<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">BG</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Biogeosciences</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">BG</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Biogeosciences</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1726-4189</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/bg-13-1967-2016</article-id><title-group><article-title>Physical and biogeochemical spatial scales of variability in the
East Australian Current separation from shelf glider measurements</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Physical and biogeochemical spatial scales}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{A.~Schaeffer et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Schaeffer</surname><given-names>Amandine</given-names></name>
          <email>a.schaeffer@unsw.edu.au</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff3">
          <name><surname>Roughan</surname><given-names>Moninya</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Jones</surname><given-names>Emlyn M.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>White</surname><given-names>Dana</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Coastal and Regional Oceanography Lab, School of Mathematics and Statistics,
University of<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> New South Wales, Sydney NSW, Australia</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Sydney Institute of Marine Science, Mosman, NSW 2088, Australia</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Amandine Schaeffer (a.schaeffer@unsw.edu.au)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>31</day><month>March</month><year>2016</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>13</volume>
      <issue>6</issue>
      <fpage>1967</fpage><lpage>1975</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>29</day><month>October</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>15</day><month>December</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>20</day><month>February</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>9</day><month>March</month><year>2016</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/1967/2016/bg-13-1967-2016.html">This article is available from https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/1967/2016/bg-13-1967-2016.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/1967/2016/bg-13-1967-2016.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/1967/2016/bg-13-1967-2016.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>In contrast to physical processes, biogeochemical processes are inherently
patchy in the ocean, which affects both the observational sampling strategy
and the representativeness of sparse measurements in data assimilating
models. In situ observations from multiple glider deployments are analysed to
characterize spatial scales of variability in both physical and
biogeochemical properties, using an empirical statistical model. We find that
decorrelation ranges are strongly dependent on the balance between local
dynamics and mesoscale forcing. The shortest horizontal (5–10 km) and
vertical (45 m) decorrelation ranges are for chlorophyll <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> fluorescence, whereas those variables that are a function of regional ocean and atmosphere
dynamics (temperature and dissolved oxygen) result in anisotropic patterns
with longer ranges along (28–37 km) than across the shelf (8–19 km).
Variables affected by coastal processes (salinity and coloured dissolved
organic matter) have an isotropic range similar to the baroclinic Rossby
radius (10–15 km).</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>At
the interface between oceanic and coastal processes, continental shelf
regions are characterized by complex dynamics resulting from the interaction
between different water masses at smaller spatial scales than the open ocean
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx35" id="paren.1"/>. While wind, topography, or density-driven processes mostly
influence the mixing and advection of the physical characteristics
(temperature and salinity) of the shelf water masses, locally acting
ecological processes are also determinant for biogeochemistry
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx1" id="paren.2"/>. In particular, the numerous mechanisms driving
phytoplankton distributions have been studied for many years, and highlight
the complexity of these interactions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx16" id="paren.3"/>. Biogeochemical (BGC)
processes operate over a wide range of scales and thus need to be considered
separately when investigating the dominant length scales of variability for
the shelf water's properties <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22" id="paren.4"/>.</p>
      <p>The continental shelf off southeastern Australia (between 29 and
34<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S) is relatively narrow, between 16 and 70 km (mean of 37 km)
from the coastline to the 200 m isobath. The dynamics on the shelf are
influenced both by local coastal processes and the episodic intrusion of the
large-scale East Australian Current (EAC) and its eddies (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx28 bib1.bibx29" id="altparen.5"/>). The EAC is the western
branch of the subtropical gyre in the South Pacific. It is a warm and dynamic
poleward flowing current, encroaching on the continental shelf of
southeastern Australia between around 18<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="paren.6"/> and
usually 30.7–32.4<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx3" id="paren.7"/> where it
bifurcates eastward, forming the Tasman Front. Further south, eddies are shed
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx8" id="paren.8"/>, leading to high variability in the velocity field and
water masses on the shelf <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30 bib1.bibx27" id="paren.9"/>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><caption><p>Monthly mean sea surface temperature (AVHRR L3S product) over
southeastern Australia for October 2014. The coastline, 200, and 2000 m
isobaths are shown. Glider tracks over the shelf (depth <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 200 m) are
indicated by coloured lines. A schematic of the typical circulation is shown
with the poleward flowing East Australian Current (EAC) bifurcating to the
east around 32<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, its weaker extension, anticyclonic, and cyclonic eddies.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/1967/2016/bg-13-1967-2016-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p>Previous studies have highlighted the high spatial heterogeneity of physical
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20 bib1.bibx27" id="paren.10"/> and biochemical <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx10" id="paren.11"/> variables
on this narrow shelf. Decorrelation timescales were quantified from
in situ mooring observations at 30 and 34<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx25" id="paren.12"/>, being of the order of hours for cross-shelf velocity to
days and weeks for along-shelf flow and temperature, respectively. However,
spatial scales of variability, which are essential for data assimilating
models, have not been quantified.</p>
      <p>Here we quantify for the first time the spatial scales of variability of both
the physical and the BGC characteristics of the shelf water masses in the
highly dynamic EAC separation zone. We use hydrographic measurements from 23
glider deployments along the coast (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2"/>) to understand
the variability amongst physical and BGC properties, the spatial anisotropy
and the unresolved variance in the rich data set (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3"/>).
Finally the results are discussed in the context of their applicability to
modelling and data assimilation, where the perennial issue of relating point-based
measurements to model solutions is discussed (Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4"/>).
