[ email from Dick Barber to all EQPAC investigators, dated Mar 25, 1994 ]<br>
[ NB: corrections as noted have been applied to the tt007/pp dataset ]

<pre>

EqPac People,
Two errors have been identified in the TT007 primary 
productivity integrations.  

The integration errors are for the following stations:
TT007, Sta. 1, 12N, 4 Feb 1992
TT007, Sta. 4, 5N, 12 Feb 1992.

Following are the INCORRECT and the CORRECT values:
INCORRECT

TT007, Sta. 1, 12N, 4 Feb 1992---to 1%=269.6 mgC/m2/d
TT007, Sta. 1, 12N, 4 Feb 1992---to 0.1%=319.3 mgC/m2/d 
TT007, Sta. 4, 5N, 12 Feb 1992---to 1%=578.96 mgC/m2/d
TT007, Sta. 4, 5N, 12 Feb 1992---to 0.1%=625.81 mgC/m2/d

CORRECT

TT007, Sta. 1, 12N, 4 Feb 1992---to 1%=229.5 mgC/m2/d
TT007, Sta. 1, 12N, 4 Feb 1992---to 0.1%=271.7 mgC/m2/d 
  
               
TT007, Sta. 4, 5N, 12 Feb 1992---to 1%=491.3 mgC/m2/d
TT007, Sta. 4, 5N, 12 Feb 1992---to 0.1%=568.2 mgC/m2/d

I apologize for the errors.  We recalculated and found 
what the error was.  In averaging replicate counts for these 
profiles, the next lower line was also averaged into the 
station average.

I thank John Nevins for bringing the errors to my 
attention.

A second and unrelated note is that the integrations I 
reported for TT007 are the means of replicate integrations; 
therefore, they will differ (by a few percent) from 
integrations of the mean vertical profiles.

At the second data workshop I'll pass out "integrations 
of the means"; what you have in hand now are "means of the 
integrations."  This note is solely for the peace of mind of 
people who want to re-integrate the primary productivity 
profiles to different depth horizons for themselves.  The 
difference between the two numerical procedures is less than 
the standard error of either.

Regards, Dick Barber
</pre>