LAUSR

Abstract The rate of carbon assimilation in phytoplankton primary production models is mathematically prescribed with photosynthesis irradiance functions, which convert a light flux (energy) into a material flux (carbon). Information on this rate is contained in photosynthesis parameters: the initial slope and the assimilation number. The exactness of parameter values is crucial for precise calculation of primary production. Here we use a model of the daily production profile based on a suite of photosynthesis irradiance functions and extract photosynthesis parameters from in situ measured daily production profiles at the Hawaii Ocean Time-series station Aloha. For each function we recover parameter values, establish parameter distributions and quantify model skill. We observe that the choice of the photosynthesis irradiance function to estimate the photosynthesis parameters affects the magnitudes of parameter values as recovered from in situ profiles. We also tackle the problem of parameter exchange amongst the models and the effect it has on model performance. All models displayed little or no bias prior to parameter exchange, but significant bias following parameter exchange. The best model performance resulted from using optimal parameter values. Model formulation was extended further by accounting for spectral effects and deriving a spectral analytical solution for the daily production profile. The daily production profile was also formulated with time dependent growing biomass governed by a growth equation. The work on parameter recovery was further extended by exploring how to extract photosynthesis parameters from information on watercolumn production. It was demonstrated how to estimate parameter values based on a linearization of the full analytical solution for normalized watercolumn production and from the solution itself, without linearization. The paper complements previous works on photosynthesis irradiance models by analysing the skill and consistency of photosynthesis irradiance functions and parameters for modeling in situ production profiles. In light of the results obtained in this work we argue that the choice of the primary production model should reflect the available data and these models should be data driven regarding parameter estimation.