The complexity of calculating an accurate carbonate budget

A carbonate budget is a comprehensive measure of reef health and function that focuses on processes that produce and remove carbonate. A key parameter of a carbonate budget is reef topographic complexity, or rugosity, that is traditionally measured by the chain-and-tape (CT) method. However, to over...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Dee, S., Cuttler, M., O’Leary, M., Hacker, J., Browne, Nicola
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: SPRINGER 2020
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/91401
_version_ 1848765511555350528
author Dee, S.
Cuttler, M.
O’Leary, M.
Hacker, J.
Browne, Nicola
author_facet Dee, S.
Cuttler, M.
O’Leary, M.
Hacker, J.
Browne, Nicola
author_sort Dee, S.
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description A carbonate budget is a comprehensive measure of reef health and function that focuses on processes that produce and remove carbonate. A key parameter of a carbonate budget is reef topographic complexity, or rugosity, that is traditionally measured by the chain-and-tape (CT) method. However, to overcome spatial limitations of the CT method, modern studies are moving towards remote sensing data to quantify complexity on a reef-wide scale. Here, we compare rugosity values calculated using the traditional CT method with rugosity values derived from remote sensing, and assess implications of methodological approach for carbonate production estimates. Rugosities derived from remote sensing were calculated from high-resolution (0.1 m) LiDAR bathymetry from two turbid reefs in the Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia, and included virtual chain and tape (VCT), arc–chord ratio (ACR), and surface area to planar area (SAPA). Rugosity values varied significantly between methods (ranges: CT = 1.04–2.15, VCT = 1.01–1.10, ACR and SAPA = 1.00–1.07). Coral carbonate production rates calculated using the CT method were typical of turbid water reefs (2.9 and 3.8 kg m−2 yr−1) which were 30% greater than rates calculated using remote sensing. This variation questions the reliability and comparability of carbonate budgets using remote assessments of reef rugosity with previous budget studies that used the CT method. Given the limitations of remote sensing when capturing fine-scale reef rugosity, we propose that CT is currently a more appropriate method than remote sensing for quantifying rugosity within carbonate budget studies.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T11:36:25Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-91401
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
language English
last_indexed 2025-11-14T11:36:25Z
publishDate 2020
publisher SPRINGER
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-914012023-04-19T08:10:20Z The complexity of calculating an accurate carbonate budget Dee, S. Cuttler, M. O’Leary, M. Hacker, J. Browne, Nicola Science & Technology Life Sciences & Biomedicine Marine & Freshwater Biology Rugosity Carbonate production Turbid reefs LiDAR CORAL GROWTH-RATES STRUCTURAL COMPLEXITY CLIMATE-CHANGE SURFACE-AREA REEF RUGOSITY DYNAMICS A carbonate budget is a comprehensive measure of reef health and function that focuses on processes that produce and remove carbonate. A key parameter of a carbonate budget is reef topographic complexity, or rugosity, that is traditionally measured by the chain-and-tape (CT) method. However, to overcome spatial limitations of the CT method, modern studies are moving towards remote sensing data to quantify complexity on a reef-wide scale. Here, we compare rugosity values calculated using the traditional CT method with rugosity values derived from remote sensing, and assess implications of methodological approach for carbonate production estimates. Rugosities derived from remote sensing were calculated from high-resolution (0.1 m) LiDAR bathymetry from two turbid reefs in the Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia, and included virtual chain and tape (VCT), arc–chord ratio (ACR), and surface area to planar area (SAPA). Rugosity values varied significantly between methods (ranges: CT = 1.04–2.15, VCT = 1.01–1.10, ACR and SAPA = 1.00–1.07). Coral carbonate production rates calculated using the CT method were typical of turbid water reefs (2.9 and 3.8 kg m−2 yr−1) which were 30% greater than rates calculated using remote sensing. This variation questions the reliability and comparability of carbonate budgets using remote assessments of reef rugosity with previous budget studies that used the CT method. Given the limitations of remote sensing when capturing fine-scale reef rugosity, we propose that CT is currently a more appropriate method than remote sensing for quantifying rugosity within carbonate budget studies. 2020 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/91401 10.1007/s00338-020-01982-y English SPRINGER restricted
spellingShingle Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Marine & Freshwater Biology
Rugosity
Carbonate production
Turbid reefs
LiDAR
CORAL GROWTH-RATES
STRUCTURAL COMPLEXITY
CLIMATE-CHANGE
SURFACE-AREA
REEF
RUGOSITY
DYNAMICS
Dee, S.
Cuttler, M.
O’Leary, M.
Hacker, J.
Browne, Nicola
The complexity of calculating an accurate carbonate budget
title The complexity of calculating an accurate carbonate budget
title_full The complexity of calculating an accurate carbonate budget
title_fullStr The complexity of calculating an accurate carbonate budget
title_full_unstemmed The complexity of calculating an accurate carbonate budget
title_short The complexity of calculating an accurate carbonate budget
title_sort complexity of calculating an accurate carbonate budget
topic Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Marine & Freshwater Biology
Rugosity
Carbonate production
Turbid reefs
LiDAR
CORAL GROWTH-RATES
STRUCTURAL COMPLEXITY
CLIMATE-CHANGE
SURFACE-AREA
REEF
RUGOSITY
DYNAMICS
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/91401