<?xmltex \hack{\vspace{-3mm}}?></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>The data set</title>
      <p>Ocean gliders are autonomous underwater vehicles which change their buoyancy
to dive through the water column. Without propulsion, this vertical motion is
transformed into horizontal momentum using the vehicle's wings, while its
pitch controls the forward motion. During the resulting vertical sawtooth
pattern through the water column, a wealth of scientific observations are
recorded and analysed here. Physical and BGC measurements from 23 ocean
glider deployments along the southeastern coast of Australia are used in this
study. The glider missions span all seasons over 6 years, between 2008 and 2014, including results from both shallow-diving Slocum (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 200 m) and
deep-diving Seaglider (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1000 m) vehicles. The gliders were typically
deployed at 29.4<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S although some were deployed as far south as
33<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S (Fig. 1 and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx27" id="altparen.13"/>). Missions range 2–3
weeks to 3 months depending on the vehicle. The horizontal displacement
between two dives increases with the depth of the dive, with median over
ground distances from 130 m (for dives in 25–50 m of water) to 1100 m (in
150–200 m of water). The vertical resolution of observations is <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2 m due
to the fast sampling frequency. Scientific measurements include depth,
temperature, and salinity (from a Seabird-CTD), dissolved oxygen (DO, from
Aanderaa or Seabird oxygen sensors), and optical parameters, chlorophyll <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
fluorescence (excited/emitted wavelengths: 470/695 nm), coloured dissolved
organic matter (CDOM, excited/emitted wavelengths: 370/460 nm), and
backscatter coefficient at 650–700 nm (from a WETLabs optical sensor).</p>
      <p>Quality control for physical parameters (temperature and salinity) and DO are
conducted following ARGO float standards <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx34" id="paren.14"/>, including a salinity
spike correction due to the use of unpumped CTDs in early deployments. For
bio-optical parameters, quality control is more challenging due to the
instrument bio-fouling and the high temporal and spatial variability of the
measurements. Sensors are calibrated approximately every 2 years. To check
for sensor drift, performance tests are undertaken using purple and black
solid standards pre- and post-deployment, as well as after cleaning the sensor from
bio-fouling. These tests enable the identification and flagging of suspect
measurements. A global range test is also conducted with a valid fluorescence
maximum set to 50 mg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, similar to ARGO standards
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="paren.15"/>. A valid regional maximum for CDOM is defined, based on
all the shelf glider deployments, as the mean plus 10 times the standard
deviation (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 8.0 ppb) to remove high outliers (reaching 250 ppb).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Characterising spatial variability</title>
      <p>The semivariogram approach was first introduced in geostatistics
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="paren.16"/> to characterize the spatial variability of a sparsely
distributed data set. It describes the average dissimilarity between
measurements as a function of the distance separating them. This difference
is generally small for measurements within close proximity, increasing with
distance, until it does not depend on a spatial lag (decorrelated values) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx14 bib1.bibx33" id="paren.17"/>.</p>
      <p>For a variable anomaly <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the semivariogram or structure function,
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, is defined as half the mean square difference between values at
a given separation <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where the sum is over all <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> pairs of observations that are separated by the
distance <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> direction. In order to take into account outliers in
the distribution of the empirical anomalies <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5" id="text.18"/> proposed
a modified estimate of the structure function which is more robust when the
anomaly fields deviate from being Gaussian:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo mathsize="1.1em">(</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mo mathsize="1.1em">)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>0.457</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mn>0.494</mml:mn><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          In this equation, the power 1/2 comes from a fourth-root of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that reduces the skewness in the distribution, thereby approaching a
Gaussian process. The fourth square acts to correct the scale and returns
the same units as Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>), while the denominator adjusts the bias
resulting from the whole transformation. This estimate is more robust
statistically in the sense that the mean can be applied to the new
distribution. Compared to Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>), the semivariogram is only
slightly modified for the highest lags when using the robust Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E2"/>),
but the parameters (sill, range, and nugget that are
investigated in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3"/>) remain very similar.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Cross-shelf empirical semivariogram estimated from daily SST over
the southeastern Australian shelf (depth <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 200 m, 29–34<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, AVHRR
L3S product) for 2014 (black bold dots) and for each month in 2014 (coloured
dots). The spherical model (red line, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> squared of 0.97 for the fit) and
resulting parameters (range, sill, nugget) are shown for 2014 semivariance.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/1967/2016/bg-13-1967-2016-f02.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The variables' anomalies are obtained by removing large-scale patterns,
resulting from the average of all glider measurements over predefined bins
determined by latitude and depth, as in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx27" id="text.19"/>. This
three-dimensional mean state is then smoothed using a spline method before
being removed from each observation. Both cross- and along-shelf
semivariograms are calculated to investigate anisotropy, where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
is the zonal distance, or <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the meridional distance,
respectively. The cross-shelf semivariance is calculated following Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E2"/>) from measurement pairs located within 0.1<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn>10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km)
of latitude. Similarly, the along-shelf semivariance <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is computed
using observations within 0.1<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of longitude (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn>10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km) from each
other. In both cases the distance vector is discretized with intervals of 500 m and the time lag between pairs is limited to 1 day. The semivariograms
are calculated in the horizontal plane at three depths: surface (0–5 m),
mixed layer depth (MLD, 5–30 m, defined from the average profiles), or
below the MLD at 50 m. Finally, glider profiles are also used to analyse
vertical scales by computing <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (intervals of 1 m).</p>
      <p>The semivariance <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is computed from the trimmed mean (20 %
outliers excluded) of measurements over all glider deployments, provided
there are at least 10 (5 for CDOM across the shelf, see Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS4"/>) different missions and more than 30 pairs for each spatial
lag, to avoid seasonal bias or insignificant values. We then fit a
mathematical spherical model <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx7" id="paren.20"/> to the empirical semivariogram
in order to extract the physical characteristics of the function, following:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="{" close=""><mml:mtable class="cases" rowspacing="0.2ex" columnspacing="1em" columnalign="left left" framespacing="0em"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo mathsize="1.5em">(</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle><mml:mo mathsize="1.5em">(</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mstyle><mml:msup><mml:mo mathsize="1.5em">)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo mathsize="1.5em">)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the distance between measurements, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the sill,
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the nugget, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> the range. (These variables are described
physically in the example below.) Exponential and Gaussian models
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2" id="paren.21"/> were also tested but were less adequate in terms of sum of
squared error (SE) and adjusted <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-squared statistics for the fit of the
empirical semivariogram.
<?xmltex \hack{\vspace{-3mm}}?></p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Satellite-derived SST semivariogram</title>
      <p>By way of both example and validation, we calculate the cross-shelf
semivariogram obtained from daily satellite remote-sensed sea surface
temperature (SST) anomalies (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>). The spherical
model (Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E3"/>) is fitted to the empirical semivariance values
calculated for cross-shelf lags over daily maps of SST in 2014. Only days
with spatial coverage greater than 30 % of the domain are considered. The
physical characteristics extracted from the model are indicated in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>. The sill <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reflects the constant background
variability of the variable. It is reached at a specific distance, here
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>24</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km, which is referred to as the (decorrelation) range or the dominant
length scale. For lags greater than this range, the two observations are
considered randomly correlated spatially. The nugget, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
semivariance obtained from the model at the origin. If different from 0, it
implies variability at shorter spatial scales than those resolved by the
observations. This variability is either (a) real but unresolved, or (b) resulting from
measurement errors. The semivariogram for SST (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>) shows very little nugget effect, showing the
accuracy of the measurements and an adequate spatial resolution. As expected,
the semivariance of the SST anomaly (the annual mean was subtracted) differs
with seasonality, as shown by the monthly empirical semivariograms (coloured
dots in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>). Austral summer and autumn months are
characterized by a sharper increase in the SST variance with greater
variability in sills, due to more pronounced spatial temperature gradients.
However, the semivariogram range is similar, with dominant cross-shelf scales
between 18 and 32 km (not shown). The semivariogram reaches a plateau for
all months, with the exception of January, suggesting a trend of longer scales
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx35" id="paren.22"/> and a limitation of the method.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Sill: in situ spatial variance</title>
      <p>Semivariance values from glider measurements are analysed based on the values
of the sill in each of the semivariograms shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>.
Temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and, to a
lesser extent, coloured dissolved organic matter (CDOM) and salinity, are
characterised by a greater variance in the vertical than in the horizontal
(see the different <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis). In contrast, chlorophyll <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> fluorescence shows
comparable variability in all directions. Focusing on horizontal sills
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/> middle and left), the highest variance for
salinity and CDOM occurs at the surface in agreement with the influence of
riverine input. The cross-shelf sill for DO is greater at 50 m than at the
surface, suggesting more spatial variability due to bio-physical processes
(remineralization, respiration, or bottom water uplift) than resulting from
gas exchange with the atmosphere. Chlorophyll <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> fluorescence shows little
variance at 50 m depth due to light limitation preventing biological
activity. The highest horizontal sill for temperature appears below the MLD
along the shelf, in agreement with the large latitudinal gradients in bottom
temperature evidenced by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx27" id="text.23"/>. The surface temperature sill
is smaller when measured by the gliders (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>)
than by satellite (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>), possibly due to different
measurement depth in situ 0–5 m vs. skin SST), or seasonality,
as glider deployments are more numerous in winter. Nevertheless, the
cross-shelf dominant length scales are in good agreement in the two data sets,
with ranges of 25 and 19 km, respectively.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>Range: in situ scales of variability</title>
      <p>Cross-shelf, along-shelf, and vertical ranges from the semivariograms are
presented in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/> and summarized in Table
<xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>. Spatial scales highlight different directional patterns
between the parameters. Horizontal scales for salinity and CDOM are 9–15 km,
5–10 km for chlorophyll <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> fluorescence, similar across and along the shelf.
Mean temperature scales across the shelf are 18–19 km at the surface and in
the MLD, only 14 km at 50 m. Scales found along the shelf are greater, being
28–29 and 37 km, respectively. This directional anisotropy for temperature
is in agreement with the geometry of the shelf and the influence of the EAC
at the shelf break (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>). <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx27" id="text.24"/> and
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20" id="text.25"/> both evidenced greater temperature gradients across than
along the shelf, based on satellite, model and glider data sets. This
directional anisotropy is also evident in density (not shown), which has been
shown to be mostly temperature driven <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30" id="paren.26"/>, and even more
intensified for DO. While DO is characterized by dominant cross-shelf scales
similar to salinity and CDOM (8–15 km), the along-shelf spatial
variability seems to be linked to the shallow EAC water mass, resulting in
decorrelation scales of 27 to 35 km (surface and MLD) similar to temperature.
Chlorophyll <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> fluorescence has the smallest characteristic length scales both
across and along the shelf, but also in the vertical. Measurements of
fluorescence are decorrelated for depth lags greater than 46 m, in agreement
with shallow (near surface) chlorophyll blooms. Vertical length scales for DO
and CDOM (57–58 m), are less than those for temperature and salinity (62 m
and 66 m, respectively). The second peak in semivariance (at 80–100 m for
temperature, salinity and DO, Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>, right)
indicates an anti-correlation for these lags <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx14" id="paren.27"/>. Negative
correlation coefficients reaching <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.6 were previously observed from moored
autumnal temperature observations in 100 m water depth at 30<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx25" id="paren.28"/> and attributed to simultaneous heating source in the
surface layers and cooling at depth due to EAC encroachments and slope water
uplift. Our results suggest that these current-driven uplifts are associated
with a signature in salinity and DO.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Cross-shelf (left), along-shelf (middle) and vertical (right)
empirical semivariograms estimated from glider measurements of <bold>(a)</bold> temperature, <bold>(b)</bold> salinity,
<bold>(c)</bold> chlorophyll <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> fluorescence, <bold>(d)</bold> DO, and <bold>(e)</bold> CDOM.
Spherical models are shown by the solid lines and the resulting spatial
ranges are indicated in the insert for successful fits. Blue, red, green
symbols for horizontal semivariograms correspond to surface (0–5 m), MLD (5–30 m), and 50 m measurements, respectively.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/13/1967/2016/bg-13-1967-2016-f03.pdf"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Spatial scales of variability for spherical fit to semivariograms for different parameters and
depths across, along the shelf and along the vertical. The range, percentage
ratio of the nugget to the sill (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> squared for the
model fit to experimental values are indicated (ranges with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> correspond
to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> squared <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.7). Blanks indicate unsuccessful fit to the spherical
model.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="center" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="center" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="center" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="center" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="center"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">

         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Temperature</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Salinity</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Fluorescence</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">DO</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">CDOM</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
       <?xmltex \rotentry?>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" colname="col1" morerows="8">Cross-shelf</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">range</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">19 km</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">13 km</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5 km</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">10 km</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">10 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Surface</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">ratio <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6 %</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">6 %</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">17 %</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">27 %</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">19 %</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">

         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-squared fit</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.96</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.94</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.89</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.85</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.49</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">range</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">18 km</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">10 km</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">8 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">8 km</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">14 km</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MLD</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">ratio <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4 %</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0 %</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">13 %</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">18 %</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2 %</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">

         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-squared fit</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.92</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.83</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.58</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.89</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.96</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">range</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">14 km</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5 km</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">15 km</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">11 km</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">50 m</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">ratio <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10%</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">15%</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4%</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">17%</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">

         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-squared fit</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.97</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.73</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.98</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.88</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
       <?xmltex \rotentry?>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" colname="col1" morerows="8">Along-shelf</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">range</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">29 km</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">15 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">8 km</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">35 km</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">11 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Surface</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">ratio <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">14%</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">14 %</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">20%</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2%</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">21%</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">

         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-squared fit</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.93</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.52</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.83</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.90</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.56</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">range</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">28 km</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">10 km</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">10 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">27 km</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">9 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MLD</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">ratio <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">8%</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">23 %</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">21 %</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">18 %</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">10%</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">

         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-squared fit</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.99</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.93</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.53</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.96</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.27</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">range</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">37 km</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5 km</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">50 m</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">ratio<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1 %</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">8 %</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">5%</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">

         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-squared fit</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.97</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.87</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.33</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
       <?xmltex \rotentry?>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1" morerows="2">Vertical</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">range</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">62 m</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">66 m</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">46 m</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">58 m</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">57 m</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">ratio <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0%</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">3 %</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1%</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0%</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">24%</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-squared fit</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.97</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.98</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.99</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.98</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.99</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <title>Nugget: in situ unresolved variance</title>
      <p>The fraction of resolved and unresolved variance is estimated from the
semivariogram parameters, the sill and nugget, respectively. A nugget occurs
when the difference between the two closest measurements is greater than zero,
and can be seen at the origin of the semivariogram. Overall, the high density
glider observations capture most of the spatial ocean variability. The
advantage of this sampling strategy is that nearly all the vertical variance
is resolved for most of the parameters (ratio <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %, Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>) due to the high
sampling frequency of the gliders compared to their vertical displacement
velocity. The only exception is for CDOM with the nugget being 24 % of the
total variance (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/> and Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>).
