Modelling the dynamics of phytoplankton with the needs of the end user in mind

How to regulate phytoplankton growth in water supply reservoirs has continued to occupy managers and strategists for some fifty years or so, now, and mathematical models have always featured in their design and operational constraints. In recent years, rather more sophisticated simulation models have begun to be available and these, ideally, purport to provide the manager with improved forecasting of plankton blooms, the likely species and the sort of decision support that might permit management choices to be selected with increased confidence. This account describes the adaptation and application of one such model, PROTECH (Phytoplankton RespOnses To Environmental CHange) to the problems of plankton growth in reservoirs. This article supposes no background knowledge of the main algal types; neither does it attempt to catalogue the problems that their abundance may cause in lakes and reservoirs.

Enabling Sensor* Interoperability, Portland, Maine, October 16-18 2006: workshop proceedings

The ACT workshop "Enabling Sensor Interoperability" addressed the need for protocols at the hardware, firmware, and higher levels in order to attain instrument interoperability within and between ocean observing systems. For the purpose of the workshop, participants spoke in tern of "instruments" rather than "sensors," defining an instrument as a device that contains one or more sensors or actuators and can convert signals from analog to digital. An increase in the abundance, variety, and complexity of instruments and observing systems suggests that effective standards would greatly improve "plug-and-work" capabilities. However, there are few standards or standards bodies that currently address instrument interoperability and configuration. Instrument interoperability issues span the length and breadth of these systems, from the measurement to the end user, including middleware services. There are three major components of instrument interoperability including physical, communication, and application/control layers. Participants identified the essential issues, current obstacles, and enabling technologies and standards, then came up with a series of short and long term solutions. The top three recommended actions, deemed achievable within 6 months of the release of this report are: A list of recommendations for enabling instrument interoperability should be put together and distributed to instrument developers. A recommendation for funding sources to achieve instrument interoperability should be drafted. Funding should be provided (for example through NOPP or an IOOS request for proposals) to develop and demonstrate instrument interoperability technologies involving instrument manufacturers, observing system operators, and cyberinfrastructure groups. Program managers should be identified and made to understand that milestones for achieving instrument interoperability include a) selection of a methodology for uniquely identifying an instrument, b) development of a common protocol for automatic instrument discovery, c) agreement on uniform methods for measurements, d) enablement of end user controlled power cycling, and e) implementation of a registry component for IDS and attributes. The top three recommended actions, deemed achievable within S years of the release of this report are: An ocean observing interoperability standards body should be established that addresses standards for a) metadata, b) commands, c) protocols, d) processes, e) exclusivity, and f) naming authorities.[PDF contains 48 pages]

Measures of turbidity in coastal waters, Coconut Island, Oahu, Hawaii, August 31 - September 2, 2005: workshop proceedings

A three day workshop on turbidity measurements was held at the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology from August 3 1 to September 2, 2005. The workshop was attended by 30 participants from industry, coastal management agencies, and academic institutions. All groups recognized common issues regarding the definition of turbidity, limitations of consistent calibration, and the large variety of instrumentation that nominally measure "turbidity." The major recommendations, in order of importance for the coastal monitoring community are listed below: 1. The community of users in coastal ecosystems should tighten instrument design configurations to minimize inter-instrument variability, choosing a set of specifications that are best suited for coastal waters. The IS0 7027 design standard is not tight enough. Advice on these design criteria should be solicited through the ASTM as well as Federal and State regulatory agencies representing the majority of turbidity sensor end users. Parties interested in making turbidity measurements in coastal waters should develop design specifications for these water types rather than relying on design standards made for the analysis of drinking water. 2. The coastal observing groups should assemble a community database relating output of specific sensors to different environmental parameters, so that the entire community of users can benefit from shared information. This would include an unbiased, parallel study of different turbidity sensors, employing a variety of designs and configuration in the broadest range of coastal environments. 3. Turbidity should be used as a measure of relative change in water quality rather than an absolute measure of water quality. Thus, this is a recommendation for managers to develop their own local calibrations. See next recommendation. 4. If the end user specifically wants to use a turbidity sensor to measure a specific water quality parameter such as suspended particle concentration, then direct measurement of that water quality parameter is necessary to correlate with 'turbidity1 for a particular environment. These correlations, however, will be specific to the environment in which they are measured. This works because there are many environments in which water composition is relatively stable but varies in magnitude or concentration. (pdf contains 22 pages)