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