Horizontal variability is well resolved for temperature and salinity with
ratios <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 % across the shelf, mostly
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 14 % along the shelf. Nuggets for BGC parameters are higher, reaching
27 % of the sill. While high nuggets for fluorescence and DO can be
attributed to horizontal subscale unresolved biological activity, CDOM
data sets might also suffer from measurement errors and quality control
issues, as suggested by the high nugget effect in the vertical, the large
outliers, and the larger amount of cross-shelf lags necessary for the
successful fit of a mathematical model (see Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2"/> and Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>e).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Discussion</title>
      <p>This study combines in situ measurements from multiple glider deployments
between 2008 and 2014 on the southeastern Australian continental shelf, to
provide insight into the surface and subsurface structure of the water mass
dynamics, including the influence of the EAC, upwelling and freshwater
inputs. Analysis of length-scale-dependent variability demonstrates that much
of the spatial variance in physical and BGC parameters typically occurs at
scales ranging 5 km for chlorophyll <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> fluorescence to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 35 km for
along-shelf temperature. In this study, the length scales were averaged from
data obtained over 2<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of latitude; however, we expect more regional
variability resulting from the different latitudinal regimes evidenced by
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx27" id="text.29"/>, driven by the mesoscale circulation. In addition, we
expect that spatial scales may vary seasonally, particularly in the
biological parameters. This will be tested when we have sufficient data in
each season.</p>
      <p>As for all statistics, limitations arise from the amount of data used
(especially along the shelf where the data density is smaller) and
contamination of the data set (for instance CDOM). In geostatistics, uneven
spatial distribution of the observations over the analysed area can be a
limitation as well but remains difficult to quantify. The major advantage of
the semivariogram method used is that it can be applied to sparse data set
like glider observations, as opposed to spatial autocorrelations, for
instance. It allows objective comparison of interesting parameters (range,
sill, nugget) for different variables, directions, and depths. In this study,
the results compare well when using different statistical fits, and are
consistent with expected outcomes based on previous knowledge of local
dynamics and related studies in other regions.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <title>Related studies</title>
      <p>From a global analysis of satellite-derived surface data, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx7" id="text.30"/>
found comparable small-scale variability for biology and physics. However,
they were not able to characterize scales <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15 km based on the satellite
products used. Here we find that BGC distribution occurs predominantly at
submesoscales (5–14 km for chlorophyll <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, CDOM), while scales for
temperature are larger (14–37 km). These short scales of variability for
BGC are in agreement with the effect of nutrient cycling, reproductive rate,
and community interaction (e.g. grazing pressure from zooplankton) that can
lead to patches of 5–10 km <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx1 bib1.bibx6 bib1.bibx9" id="paren.31"/>.
According to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="text.32"/>, the fine-scale patchy distribution of
phytoplankton is linked to the short characteristic time in response to
disturbance in their concentration, as opposed to the longer time for
temperature to adjust to external forcing. We find temperature horizontal
scales (14–37 km) that are of the same order of magnitude as over the
Malvinas Current region, derived from SST (20–47 km, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="altparen.33"/>)
or over the Middle Atlantic Bight from in situ glider observations
(10–35 km, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx32" id="altparen.34"/>). The anisotropic shape of the temperature
variance is consistent with a highly dynamic circulation <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="paren.35"/>,
here driven by the EAC, characterized by a greater signature in temperature
than in salinity. Spatial variability in salinity is predominantly isotropic
and similar to CDOM with decorrelation length scales of 9–15 km,
corresponding to the first Rossby baroclinic radius of deformation (12–15 km based on local moored observation, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30" id="altparen.36"/>), and high
surface variance, suggesting a predominant influence of coastal processes and
river input.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <title>Drivers of variability in a modelling perspective</title>
      <p>Assuming that there is no first order feedback from the biology to the
physics, we can think of the physics variables <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">X</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (temperature and salinity) being a function of internal dynamics (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, e.g.
mixing), atmospheric forcing (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), coastal buoyancy forcing arising from
river discharge (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), friction due to shallow bathymetry (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and open
ocean forcing (e.g. tidal, geostrophy), and water masses (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>O</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). Therefore, the
state of the model at some spatial location “<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>” at time <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is given by:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">X</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the physical variables can be solved numerically in
various hydrodynamic models. For the state variable of temperature, we assume
that there is little effect from river input in this region (e.g. water
coming in is about the same temperature as the surface layer), while the
effect from coastal processes is large for salinity. Therefore, Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E4"/>) simplifies to:

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E5"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E6"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            Given that both <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are subjected to the same advection and diffusion
equations, but differ only in the source/sink and boundary terms of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, those are the major drivers for the difference in the along
shelf sills and differences in the nugget. Salinity varies over shorter
length scales due to river input and the markedly different freshwater inputs
from various catchment sizes along the coast, whereas temperature is largely
controlled by the regional-scale EAC forcing and the relatively smooth
atmospheric forcing applied which varies over spatial scales of 50 km or
more. A similar approach can be applied to the BGC variables, but <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
more complicated as it includes the turnover of biomass/nutrients between
different plankton functional types or nutrient pools. However, ultimately, one
would expect <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to introduce variability at scales equal to or less than
those seen in salinity. This hypothesis is supported by the ranges reported
in the chlorophyll <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> fluorescence and CDOM variables, which are biologically
derived. However, as CDOM can also be introduced into the coastal ocean via
river plumes and has a similar sill structure to salinity, we suggest that
the CDOM measured by the glider is largely due to river discharge. The DO
distribution in the surface layer is largely a function of air–sea exchange
rather than primary production and will have similar variability to
temperature due to the forcing mechanism. However, below the mixed layer, DO
is function of the remineralization rate and also vertical mixing/exchange
with surface water, explaining the shorter decorrelation range in DO found
below the mixed layer.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <title>Observing system design</title>
      <p>The length scales calculated here can be used to guide the design of ocean
observing systems, in particular to answer questions related to the
observation density needed to resolve along and cross-shore variability in
both the physical and biological parameters. The temperature anisotropy in
our results, consistent with findings of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx18" id="text.37"/> and
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx12" id="text.38"/>, shows that the required observation density will vary
along and across the shelf. Thus, high-resolution cross-shelf mooring or
glider lines every <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> km are more useful than simply a glider endurance line
or equally spaced moorings. The distance <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> can be initially derived from
satellite observations, or determined after a number of glider missions. In
contrast, the understanding of BGC variability, characterized by short
isotropic length scales, will require high spatial resolution observations
(e.g. gliders) to determine the representativeness of the measurements.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4">
  <title>Data assimilation</title>
      <p>There are a variety of data assimilation systems based upon two broad
approaches, ensemble methods (e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20" id="altparen.39"/>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="altparen.40"/>) and
variational methods, that minimize a cost function (e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx17" id="altparen.41"/>).
