, Statistical, Probabilistic, Numerical, Analytic
• Idealized/Process-Oriented vs Realistic
• Kinematic vs Dynamic
• Forecast vs hindcast
CHRP Program Goals (selected excerpts from RFP)
• Predictive/modeling tools for decision makers
• Models that predict susceptibility to hypoxia
• Better understanding and parameterizations
• Transferability of results across systems
• Data to calibrate and verify models
Following two presentations
Our approaches• Hybrid Ecological-Hydrodynamic Modeling
– Ecological model: simple• Few processes, few parameters• Parameters that can be constrained by measurements• Few spatial domains (~20), as appropriate to measurements available• Net exchanges between spatial domains: from hydrodynamic model
– Hydrodynamic model: full physics and forcing of ROMS• realistic configuration; forced by observed winds, rivers, tides, surface fluxes• Applied across entire Bay, and beyond, at high resolution• Passive tracers used to determine net exchanges between larger domains of
ecological model
• Empirical-Statistical Modeling– Input-output relations, emphasis on empirical fit more than mechanisms– Development of indices for stratification, hypoxia susceptibility– Learn from hindcasts, ultimately apply toward forecasting
Heuristic models in research: iterative failure = learning
ConceptualModel
Runs that fall short
Processes
Formulations
Parameter values
But for management models:• Heuristic goal less impt
• Accurate even if not precise
• Well constrained coefs• Simple (?) (at least understandable)
_____________________________ ≠ Research models
A paradox --
“Realism” = many parameters weakly constrained limited data to corroborate
i.e. “Over-parameterized” (many ways to get similar results)
:. Accuracy is
unknown. (often unknowable)
An alternative approach? 4 state variables, 5 processes
N P
N
Land-use
Atmosphericdeposition
N P
Productivity
Temp, Light,Boundary Conditions
Chl, N, P, Salinity
Phytoplankton
Sedimentorganics
.
.
Physics
Surface layer
- - - - - - - - -
Deep layer
- - - - - - - - -
Bottom sediment
O2
Flux tobottom
Photic zoneheterotrophy
Benthicheterotrophy Denitri-
fication
O2 coupledstoichiometrically
Processes of the model (excluding macroalgae...)
mixing flushing
Long Island Sound -- Hypoxia
August 20
Deep test sites (MA, RI, CT, VA, MD)
Chesapeake Bay
Narragansett Bay
Long Island Sound
Initial Conditions
Forcing Conditions
Output
EquationsMomentum balance x & y directions:u + vu – fv = + Fu + Du t xv + vv + fu = + Fv + Dv t yPotential temperature and salinity :T + vT = FT + DT
t S + v S = FS + DS
t The equation of state:= (T, S, P) Vertical momentum: = - gz o
Continuity equation:u + v + w = 0x y z
Hydrodynamic Model
ROMS Model
Regional Ocean Modeling System
Grid Resolution: 100 mGrid Size: 1024 x 512Vertical Layers: 20River Flow: USGSWinds: NCDCTidal Forcing: ADCIRC
Open Boundary
Hydrodynamic Model
This project: Mid-Bay focus
Extent of counterMt. Hope Bay circulation/exchange/mixing study. ADCP, tide gauges (Deleo, 2001)
Bay-RIS exchange study (98-02)
Narragansett Bay Commission: Providence & Seekonk Rivers
Summer, 07: 4 month deployment (Outflow pathways)
This project: Mid-Bay focus
Extent of counterMt. Hope Bay circulation/exchange/mixing study. ADCP, tide gauges (Deleo, 2001)
Bay-RIS exchange study (98-02)
Narragansett Bay Commission: Providence & Seekonk Rivers
Summer, 08: Deep return flow processes
Model-Data ComparisonShallows: North-South Component
-0.25
-0.15
-0.05
0.05
0.15
10 15 20
Time
Model Velocity
(m/s)
-250
-150
-50
50
150
Observed Velocity
(mm/s)
Bottom-model
Bottom
Channel: North-South Component
-0.25
-0.15
-0.05
0.05
0.15
0.25
10 15 20
Time (days)
Model Velocity
(m/s)
-250
-150
-50
50
150
250
Obsevered Velocity (m/s)
Bottom-model
Bottom
dP1/dt = P1(G-R) - k1,2P1V1 + k2,1P2V2 ...
