Articles | Volume 8, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2929-2015
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2929-2015
Development and technical paper
 | 
23 Sep 2015
Development and technical paper |  | 23 Sep 2015

MOPS-1.0: towards a model for the regulation of the global oceanic nitrogen budget by marine biogeochemical processes

I. Kriest and A. Oschlies

Related authors

Dual-tracer constraints on the inverse Gaussian transit time distribution improve the estimation of water mass ages and their temporal trends in the tropical thermocline
Haichao Guo, Wolfgang Koeve, Andreas Oschlies, Yan-Chun He, Tronje Peer Kemena, Lennart Gerke, and Iris Kriest
Ocean Sci., 21, 1167–1182, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-21-1167-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/os-21-1167-2025, 2025
Short summary
Exploring the role of different data types and timescales in the quality of marine biogeochemical model calibration
Iris Kriest, Julia Getzlaff, Angela Landolfi, Volkmar Sauerland, Markus Schartau, and Andreas Oschlies
Biogeosciences, 20, 2645–2669, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2645-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2645-2023, 2023
Short summary
FOCI-MOPS v1 – integration of marine biogeochemistry within the Flexible Ocean and Climate Infrastructure version 1 (FOCI 1) Earth system model
Chia-Te Chien, Jonathan V. Durgadoo, Dana Ehlert, Ivy Frenger, David P. Keller, Wolfgang Koeve, Iris Kriest, Angela Landolfi, Lavinia Patara, Sebastian Wahl, and Andreas Oschlies
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5987–6024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5987-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5987-2022, 2022
Short summary
A derivative-free optimisation method for global ocean biogeochemical models
Sophy Oliver, Coralia Cartis, Iris Kriest, Simon F. B Tett, and Samar Khatiwala
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3537–3554, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3537-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3537-2022, 2022
Short summary
Zooplankton mortality effects on the plankton community of the northern Humboldt Current System: sensitivity of a regional biogeochemical model
Mariana Hill Cruz, Iris Kriest, Yonss Saranga José, Rainer Kiko, Helena Hauss, and Andreas Oschlies
Biogeosciences, 18, 2891–2916, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2891-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2891-2021, 2021
Short summary

Related subject area

Biogeosciences
Emulating grid-based forest carbon dynamics using machine learning: an LPJ-GUESS v4.1.1 application
Carolina Natel, David Martín Belda, Peter Anthoni, Neele Haß, Sam Rabin, and Almut Arneth
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4317–4333, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4317-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4317-2025, 2025
Short summary
ELM2.1-XGBfire1.0: improving wildfire prediction by integrating a machine learning fire model in a land surface model
Ye Liu, Huilin Huang, Sing-Chun Wang, Tao Zhang, Donghui Xu, and Yang Chen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4103–4117, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4103-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4103-2025, 2025
Short summary
Development and assessment of the physical–biogeochemical ocean regional model in the Northwest Pacific: NPRT v1.0 (ROMS v3.9–TOPAZ v2.0)
Daehyuk Kim, Hyun-Chae Jung, Jae-Hong Moon, and Na-Hyeon Lee
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3941–3964, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3941-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3941-2025, 2025
Short summary
Estimation of above- and below-ground ecosystem parameters for DVM-DOS-TEM v0.7.0 using MADS v1.7.3
Elchin E. Jafarov, Hélène Genet, Velimir V. Vesselinov, Valeria Briones, Aiza Kabeer, Andrew L. Mullen, Benjamin Maglio, Tobey Carman, Ruth Rutter, Joy Clein, Chu-Chun Chang, Dogukan Teber, Trevor Smith, Joshua M. Rady, Christina Schädel, Jennifer D. Watts, Brendan M. Rogers, and Susan M. Natali
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3857–3875, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3857-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3857-2025, 2025
Short summary
Alquimia v1.0: a generic interface to biogeochemical codes – a tool for interoperable development, prototyping and benchmarking for multiphysics simulators
Sergi Molins, Benjamin J. Andre, Jeffrey N. Johnson, Glenn E. Hammond, Benjamin N. Sulman, Konstantin Lipnikov, Marcus S. Day, James J. Beisman, Daniil Svyatsky, Hang Deng, Peter C. Lichtner, Carl I. Steefel, and J. David Moulton
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3241–3263, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3241-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3241-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Anderson, L.: On the hydrogen and oxygen content of marine phytoplankton, Deep-Sea Res. Pt. I, 42, 1675–1680, 1995.
Anderson, L. and Sarmiento, J.: Redfield ratios of remineralization determined by nutrient data analysis, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 8, 65–80, 1994.
Assmann, K. M., Bentsen, M., Segschneider, J., and Heinze, C.: An isopycnic ocean carbon cycle model, Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 143–167, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-143-2010, 2010.
Aumont, O., Ethé, C., Tagliabue, A., Bopp, L., and Gehlen, M.: PISCES-v2: an ocean biogeochemical model for carbon and ecosystem studies, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2465–2513, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2465-2015, 2015.
Babbin, A., Keil, R., Devol, A., and Ward, B.: Organic matter stoichiometry, flux, and oxygen control nitrogen loss in the ocean, Science, 344, 406–408, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248364, 2014.
Download
Short summary
We use a global model of oceanic P, N, and O2 cycles to investigate consequences of uncertainties in description of organic matter sinking, remineralization, denitrification, and N2-Fixation. After all biogeochemical and physical processes have been spun-up into a dynamically consistent steady-state, particle sinking and oxidant affinities of aerobic and anaerobic remineralization determine the extent of oxygen minimum zones, global nitrogen fluxes, and the oceanic nitrogen inventory.
Share