Regardless of the approach used, assumptions are made about the spatial
footprint of an observation, for which a key parameter is the decorrelation
length scale. Within the ensemble (e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20" id="altparen.42"/>) and hybrid
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx21" id="paren.43"/> data assimilation approaches, covariance localization
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx26" id="paren.44"/> is used to increase the rank of the background error
covariance matrix. The anisotropic (along-shelf and cross-shelf) ranges
presented in this study and method used to derive them, allow for the direct
calibration of the decorrelation scales enforced within most data
assimilation systems that are currently in use. Additionally, estimates of
how these decorrelation scales vary in time are also available
(e.g. Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>), suggesting that an optimally tuned data
assimilation system should allow for temporal variation in the localization
or provide an assessment of the temporal variability of the ensemble from
an ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) system.</p>
      <p>The results from this study also allow us to partly answer the question of
how to relate a point-based observation with the output from a numerical
model, which assumes the average concentration of a variable within a model
cell <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mod</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. If we take a Bayesian view stating that we observe some true
state variable with error (e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="altparen.45"/>), this can be written as:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E7" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">true</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the observed variable, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">true</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the true unknown
value of the variable, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the instrument error, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
is the sampling error due to unresolvable small-scale variability. The
observation is then related to the modelled variable by:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E8" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mod</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">obs</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is typically referred to as the representation error
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="paren.46"/> associated with difference in kind (e.g. measuring
fluorescence, but modelling biomass), or averaging across a model grid cell
that contains a point measurement. Assuming <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is known from
calibration studies, results of studies like that presented here allow us to
explore the characteristics of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. For a
particular variable, we can assume that the nugget is approximately equal to
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and given a priori information about a model grid, the spherical
model applied to the semivariogram can then also be used to provide an
empirical estimate for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">r</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p>To this end, the results of this study allow us to characterise the length
scales of the physical and BGC properties on the shelf and relate variability
to the dynamical drivers, but additionally, the methodology developed here
can be directly used to improve observing system design, and to tune key data
assimilation parameters that are presently poorly understood.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SSx1" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Data availability</title>
      <p>All data sets are freely available at <uri>https://imos.aodn.org.au/imos123/home</uri>.</p>
</sec>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>IMOS is an initiative of the Australian Government being conducted as part of
the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. Assistance with
logistical and technical support for this project has been provided by ANFOG – Australian
Facility for Ocean Gliders and the NSW-IMOS glider team.
<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Edited by: T. Treude</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bibx1"><label>Ballantyne et al.(2011)Ballantyne, Schofield, and
Levin</label><mixed-citation>Ballantyne, F., Schofield, O. M., and Levin, S.: The emergence of
regularity and variability in marine ecosystems: the combined role of
physics, chemistry and biology, Sci. Mar., 75, 719–731, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/scimar.2011.75n4719" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3989/scimar.2011.75n4719</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx2"><label>Biswas and Si(2013)</label><mixed-citation>Biswas, A. and Si, B. C.: Model Averaging for Semivariogram Model
Parameters, Advances in Agrophysical Research, 4, 81–96.
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52339" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5772/52339</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx3"><label>Cetina-Heredia et al.(2014)Cetina-Heredia, Roughan, van Sebille, and
Coleman</label><mixed-citation>Cetina-Heredia, P., Roughan, M., van Sebille, E., and Coleman, M. A.:
Long-term trends in the east australian current separation latitude and eddy
driven transport. J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
119, 4351–4366, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014JC010071" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014JC010071</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx4"><label>Claustre(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Claustre, H.: Bio-optical sensors on argo floats. reports of the
international ocean-colour coordinating group, no. 11, ioccg. Tech. rep.,
IOCCG, Dartmouth, Canada, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx5"><label>Cressie and Hawkins(1980)</label><mixed-citation>Cressie, N. and Hawkins, D.: Robust Estimation Of The Variogram,
J. Int. Ass. Math. Geol., 12, 115–125, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01035243" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/BF01035243</ext-link>, 1980.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx6"><label>Denman et al.(1977)Denman, Okubo, and Platt</label><mixed-citation>Denman, K., Okubo, A., and Platt, T.: The chlorophyll fluctuation spectrum
in the sea. Limnol. Oceanogr., 22, 1033–1038,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.4319/lo.1977.22.6.1033" ext-link-type="DOI">10.4319/lo.1977.22.6.1033</ext-link>, 1977.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx7"><label>Doney et al.(2003)Doney, Glover, McCue, and Fuentes</label><mixed-citation>Doney, S. C., Glover, D. M., McCue, S. J., and Fuentes, M.: Mesoscale
variability of sea-viewing wide field-of-view sensor (seawifs) satellite
ocean color: Global patterns and spatial scales, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 108, 3024,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001JC000843" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001JC000843</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx8"><label>Everett et al.(2012)Everett, Baird, Oke, and Suthers</label><mixed-citation>Everett, J. D., Baird, M. E., Oke, P. R., and Suthers, I. M.: An avenue of
eddies: Quantifying the biophysical properties of mesoscale eddies in the
Tasman Sea, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L16608,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053091" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012GL053091</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx9"><label>Goebel et al.(2014)Goebel, Frolov, and Edwards</label><mixed-citation>Goebel, N. L., Frolov, S., and Edwards, C. A.: Complementary use of wave
glider and satellite measurements: Description of spatial decorrelation
scales in chl <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> fluorescence across the pacific basin, Methods in
Oceanography, 10, 90–103, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mio.2014.07.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.mio.2014.07.001</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx10"><label>Hassler et al.(2011)Hassler, Djajadikarta, Doblin, Everett, and
Thompson</label><mixed-citation>Hassler, C., Djajadikarta, J., Doblin, M., Everett, J., and Thompson, P.:
Characterisation of water masses and phytoplankton nutrient limitation in the
east australian current separation zone during spring 2008, Deep Sea
Res. Pt. II, 58, 664–677, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.06.008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.06.008</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx11"><label>Jones et al.(2012))Jones, Oke, Rizwi and Murray</label><mixed-citation>Jones, E. M., Oke, P. R., Rizwi, F., and Murray, L. M.: Assimilation of
glider and mooring data into a coastal ocean model, Ocean Model.,
47, 1–13, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2011.12.009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2011.12.009</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx12"><label>Jones et al.(2015)Jones, Doblin, Matear, and King</label><mixed-citation>Jones, E. M., Doblin, M. A., Matear, R., and King, E.: Assessing and
evaluating the ocean-colour footprint of a regional observing system,
J. Marine Syst., 143, 49–61,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2014.10.012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jmarsys.2014.10.012</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx13"><label>Journel and Huijbregts(1978)</label><mixed-citation>
Journel, A. G. and Huijbregts, C. J.: Mining geostatistics,
Academic Press London, UK and New York, USA, 600 pp., 1978.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx14"><label>Legaard and Thomas(2007)</label><mixed-citation>Legaard, K. R. and Thomas, A. C.: Spatial patterns of intraseasonal
variability of chlorophyll and sea surface temperature in the california
current, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 112, C09006, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007JC004097" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JC004097</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx15"><label>Mahadevan and Campbell(2002)</label><mixed-citation>Mahadevan, A. and Campbell, J. W.: Biogeochemical patchiness at the sea
surface, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29,
32-1–32-4, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001GL014116" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001GL014116</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx16"><label>Martin(2003)</label><mixed-citation>Martin, A.: Phytoplankton patchiness: the role of lateral stirring and
mixing, Prog. Oceanogr., 57, 125–174,
<?xmltex \hack{\\}?>doi10.1016/S0079-6611(03)00085-5, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx17"><label>Moore(2011)</label><mixed-citation>Moore, A. M., Arango, H. G., Broquet, G., Edwards, C., Veneziani, M., Powell,
B., Foley, D., Doyle, J. D., Costa, D., and Robinson, P.: The Regional Ocean
Modeling System (ROMS) 4-dimensional variational data assimilation systems:
Part II – Performance and application to the California Current System,
Prog. Oceanogr., 91, 50–73, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2011.05.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.pocean.2011.05.003</ext-link>. 2011</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx18"><label>Oke and Sakov(2012)</label><mixed-citation>Oke, P. and. Sakov, P: Assessing the footprint of a regional ocean
observing system, J. Marine Syst., 105–108, 30–51, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2012.05.009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jmarsys.2012.05.009</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx19"><label>Oke and Sakov(2008)</label><mixed-citation>Oke, P. R. and Sakov, P.: Representation Error of Oceanic
Observations for Data Assimilation, J. Atmos.