Hybrid: Driving Ecological model with Hydrodynamic Model:
Lookup Table of Daily Exchanges (k)
DYE_08
DYE_02DYE_03
DYE 05
DYE_01
DYE_09DYE_07
DYE_06 DYE 04
Modeling Exchange Between Ecological Model Domains
Long-term Aims:Hybrid Ecological-Physical Model
• Increased spatial resolution of ecology: approach TMDL applicability
• Scenario evaluation– Nutrient load changes– Climatic changes
• Alternative to mechanistic coupled hydrodynamic/ecological modeling
Empirical/Statistical ModelingOverall Goals
• Data-oriented—complements Hybrid– less mechanistic• Synthesize DO variability
– Spatial (Large-scale CTD; towed body)
– Temporal (Fixed-site buoys)
• Develop indices– Stratification
– Hypoxia vulnerability
• First: Hindcasts to understand relationship between forcing (physical and biological) and DO responses
• Long-term: Predictive capability for forecasting and scenario evaluation
• Candidate predictors for DO– Biological
• Chlorophyll• Temperature & solar input• Nutrient inputs (Rivers, WWTF, Estuarine
exchange) • Others
– Physical • River runoff, WWTF water transports• Tidal range cubed (energy available for mixing)• Windspeed cubed (energy available for mixing)• Others (Wind direction; Precip; Surface heat flux)
Strategy: start simple & develop method
• Start with Bullock Reach timeseries– 5 yrs at fixed single point (no spatial information)
• Investigate stratification (not DO-- yet)– Target variable: strat = [sigt(deep) – sigt(shallow)]– Include 3 candidate predictor variables:
• River runoff (sum over 5 rivers)
• Tidal range cubed (energy available for mixing)
• Windspeed cubed (energy available for mixing)
Visually apparent features
• Stratification reacts to ‘events’ in each of:– River inputs– Winds– Tidal stage
• Stratification ‘events’ appear to be– Triggered irregularly by each process– Lagged by varying amounts from each process
Low-pass and subsample to 12 hrs…Compare techniques
• Multiple Linear Regression (MLR)– No lags– Optimal lags – determined individually
• Static Neural Network– No lags– Lags from MLR analysis
• [coming soon] Dynamic Neural Network– Varying lags– Multiple interacting inputs
Multiple Linear Regression
No lagsr2=0.42 (River alone: 0.36)
Observed Model
MLR with lags River 2 days Wind 1 day Tide 3.5 days
r2=0.51 (River alone: 0.48)
Stratificationt [kg m-3]
Static Neural NetNo lags
r2=0.55 (River alone: 0.41)
Static Neural NetLags from MLR
r2=0.59 (River alone: 0.52)
Advantages/Disadvantagesof Neural Networks
• Advantages– Nonlinear, can achieve better accuracy– Excels with multiple interacting predictors; – Dynamic NN: input delays capture lags
• Varying lags from multiple interacting inputs
– Transferable; conveniently applied to other/new data– Easy to use (surprise!!)
• Main disadvantage– opaque “black-box” can be difficult to interpret;
ameliorated by: complementary linear analysis, sensitivity studies, isolating/combining predictors
Next steps
• Stratification– Consider additional predictors:
• Surface heat flux; precipitation; WWTF volume flux
– Different sites (North Prudence, etc)– Treat spatially-averaged regions
• Apply similar approach to DO– Finish gathering forcing function data
• Chl; solar inputs; WWTF nutrients
– Corroborate Hybrid Ecological-Hydrodynamic Model
Top Related