Ocean. Techn., 25, 1004, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2007JTECHO558.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2007JTECHO558.1</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx20"><label>Oke et al.(2008)Oke, Brassington, Griffin, and Schiller</label><mixed-citation>Oke, P. R., Brassington, G. B., Griffin, D. A., and Schiller, A.: The
bluelink ocean data assimilation system (bodas), Ocean Model., 21, 46–70,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2007.11.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2007.11.002</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx21"><label>Pan et al.(2011)Pan, Yaremchuk, Nechaev, and Ngodock</label><mixed-citation>Pan, C., Yaremchuk, M., Nechaev, D., and Ngodock, H.: Variational
assimilation of glider data in Monterey Bay, J. Marine
Res., 69, 331–346, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1357/002224011798765259" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1357/002224011798765259</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx22"><label>Pan et al.(2014)Pan, Zheng, Weisberg, Liu, and Lembke</label><mixed-citation>Pan, C., Zheng, L., Weisberg, R. H., Liu, Y., and Lembke, C. E.: Comparisons
of different ensemble schemes for glider data assimilation on west florida
shelf, Ocean Model., 81, 13–24,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2014.06.005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2014.06.005</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx23"><label>Parslow et al.(2013)Parslow, Cressie, Campbell, Jones, and
Murray</label><mixed-citation>
Parslow, J., Cressie, N., Campbell, E. P., Jones, E., and Murray, L.:
Bayesian learning and predictability in a stochastic nonlinear dynamical
model, Ecol. Appl., 23, 679–698, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx24"><label>Ridgeway and Godfrey(1994)</label><mixed-citation>
Ridgeway, K. and Godfrey, J.: Mass and heat budgets in the east australian
current: a direct approach, J. Geophys. Res., 99, 3231–3248, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx25"><label>Roughan et al.(2013)Roughan, Schaeffer, and Kioroglou</label><mixed-citation>
Roughan, M., Schaeffer, A., and Kioroglou, S.: Assessing the design of the
nsw-imos moored observation array from 2008–2013: Recommendations for the
future, Oceans – San Diego, CA, USA, 23–27 September 2013 , 1–7, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx26"><label>Sakov and Bertino(2011)</label><mixed-citation>Sakov, P. and Bertino, L.: Relation between two common localisation methods for the EnKF, Computat. Geosci.,  15,
225–237, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10596-010-9202-6" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10596-010-9202-6</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx27"><label>Schaeffer and Roughan(2015)Schaeffer, and Roughan</label><mixed-citation>Schaeffer, A. and Roughan, M.: Influence of a western boundary current on shelf dynamics
and upwelling from repeat glider deployments, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 121–128, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062260" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014GL062260</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx28"><label>Schaeffer et al.(2013)Schaeffer, Roughan, and Morris</label><mixed-citation>Schaeffer, A., Roughan, M., and Morris, B.: Cross-shelf dynamics in a
western boundary current. implications for upwelling, J.
Phys. Oceanogr., 43, 1042–1059,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-12-0177.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JPO-D-12-0177.1</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx29"><label>Schaeffer et al.(2014a)Schaeffer, Roughan, and
Morris</label><mixed-citation>Schaeffer, A., Roughan, M., and Morris, B.: Corrigendum
cross-shelf dynamics in a western boundary current. implications for
upwelling, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 44,
2812–2813, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-14-0091.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JPO-D-14-0091.1</ext-link>, 2014a.</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx30"><label>Schaeffer et al.(2014b)Schaeffer, Roughan, and
Wood</label><mixed-citation>Schaeffer, A., Roughan, M., and Wood, J. E.: Observed bottom
boundary layer transport and uplift on the continental shelf adjacent to a
western boundary current, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 119, 4922–4939, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2013JC009735" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013JC009735</ext-link>, 2014b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx31"><label>Tandeo et al.(2014)Tandeo, Autret, Chapron, Fablet, and
Garello</label><mixed-citation>Tandeo, P., Autret, E., Chapron, B., Fablet, R., and Garello, R.: SST
spatial anisotropic covariances from metop-avhrr data, Remote Sens. Environ., 141, 144–148,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.10.024" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2013.10.024</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx32"><label>Todd et al.(2013)Todd, Gawarkiewicz, and Owens</label><mixed-citation>Todd, R. E., Gawarkiewicz, G. G., and Owens, W. B.: Horizontal scales of
variability over the middle atlantic bight shelf break and continental rise
from finescale observations, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 43,
222–230, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-12-099.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JPO-D-12-099.1</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx33"><label>Tortell et al.(2011)Tortell, Guguen, Long, Payne, Lee, and
DiTullio</label><mixed-citation>Tortell, P., Gueguen, C., Long, M., Payne, C., Lee, P., and DiTullio, G.:
Spatial variability and temporal dynamics of surface water <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, O<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>/Ar and
dimethylsulfide in the Ross Sea, Antarctica, Deep Sea Res. Pt. I,, 58, 241–259,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2010.12.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.dsr.2010.12.006</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx34"><label>Wong et al.(2014)Wong, Keeley, and Carval</label><mixed-citation>Wong, A., Keeley, R., and Carval, T.: Argo quality control manual. Tech.
rep., Argo Data Management Team, available at:
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.13155/33951" ext-link-type="DOI">10.13155/33951</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx35"><label>Yoder et al.(1987)Yoder, McClain, Blanton, and Oeymay</label><mixed-citation>Yoder, J. A., McClain, C. R., Blanton, J. O., and Oeymay, L.-Y.: Spatial
scales in czcs-chlorophyll imagery of the southeastern u.s. continental
shelf. Limnol. Oceanogr., 32, 929–941,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.4319/lo.1987.32.4.0929" ext-link-type="DOI">10.4319/lo.1987.32.4.0929</ext-link>, 1987.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Physical and biogeochemical spatial scales of variability in the
East Australian Current separation from shelf glider measurements</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p class="p">In contrast to physical processes, biogeochemical processes are inherently
patchy in the ocean, which affects both the observational sampling strategy
and the representativeness of sparse measurements in data assimilating
models. In situ observations from multiple glider deployments are analysed to
characterize spatial scales of variability in both physical and
biogeochemical properties, using an empirical statistical model. We find that
decorrelation ranges are strongly dependent on the balance between local
dynamics and mesoscale forcing. The shortest horizontal (5–10 km) and
vertical (45 m) decorrelation ranges are for chlorophyll <i>a</i> fluorescence, whereas those variables that are a function of regional ocean and atmosphere
dynamics (temperature and dissolved oxygen) result in anisotropic patterns
with longer ranges along (28–37 km) than across the shelf (8–19 km).
Variables affected by coastal processes (salinity and coloured dissolved
organic matter) have an isotropic range similar to the baroclinic Rossby
radius (10–15 km).</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>Ballantyne et al.(2011)Ballantyne, Schofield, and
Levin</label><mixed-citation>
Ballantyne, F., Schofield, O. M., and Levin, S.: The emergence of
regularity and variability in marine ecosystems: the combined role of
physics, chemistry and biology, Sci. Mar., 75, 719–731, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/scimar.2011.75n4719" target="_blank">doi:10.3989/scimar.2011.75n4719</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>Biswas and Si(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Biswas, A. and Si, B. C.: Model Averaging for Semivariogram Model
Parameters, Advances in Agrophysical Research, 4, 81–96.
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/52339" target="_blank">doi:10.5772/52339</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>Cetina-Heredia et al.(2014)Cetina-Heredia, Roughan, van Sebille, and
Coleman</label><mixed-citation>
Cetina-Heredia, P., Roughan, M., van Sebille, E., and Coleman, M. A.:
Long-term trends in the east australian current separation latitude and eddy
driven transport. J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans,
119, 4351–4366, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014JC010071" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/2014JC010071</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>Claustre(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Claustre, H.: Bio-optical sensors on argo floats. reports of the
international ocean-colour coordinating group, no. 11, ioccg. Tech. rep.,
IOCCG, Dartmouth, Canada, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>Cressie and Hawkins(1980)</label><mixed-citation>
Cressie, N. and Hawkins, D.: Robust Estimation Of The Variogram,
J. Int. Ass. Math. Geol., 12, 115–125, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01035243" target="_blank">doi:10.1007/BF01035243</a>, 1980.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>Denman et al.(1977)Denman, Okubo, and Platt</label><mixed-citation>
Denman, K., Okubo, A., and Platt, T.: The chlorophyll fluctuation spectrum
in the sea. Limnol. Oceanogr., 22, 1033–1038,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.4319/lo.1977.22.6.1033" target="_blank">doi:10.4319/lo.1977.22.6.1033</a>, 1977.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>Doney et al.(2003)Doney, Glover, McCue, and Fuentes</label><mixed-citation>
Doney, S. C., Glover, D. M., McCue, S. J., and Fuentes, M.: Mesoscale
variability of sea-viewing wide field-of-view sensor (seawifs) satellite
ocean color: Global patterns and spatial scales, J.
Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 108, 3024,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001JC000843" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2001JC000843</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>Everett et al.(2012)Everett, Baird, Oke, and Suthers</label><mixed-citation>
Everett, J. D., Baird, M. E., Oke, P. R., and Suthers, I. M.: An avenue of
eddies: Quantifying the biophysical properties of mesoscale eddies in the
Tasman Sea, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L16608,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053091" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2012GL053091</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>Goebel et al.(2014)Goebel, Frolov, and Edwards</label><mixed-citation>
Goebel, N. L., Frolov, S., and Edwards, C. A.: Complementary use of wave
glider and satellite measurements: Description of spatial decorrelation
scales in chl <i>a</i> fluorescence across the pacific basin, Methods in
Oceanography, 10, 90–103, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mio.2014.07.001" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.mio.2014.07.001</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>Hassler et al.(2011)Hassler, Djajadikarta, Doblin, Everett, and
Thompson</label><mixed-citation>
Hassler, C., Djajadikarta, J., Doblin, M., Everett, J., and Thompson, P.:
Characterisation of water masses and phytoplankton nutrient limitation in the
east australian current separation zone during spring 2008, Deep Sea
Res. Pt. II, 58, 664–677, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.06.008" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.06.008</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>Jones et al.(2012))Jones, Oke, Rizwi and Murray</label><mixed-citation>
Jones, E. M., Oke, P. R., Rizwi, F., and Murray, L. M.: Assimilation of
glider and mooring data into a coastal ocean model, Ocean Model.,
47, 1–13, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2011.12.009" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.ocemod.2011.12.009</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>Jones et al.(2015)Jones, Doblin, Matear, and King</label><mixed-citation>
Jones, E. M., Doblin, M. A., Matear, R., and King, E.: Assessing and
evaluating the ocean-colour footprint of a regional observing system,
J. Marine Syst., 143, 49–61,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2014.10.012" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.jmarsys.2014.10.012</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>Journel and Huijbregts(1978)</label><mixed-citation>
Journel, A. G. and Huijbregts, C. J.: Mining geostatistics,
Academic Press London, UK and New York, USA, 600 pp., 1978.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>Legaard and Thomas(2007)</label><mixed-citation>
Legaard, K. R. and Thomas, A. C.: Spatial patterns of intraseasonal
variability of chlorophyll and sea surface temperature in the california
current, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 112, C09006, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007JC004097" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2007JC004097</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>Mahadevan and Campbell(2002)</label><mixed-citation>
Mahadevan, A. and Campbell, J. W.: Biogeochemical patchiness at the sea
surface, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29,
32-1–32-4, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001GL014116" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2001GL014116</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>Martin(2003)</label><mixed-citation>
Martin, A.: Phytoplankton patchiness: the role of lateral stirring and
mixing, Prog. Oceanogr., 57, 125–174,
<br class="break"/>doi10.1016/S0079-6611(03)00085-5, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>Moore(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Moore, A. M., Arango, H. G., Broquet, G., Edwards, C., Veneziani, M., Powell,
B., Foley, D., Doyle, J. D., Costa, D., and Robinson, P.: The Regional Ocean
Modeling System (ROMS) 4-dimensional variational data assimilation systems:
Part II – Performance and application to the California Current System,
Prog. Oceanogr., 91, 50–73, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2011.05.003" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2011.05.003</a>. 2011
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>Oke and Sakov(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Oke, P. and. Sakov, P: Assessing the footprint of a regional ocean
observing system, J. Marine Syst., 105–108, 30–51, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2012.05.009" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.jmarsys.2012.05.009</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>Oke and Sakov(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Oke, P. R. and Sakov, P.: Representation Error of Oceanic
Observations for Data Assimilation, J. Atmos.
Ocean. Techn., 25, 1004, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2007JTECHO558.1" target="_blank">doi:10.1175/2007JTECHO558.1</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>Oke et al.(2008)Oke, Brassington, Griffin, and Schiller</label><mixed-citation>
Oke, P. R., Brassington, G. B., Griffin, D. A., and Schiller, A.: The
bluelink ocean data assimilation system (bodas), Ocean Model., 21, 46–70,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2007.11.002" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.ocemod.2007.11.002</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>Pan et al.(2011)Pan, Yaremchuk, Nechaev, and Ngodock</label><mixed-citation>
Pan, C., Yaremchuk, M., Nechaev, D., and Ngodock, H.: Variational
assimilation of glider data in Monterey Bay, J. Marine
Res., 69, 331–346, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1357/002224011798765259" target="_blank">doi:10.1357/002224011798765259</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>Pan et al.(2014)Pan, Zheng, Weisberg, Liu, and Lembke</label><mixed-citation>
Pan, C., Zheng, L., Weisberg, R. H., Liu, Y., and Lembke, C. E.: Comparisons
of different ensemble schemes for glider data assimilation on west florida
shelf, Ocean Model., 81, 13–24,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2014.06.005" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.ocemod.2014.06.005</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>Parslow et al.(2013)Parslow, Cressie, Campbell, Jones, and
Murray</label><mixed-citation>
Parslow, J., Cressie, N., Campbell, E. P., Jones, E., and Murray, L.:
Bayesian learning and predictability in a stochastic nonlinear dynamical
model, Ecol. Appl., 23, 679–698, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>Ridgeway and Godfrey(1994)</label><mixed-citation>
Ridgeway, K. and Godfrey, J.: Mass and heat budgets in the east australian
current: a direct approach, J. Geophys. Res., 99, 3231–3248, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>Roughan et al.(2013)Roughan, Schaeffer, and Kioroglou</label><mixed-citation>
Roughan, M., Schaeffer, A., and Kioroglou, S.: Assessing the design of the
nsw-imos moored observation array from 2008–2013: Recommendations for the
future, Oceans – San Diego, CA, USA, 23–27 September 2013 , 1–7, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>Sakov and Bertino(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Sakov, P. and Bertino, L.: Relation between two common localisation methods for the EnKF, Computat. Geosci.,  15,
225–237, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10596-010-9202-6" target="_blank">doi:10.1007/s10596-010-9202-6</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>Schaeffer and Roughan(2015)Schaeffer, and Roughan</label><mixed-citation>
Schaeffer, A. and Roughan, M.: Influence of a western boundary current on shelf dynamics
and upwelling from repeat glider deployments, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 121–128, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062260" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/2014GL062260</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>Schaeffer et al.(2013)Schaeffer, Roughan, and Morris</label><mixed-citation>
Schaeffer, A., Roughan, M., and Morris, B.: Cross-shelf dynamics in a
western boundary current. implications for upwelling, J.
Phys. Oceanogr., 43, 1042–1059,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-12-0177.1" target="_blank">doi:10.1175/JPO-D-12-0177.1</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>Schaeffer et al.(2014a)Schaeffer, Roughan, and
Morris</label><mixed-citation>
Schaeffer, A., Roughan, M., and Morris, B.: Corrigendum
cross-shelf dynamics in a western boundary current. implications for
upwelling, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 44,
2812–2813, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-14-0091.1" target="_blank">doi:10.1175/JPO-D-14-0091.1</a>, 2014a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>Schaeffer et al.(2014b)Schaeffer, Roughan, and
Wood</label><mixed-citation>
Schaeffer, A., Roughan, M., and Wood, J. E.: Observed bottom
boundary layer transport and uplift on the continental shelf adjacent to a
western boundary current, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 119, 4922–4939, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2013JC009735" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/2013JC009735</a>, 2014b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>Tandeo et al.(2014)Tandeo, Autret, Chapron, Fablet, and
Garello</label><mixed-citation>
Tandeo, P., Autret, E., Chapron, B., Fablet, R., and Garello, R.: SST
spatial anisotropic covariances from metop-avhrr data, Remote Sens. Environ., 141, 144–148,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.10.024" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.rse.2013.10.024</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>Todd et al.(2013)Todd, Gawarkiewicz, and Owens</label><mixed-citation>
Todd, R. E., Gawarkiewicz, G. G., and Owens, W. B.: Horizontal scales of
variability over the middle atlantic bight shelf break and continental rise
from finescale observations, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 43,
222–230, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-12-099.1" target="_blank">doi:10.1175/JPO-D-12-099.1</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>Tortell et al.(2011)Tortell, Guguen, Long, Payne, Lee, and
DiTullio</label><mixed-citation>
Tortell, P., Gueguen, C., Long, M., Payne, C., Lee, P., and DiTullio, G.:
Spatial variability and temporal dynamics of surface water <i>p</i>CO<sub>2</sub>, O<sub>2</sub>/Ar and
dimethylsulfide in the Ross Sea, Antarctica, Deep Sea Res. Pt. I,, 58, 241–259,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2010.12.006" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.dsr.2010.12.006</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>Wong et al.(2014)Wong, Keeley, and Carval</label><mixed-citation>
Wong, A., Keeley, R., and Carval, T.: Argo quality control manual. Tech.
rep., Argo Data Management Team, available at:
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.13155/33951" target="_blank">doi:10.13155/33951</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>Yoder et al.(1987)Yoder, McClain, Blanton, and Oeymay</label><mixed-citation>
Yoder, J. A., McClain, C. R., Blanton, J. O., and Oeymay, L.-Y.: Spatial
scales in czcs-chlorophyll imagery of the southeastern u.s. continental
shelf. Limnol. Oceanogr., 32, 929–941,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.4319/lo.1987.32.4.0929" target="_blank">doi:10.4319/lo.1987.32.4.0929</a>, 1987.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
